[joefru]

The Sigma 17-70 has been at the top of my "want" list for a while. But now the Pentax one is coming out, and I don't understand it. If you compare it to the Sigma, the Sigma is faster except at the very tele end, and it's $200 or more cheaper.

But I'd like to compare it to the DA* 16-50. The 17-70 is supposed to be $600, but Adorama has the 16-50 for $660. So I gain 1mm on the wide end (a nice gain) and lose 20mm on the tele end (not that big a deal as far as I can see), and I gain a full stop over the whole range, AND it's a DA* lens.

So who's this 17-70 for?

[k100d]

you make a strong case! weathersealing would maybe make the lens more unique. the only thing i can think of which you have already mentioned
i. want pentax
ii. need faster tele end
iii. must have SDM motor

pentax probably could have sold a boat load of these if they are closer to $400

[jsherman999]

Initial MSRP of the 17-70 may be $600, but street price will end up being probably around $450 after a while. I think the 16-50 started out at $900 or so.

Constant aperture lenses are more expensive to build, and sometimes Sigma has been known to skimp on build quality, have good paper-specs but so-so IQ, etc. So that's maybe why they can charge less for that particular lens. (sometime Sigma makes real winners, though, too.)

Actually, I think the 17-70 hits a real sweet spot - pretty wide, but getting out to 70mm. Sometimes I really feel the limitation of 50mm max on my 16-50. And if you've got f4 capability at 70mm, that can make for some pretty nice bokeh potentially (sweet portrait zoom.)

[omega leader]

The problem is the Sigma 17-70 is such a good lens. It is really a bargain.

[Wheatfield]

The Sigma 17-70 has been at the top of my "want" list for a while. But now the Pentax one is coming out, and I don't understand it. If you compare it to the Sigma, the Sigma is faster except at the very tele end, and it's $200 or more cheaper.

But I'd like to compare it to the DA* 16-50. The 17-70 is supposed to be $600, but Adorama has the 16-50 for $660. So I gain 1mm on the wide end (a nice gain) and lose 20mm on the tele end (not that big a deal as far as I can see), and I gain a full stop over the whole range, AND it's a DA* lens.

So who's this 17-70 for?

If I was still a wedding shooter, the 17-70 Pentax lens would be my first choice. It covers pretty much the entire range that is useful for that type of work, and the constant aperture means that your fill flash ratios won't get buggered up when you zoom. Also, it's a Pentax lens, not a Stigma, which makes it a better value in my books at any price.
I anticipate better coatings, better flare resistance, better contrast, better build quality, better sharpness and better performance than the Stigma.

The Sigma 17-70 has been at the top of my "want" list for a while. But now the Pentax one is coming out, and I don't understand it. If you compare it to the Sigma, the Sigma is faster except at the very tele end, and it's $200 or more cheaper.

But I'd like to compare it to the DA* 16-50. The 17-70 is supposed to be $600, but Adorama has the 16-50 for $660. So I gain 1mm on the wide end (a nice gain) and lose 20mm on the tele end (not that big a deal as far as I can see), and I gain a full stop over the whole range, AND it's a DA* lens.

So who's this 17-70 for?

I think you gave your own answer. The DA* 16-50 has a MSRP of 899 USD yet it is available for 660 USD. So if DA17-70 has a MSRP of 599 the street price will be close to 450 USD. I am bedazled by this kind of questions. The more chices we have the better, am I wrong? Now we have 4 zooms to choose from.
And trying to answer to your question to the point:

- DA 18-55 II - entry level kit lens;
- DA 16-45 - very good zoom with a wider FL;
- DA 17-70 - more of a walk around lens from a FL point of view and with SDM so quiet;
- DA* 16-50 - top of the line and different from the above by: faster (f2.8), weather sealed, metal parts.

Besides the new Da 17-70 makes even more sense considering the new entry level (K2000D?). That combo may make a very nice first DSLR for a begginer or a second body + walk around lens for a more advances user.


So what is the problem?

Radu

[Miserere]

When they first announced this lens I also asked myself (and on forums) "what the hell are they thinking?". In my view, there are other lenses we need more than this one. I also didn't think much of the range, and would have preferred a 24-105mm f/4 (but nobody's asking me and this zoom will never be built until full-frame digital becomes mainstream).

However, last week I found myself in a situation where the 17-70 would have been perfect. I was shooting some construction work for a friend, and was photographing from across the street of the building being worked on. I had to change a number of times between the 18-55mm kit lens (when I wanted a wide shot of the building with people walking by) and a 28-70mm zoom, which I needed to do more detailed work when a window was being taken out or put in. I was cursing at the lens changes when I realised that a 17-70mm is what I needed. Who would've think it!

But back to our scheduled thread: If street price is $450, I think they will sell a lot of these lenses. I think most people would rather have SDM than weather sealing. Think about it, when was the last time you shot in the rain? And when was the last time you shot without focusing? I would much rather see Pentax putting out DA SDM lenses at a good price than DA* lenses with the same IQ but a higher price tag just because they're weather-sealed.

PS: Yes, I know the shoot-at-the-beach crowd will boo me for not wanting weather sealing, but beach crowds are a minority.

[KungPOW]

I think it is to become the new kit lens for the up-and-coming K2000D. To shave costs, I doubt the new entry level camera will have a autofocus motor (ala d40,d40x,d60).

So the new camera will need SDM. 17-70 with SDM looks like a good kit lens to me.

The problem I see is the pentax recomended price. It is just a little high to be a kit lens. But on the otherhand, $600.00 for the 17-70, drops to $400.00 street. Then the entry level K2000D body sells for $450.00 (+/-), bundle the lens with the body for $650.00. This gives a "Value added" of $200.00 for the entry level kit.

This places the kit under the K200D, and near the Nik*n D60.

I would expect to see a 70-210 or so SDM, non weather sealed lens to follow.

I don't know what the quality of the new 17-70 is. I have no idea how it performs or how it is built. But I expect the next "kit" lens that pentax offers will be of higher quality then the compitition. Based on what Pentax is expecting to charge for this lens, I would doubt if the lens is a cheaply built dog. It might not be worth $600.00, but as a kit lens For +$200.00 over the body, it might be a no brainer to buy. It might also be the key to differentiate the entry level Pentax from the Entry lvl S*ony, Nik*n, and Can*n.

That's my take on what I see happening.

[Talisker]

The Sigma 17-70 has been at the top of my "want" list for a while. But now the Pentax one is coming out, and I don't understand it...

Are you really arguing that camera manufaturers shouldn't make particular lens because an independent already makes them Manufacturers want you to buy everything from them - in this case it gives another another option to bundle in with a body at reduced cost as well as the hope people will 'upgrade' while staying on brand. As far as cost and quality go we know little - one magazine test doesn't mean much and street prices bare little resemblance to MRPs. Canikon make a confusion of 'standard' zooms so Pentax adding another with an extended top end isn't exactly suprising.

That said, I will be sticking with my 16-45mm/70mm Ltd combo...

[Torphoto]

If it performs well it will be on my list.

[DJey]

If it performs well it will be on my list.

+1 Otherwise I'll get the DA 16-45 or save up more for a fast 2.8 lens!

[heatherslightbox]

Just in case you haven't seen this link in the News and Rumors section, here is a link to Ned Bunnell's blog with some pics from the DA17-70.
NED BUNNELL: DA 17-70 Sample Photos
They look good to me, but I don't think I'm going to run out and swap my Sigma for the Pentax.

Heather

[TourDeForce]

Just in case you haven't seen this link in the News and Rumors section, here is a link to Ned Bunnell's blog with some pics from the DA17-70.
NED BUNNELL: DA 17-70 Sample Photos
They look good to me, but I don't think I'm going to run out and swap my Sigma for the Pentax.

Thanks for the link Heather.

I went sifting through the photos to find one that would be a good indicator of the resolution capabilities of the lens. The Endless Summer Bag was one that should have been an easy target. Flat surface, easily definable edges, plenty of texture to play with.

FAIL !!!

Without even pixel peeping, I could tell the ticket hanging on the bag was fuzzy, then the string holding the ticket was poorly defined, then I noted the rail at the top, and the metal loop at the bottom of the bag. Fuzzy & undefined. Zoomed in on the bag just a bit and the weave - which should be sharp & well defined for that tight a shot.... Well, frankly I'd be screaming if I had just paid upwards of $400 for that lens.

<=== Sticking with the older & much cheaper manual focus lenses with good resolution, thank you.

[frank]

I might be interested to get one if it performs as well as the DA1645/4

[creampuff]

Important to note those photos from Ned are pre-production samples of the lens. I would reserve judgement until actual production copies get reviewed and sample images show up.