[simsburyphoto]

Has anyone compared the Pentax 17-70mm and 16-85mm lenses yet? I own a 17-70mm lens and like it. Just wondering if it worth upgrading. I am not concerned about WR I have other WR lenses. Also not worried about SDM failures. If an when the SDM fails in the 17-70 I will get rid of it. I am concerned mostly about image quality.
Thanks

[hcc]

You will find a indirect comparison with these two in-depth reviews

HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Pentax 17-70mm Lens Comparison Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

In the first one, the 16-85mm is compared to the Sigma 17-70. In the 2nd, the Pentax 17-70 is compared to the same Sigma 17-70mm.

Personally I would prefer/favor the 16-85mm, for the wider range of focal length, WR and the DC (rather than SDM) AF. Off course the 16-85 mm is a bigger lens....

My 5 cents.

[HYS]

Sorry, I had not this chance.
But my 17-70 is very, very nice lens. Still surprising me.

[bdery]

But my 17-70 is very, very nice lens. Still surprising me.

Since you say you don't need WR, then the upgrade isn't quite necessary. I own the Sigma 17-70 v1 (and I wrote the Sigma vs Pentax 17-70 comparison) and I also own the 16-85. the reasons for adding the second lens are : WR, silent AF (faster and better in live view/movies), wider range. The WR is really the main reason, previously my only normal WR zoom was the 18-55.

You say you love your Pentax 17-70. You might be better served by adding a DA15 limited to your kit for the wider end.

[HYS]

Since you say you don't need WR, then the upgrade isn't quite necessary. I own the Sigma 17-70 v1 (and I wrote the Sigma vs Pentax 17-70 comparison) and I also own the 16-85. the reasons for adding the second lens are : WR, silent AF (faster and better in live view/movies), wider range. The WR is really the main reason, previously my only normal WR zoom was the 18-55.

You say you love your Pentax 17-70. You might be better served by adding a DA15 limited to your kit for the wider end.

I had problem with the SDM. But now I have a new motor and the lens is fine. No reason to put it away.

[simsburyphoto]

I am not hearing from anyone that the optically the 16-85 is that much better than the 17-70. So probably not worth upgrading until my SDM fails.

[Tatouzou]

I have the Pentax DA 17-70, and it is a very good lens, with good contrast, nice colours and bokeh, only outperformed in sharpness by primes.
Only weakness IMO is that it is quite big and heavy, but the DA 16-85 is even bigger and heavier.

One caveat is that the focus ring is rather loose, therefore no good for manual focus. And in my first shootings, I got somme blurred images due to focus creep after AF, now I have learnt to freeze the focus and it is not an issue any more.

IMO, the DA 16-85' optical formula, size and weight are very close to the DA 17-70'.
Pentax extrapolated the DA 17-70 design to offer a wider and longer, therefore more convenient range, at the cost of 1 stop slower aperture at the long end.
Never handled the DA 16-85, will keep my DA 17-70 until it fails.

[HYS]

I have the Pentax DA 17-70, and it is a very good lens, with good contrast, nice colours and bokeh, only outperformed in sharpness by primes.
Only weakness IMO is that it is quite big and heavy, but the DA 16-85 is even bigger and heavier.

One caveat is that the focus ring is rather loose, therefore no good for manual focus. And in my first shootings, I got somme blurred images due to focus creep after AF, now I have learnt to freeze the focus and it is not an issue any more.

IMO, the DA 16-85' optical formula, size and weight are very close to the DA 17-70'.
Pentax extrapolated the DA 17-70 design to offer a wider and longer, therefore more convenient range, at the cost of 1 stop slower aperture at the long end.
Never handled the DA 16-85, will keep my DA 17-70 until it fails.

Probably Pentax is planing to stop 17-70 (because of the SDM) and to substitute it with 16-85. I think it's not bad idea finally.

[GlennG]

I likewise have not compared my DA 17-70 to the new 16-85. I did have SDM failure and repaired it, so now it works well again. The focus from 50-70 can on occasion be a problem, as is often reported. I have many images from the 17-70 that are very sharp with great colors and contrast throughout the zoom range. In one instance I compared similar images at 40 mm length from the 17-70 and my DA 40, and the 17-70 was very close to the 40, and by "very close" I mean "VERY CLOSE". If I recall, these were about f8, so that might have something to do with the closeness, but I considered the results to be very good for a zoom. My belief is that the issue with the 17-70 was not at all the optics, but the SDM implementation, and that Pentax learned some useful things with the DA 17-70 that was necessary to learn in order to produce a zoom that is as (apparently) good as the 16-85 sounds.

Probably Pentax is planing to stop 17-70 (because of the SDM) and to substitute it with 16-85. I think it's not bad idea finally.

I bet they will, too.

[bdery]

I am not hearing from anyone that the optically the 16-85 is that much better than the 17-70. So probably not worth upgrading until my SDM fails.

It is better regarding CA, but optically it's not a revolution, in part because the 17-70 lenses out there are pretty great to begin with.

I have the Pentax DA 17-70, and it is a very good lens, with good contrast, nice colours and bokeh, only outperformed in sharpness by primes.
Only weakness IMO is that it is quite big and heavy, but the DA 16-85 is even bigger and heavier.

Bigger but not heavier, no. Almost exactly the same weight.

Pentax extrapolated the DA 17-70 design to offer a wider and longer, therefore more convenient range, at the cost of 1 stop slower aperture at the long end.

Careful. The 16-85 is f5.6 at 85mm. Up to 65mm is f4.5 which isn't far from f4

[pathdoc]

The shift away from screw drive (or rather, the inabillity to default back to it in extremis) bothers me for some reason, or I would consider this lens to fill the wide-angle range in lieu of a kit. Shorter at the short end than most APS-C kits; longer at the long end than most full-frame kits (which traditionally stopped at 70 or 80) - it has much to recommend it. But that shift away - I can't help but think that loss of legacy support for older DSLR bodies is going to cost Ricoh sales.

[northcoastgreg]

In one instance I compared similar images at 40 mm length from the 17-70 and my DA 40, and the 17-70 was very close to the 40, and by "very close" I mean "VERY CLOSE".

I was viewing some images of redwoods shot in foggy conditions under the assumption that they were taken with the DA 15, marveling at how impressive that lens is. Then I checked the exif data and noted that the images were taken by the DA 17-70! So yes, sometimes, given what sort of light you're throwing at it, the DA 17-70 can come very close to holding it's own with a limited. Where the limited has a definite edge is consistency of output. In subdued light photographing objects with a lot of green in them, the DA 17-70 is nearly on par with the DA 15. But in bright light photographing objects with a lot of blue in them, the DA 15 will reassert its supremacy.

However, despite the fine optical quality of the DA 17-70, I nevertheless do plan at some point to upgrade to the DA 16-85. While the differences in terms of image quality may be very minor, the DA 16-85 does seem to address a number of weaknesses afflicting the 17-70. While none of these weaknesses, when taken by itself, may amount to all that much, when added up, they provide at least enough of a reason for me to contemplate the upgrade. These weaknesses are:

1. AF unreliability. My 17-70 front focuses at the wide end, back focuses in the middle, and is all over the place at the long end. It would be nice to have a standard zoom with reliable AF.

2. WR and dust resistance. I have no WR lenses under 100mm. Having a WR standard zoom would definitely be a plus.

3. HD coatings. The 17-70 contains a lot of glass and it is just a bit prone to veiling flare under strong light. Any improved resistance to flare, however minor, would be appreciated.

4. Greater focal range. While I would never upgrade solely for the slight increase in focal range, having a lens that goes from 16mm to 85mm without serious compromises in optical quality would be rather handy. I'm not always thrilled with what my DA 17-70 does in the 60 to 70mm range, and often avoid shooting in that range. So getting the little extra range at the wide end and the 60 to 85 range at the long end is a nice little bonus.

Precisely because the DA 17-70 is a very nice lens, I'm in no hurry to upgrade. But by the end of the year, I do plan to get the DA 16-85.

[IchabodCrane]

I was viewing some images of redwoods shot in foggy conditions under the assumption that they were taken with the DA 15, marveling at how impressive that lens is. Then I checked the exif data and noted that the images were taken by the DA 17-70! So yes, sometimes, given what sort of light you're throwing at it, the DA 17-70 can come very close to holding it's own with a limited. Where the limited has a definite edge is consistency of output. In subdued light photographing objects with a lot of green in them, the DA 17-70 is nearly on par with the DA 15. But in bright light photographing objects with a lot of blue in them, the DA 15 will reassert its supremacy.

However, despite the fine optical quality of the DA 17-70, I nevertheless do plan at some point to upgrade to the DA 16-85. While the differences in terms of image quality may be very minor, the DA 16-85 does seem to address a number of weaknesses afflicting the 17-70. While none of these weaknesses, when taken by itself, may amount to all that much, when added up, they provide at least enough of a reason for me to contemplate the upgrade. These weaknesses are:

1. AF unreliability. My 17-70 front focuses at the wide end, back focuses in the middle, and is all over the place at the long end. It would be nice to have a standard zoom with reliable AF.

2. WR and dust resistance. I have no WR lenses under 100mm. Having a WR standard zoom would definitely be a plus.

3. HD coatings. The 17-70 contains a lot of glass and it is just a bit prone to veiling flare under strong light. Any improved resistance to flare, however minor, would be appreciated.

4. Greater focal range. While I would never upgrade solely for the slight increase in focal range, having a lens that goes from 16mm to 85mm without serious compromises in optical quality would be rather handy. I'm not always thrilled with what my DA 17-70 does in the 60 to 70mm range, and often avoid shooting in that range. So getting the little extra range at the wide end and the 60 to 85 range at the long end is a nice little bonus.

Precisely because the DA 17-70 is a very nice lens, I'm in no hurry to upgrade. But by the end of the year, I do plan to get the DA 16-85.

Some interesting observations you have, Greg. My copy of the DA 17-70 must have better reliability of AF than yours. I can barely think of an instance where the AF was off when using it though I haven't had it for a long time, either. Mine's a very good lens.

[GlennG]

Some interesting observations you have, Greg. My copy of the DA 17-70 must have better reliability of AF than yours. I can barely think of an instance where the AF was off when using it though I haven't had it for a long time, either. Mine's a very good lens.

My AF appears very good as well, at least with the K5. Of course, CRIS likely looked at that when they repaired the SDM in early 2014. I used that lens almost exclusively when I went to the Albuquerque Hot Air Balloon Festival this past October and got many beautiful, colorful, and sharp, sharp, sharp photos.

But by the end of the year, I do plan to get the DA 16-85.

Thanks for the commentary, Greg. I have read several of your very well written lens reviews and will look forward to reading about your experiences with the 16-85, should you choose to share them.

[northcoastgreg]

Some interesting observations you have, Greg. My copy of the DA 17-70 must have better reliability of AF than yours. I can barely think of an instance where the AF was off when using it though I haven't had it for a long time, either. Mine's a very good lens.

My AF appears very good as well, at least with the K5. Of course, CRIS likely looked at that when they repaired the SDM in early 2014. I used that lens almost exclusively when I went to the Albuquerque Hot Air Balloon Festival this past October and got many beautiful, colorful, and sharp, sharp, sharp photos.

Good to know that not everyone is having trouble with the AF on the DA 17-70. I'm always a bit hesitant to recommend this lens, despite the fine quality of its optics, due to all the reports of AF wonkiness (along with the whole SDM debacle). If you're copy of the lens has reliable AF and you don't need WR, I don't see any compelling reason to upgrade to the DA 16-85.