[RiceHigh]

Really?

If so, what's the reason to get this lens?

A few facts:

1. It is just a f/4 lens;

2. There is an old lens called the DA 16-45/4 which is about half the cost and is 1mm wider (about 24 Vs 26mm film wise);

3. It is not especially compact and lightweight and is actually larger and heavier than the 16-45;

4. It cannot be used on just older Pentax DSLRs except the K20/200, K10 and 100 Super only;

5. It is not weather sealed!

6. Nikon's 18-70 is also about half the set price;

7. Why not get the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 again for half the price for the same range and faster lens speed at the wider side??

Anyone knows if there is any good reason to consider this DA 17-70??

And, anyone knows what's going on for Pentax's pricing and/or marketing strategy???

I just wonder WHY Pentax NOW? For such a new standard zoom, it can be so expensive. The DA* prices are also ridiculously high - go figure out yourself to see if you could believe in the set price tags of the DA*200 and 300. The DA*300 is more than double the price of the FA*300 when it was not discontinued (about 2 years ago)!

[jsherman999]

Really?

If so, what's the reason to get this lens?

A few facts:

1. It is just a f/4 lens;

2. There is an old lens called the DA 16-45/4 which is about half the cost and is 1mm wider (about 24 Vs 26mm film wise);

3. It is not especially compact and lightweight and is actually larger and heavier than the 16-45;

4. It cannot be used on just older Pentax DSLRs except the K20/200, K10 and 100 Super only;

5. It is not weather sealed!

6. Nikon's 18-70 is also about half the set price;

7. Why not get the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 again for half the price for the same range and faster lens speed at the wider side??

Anyone knows if there is any good reason to consider this DA 17-70??

And, anyone knows what's going on for Pentax's pricing and/or marketing strategy???

I just wonder WHY Pentax NOW? For such a new standard zoom, it can be so expensive. The DA* prices are also ridiculously high - go figure out yourself to see if you could believe in the set price tags of the DA*200 and 300. The DA*300 is more than double the price of the FA*300 when it was not discontinued (about 2 years ago)!

You shouldn't compare initial retail price against other lenses' current street prices. Also, consider SDM, and then there's this little thing called IQ - we'll have to see how the Pentax stands up, it could show some real brilliance in the $380 (street) price range, which it will probably reach.



.

[RiceHigh]

You shouldn't compare initial retail price against other lenses' current street prices. Also, consider SDM, and then there's this little thing called IQ - we'll have to see how the Pentax stands up, it could show some real brilliance in the $380 (street) price range, which it will probably reach.
.

The *street* price of the DA*300 is exactly 2.5 times more expensive than the street price of the FA*300 for what I still could get one. I guess the DA 17-70 will not be much cheaper than the officially announced price.

From the DA* stories, it seems that Pentax has taken a different pricing and marketing strategy which is similar to that of Canon - expensive glass for better stuff to earn more money. But the fact is Pentax is NOT Canon, they cannot do the SAME thing as it would hurt all people in the end! (both themselves and their customers/users)

[Wheatfield]

Really?

If so, what's the reason to get this lens?

A few facts:

1. It is just a f/4 lens;

2. There is an old lens called the DA 16-45/4 which is about half the cost and is 1mm wider (about 24 Vs 26mm film wise);

3. It is not especially compact and lightweight and is actually larger and heavier than the 16-45;

4. It cannot be used on just older Pentax DSLRs except the K20/200, K10 and 100 Super only;

5. It is not weather sealed!

6. Nikon's 18-70 is also about half the set price;

7. Why not get the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 again for half the price for the same range and faster lens speed at the wider side??

Anyone knows if there is any good reason to consider this DA 17-70??

And, anyone knows what's going on for Pentax's pricing and/or marketing strategy???

I just wonder WHY Pentax NOW? For such a new standard zoom, it can be so expensive. The DA* prices are also ridiculously high - go figure out yourself to see if you could believe in the set price tags of the DA*200 and 300. The DA*300 is more than double the price of the FA*300 when it was not discontinued (about 2 years ago)!

B&H lists the 16-45 at US$409.95. IF the 17-70 comes in at US$599.95, it's about 50% more expensive, not 100%.
The 17-70 is quite a bit longer at the long end.
If you think it's big, imagine how much bigger it would be if it was even a half stop faster....
The loss of backwards compatibility is a bit disturbing, but the fact is, DSLR cameras are pretty much a disposable commodity, as technology moves on, old cameras stop being used.
I'm not weather sealed either.....
The 17-70 is a constant aperture zoom. That costs more to produce than the cheap and cheerful variable aperture zoom that is the Stigma.
I can't put a Nikkor lens onto my Pentax.
I wouldn't get the Stigma simply because it is a Stigma. You couldn't give me one.

[séamuis]

first, your street price will be different than that of the US.
second, its to early to speculate whether the price will be worth it or not but I can hardly believe it wouldn't considering its SDM and the expected great IQ typical of pentax glass.

[k100d]

The *street* price of the DA*300 is exactly 2.5 times more expensive than the street price of the FA*300 for what I still could get one. I guess the DA 17-70 will not be much cheaper than the officially announced price.

where's is this ~$400 FA*300?!?!
a lot of lenses have come down in price from when they were announced, like the DA* zooms

[DJey]

Too expensive.. Get the 16-50mm F2.8..

[OniFactor]

Too expensive.. Get the 16-50mm F2.8..

pentax lists the 16-50 at $915.95, so if we follow the precedent set for price reduction, this lens should be 250 easy. still a good buy.

RH, I wonder where is your Canon blog? I mean you are a Canon user and beside some old Pentax stuff and a K100D your Pentax investment is slim to say the least. Besides your obvious bias and heavy twisting of facts and logic I will answer not particulary to you (because you are just a desinformation agent) but for the very few that may still believe your BS:

Really?

If so, what's the reason to get this lens?

A few facts:

In the end we'll all see how many are "facts" and how many are just myths and disinformation

1. It is just a f/4 lens;

Yes. "Just" a f4 lens in a world where "regular zooms" lenses are mostly f3.5-5.6 and "premium zooms" f2.8

2. There is an old lens called the DA 16-45/4 which is about half the cost and is 1mm wider (about 24 Vs 26mm film wise);

As for old I say it's from 2003 which is much newer than many Canon or Nikon glass. It doesn't costs half by the simple fact that noone has ever bought a DA 17-70 (launch day 30 jully) so actually it's price it's unknown for the moment. As previously said the DA 16-45 sells for above 400 USD in US and arround 370-380 Euro in Europe. Being true to your twisting of facts you mention the 1mm wider as an argument but "forget" the 25mm more in tele range . This is you RH at your best you can always find a 1x fault in Pentax and omit gladly 25x more benefits if this suits your purposes

3. It is not especially compact and lightweight and is actually larger and heavier than the 16-45;

Again you want to see only what could be usefull for you (in the very unlikely event that you will ever buy Pentax again - btw your Canon masters would be kind of upset at you if you do!! ). Going back to you BS let's analyse for a moment what you say: RH please accept that some people need more the 17-70 FL than the 16-45. Can you do at least that for us if we cannot make you silent?! Please ...

4. It cannot be used on just older Pentax DSLRs except the K20/200, K10 and 100 Super only;

Here you are plain stupid pardon my french. To say it cannot be used period shows only how thin are your knowledge in this field. So, RH please repeat after me: "This lens cannot be used on older bodies WITH AF". Try to understand if you can that Nikon took out AF motor from the D40 e.g. and contrary to Pentax your Canon masters kind of changed the mount in the past which made imposible to use some lenses period. So we're not talking about 1 lens here but many usable in MF or not at all

5. It is not weather sealed!

If it were you would say it's heavier and costlier because of this and only a small fraction of buyers need that as a fact. And guess what, you would be right! The DA 17-70 seems the quality kit of next models not a specialised lens for a small minority.

6. Nikon's 18-70 is also about half the set price;

Again you are lost in this technical realm. First of all the Nikon is a 3,5-4,5 lens to start with if you want to be accurate. Secondly for you @ 2) 1mm wider was more important than 25mm tele. Now for this comparation 1mm wider it's not that important anymore. Look at the photozone test and see the kind of distorsion the Nikon has @ 18mm for a fact. And PLEASE don't use the price factor since you as well as the rest of us don't know it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

7. Why not get the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 again for half the price for the same range and faster lens speed at the wider side??

Your facts are wrong again my Canon fanboy friend. Sigma is a 2.8 - 4.5 if you want to be technical with us and in Pentax mount I guess it has no SDM (HSM in Sigma marketing talk). And for the your final nail in your coffin guess what, the Sigma has a MSRP of .... drum rolls .... 595USD! So, 4 USD less than the MSRP of DA 17-70 and yet it's street price is much lower. This is why you should crowl under your Canon bridge and start flame threads after you know for a fact AT LEAST:
- what are you talking about;
- the retail price for the lens you discuss;
- the optical and mechanical performances in relation with direct and indirect competitors.

Anyone knows if there is any good reason to consider this DA 17-70??

Maybe you wanna consider something you never thought before. Some of us have gear to make pictures and for that fact the importance is more likely: optical and mechanical performance of a lens, price we must pay to get it and the focal range it covers in relation with the optical quality

And, anyone knows what's going on for Pentax's pricing and/or marketing strategy???

I just wonder WHY Pentax NOW? For such a new standard zoom, it can be so expensive. The DA* prices are also ridiculously high - go figure out yourself to see if you could believe in the set price tags of the DA*200 and 300. The DA*300 is more than double the price of the FA*300 when it was not discontinued (about 2 years ago)!

I wont even bother to respond to this lame attempt of disinformation. I could also buy 1L of sunflower oil 2,5 time less than is today a year a go, and it was the same oil. Don't bother lying so grossly about a FA* 300 being 400USD new no one will ever believe you.

In the past I gave you the benefit of the doubt but I am sure now that you are just either a not so bright fanatic or paid help with a very clear agenda. Your blog it's a slander towards Pentax and you as a person capable of talking photo gear are a joke.

Radu

[Miserere]

I was going to reply to this thread, in a serious manner, but then I realised it was started by RiceHigh. Man, I have nothing personal against you, I don't even know you, but I've read enough of your posts to know you do not support Pentax and don't care what the replies to your questions are.

People who want this lens will buy it, people who don't, won't. So there's nothing for you to worry about.

[creampuff]

Mods, please kindly lock this thread. Why are you all not moderating the comments posted?

Guys, we may seriously disagree with someone but that is no excuse to write inflammatory language that gets to the point of being personal.

Mods, please kindly lock this thread. Why are you all not moderating the comments posted?

Guys, we may seriously disagree with someone but that is no excuse to write inflammatory language that gets to the point of being personal.

Creampuff,

I can't condone this status of "innocent victim" RH seem to have these days or the tendency to ignore him at least as long as he's lying. He posted some numbers I prove them wrong if someone sees mistakes in what I wrote correct me by all means.

I stand by my final assesment of RH and this is based on the information I wrote in response to his claims.

Radu

[joele]

OK I think RH's assertions have been well responded to, and there is little need to let this thread continue..