[jddwoods]

I really love my Sigma 17-70C. Unfortunately, my camera with lens attached took a fall off a bench and my beloved Sigma ended up in 2 pieces with the mount separated. I just shipped it to Sigma for a repair estimate but I may be faced with replacing it. I have been looking at prices and currently, the Sigma 17-70 and DA 16-85 are selling for the same $499 price.

I shoot a lot of events with my 17-70. Car shows, motorcycle shows, parties, etc. Any further input on the comparison of these 2 lenses? I use the Sigma wide open very often on the short end at parties and indoors and the results have been excellent. I normally wouldn't have even entertained the thought of replacing it. It's a lens I'm familiar with and trust. The 16-85 wasn't around when I bought the Sigma. I like the greater zoom reach but am a little apprehensive of it being slower. If it's as sharp wide open as the Sigma, maybe but that extra bit of shutter speed makes a difference, too, when shooting indoors in a crowded room. I really don't like to use flash.

I put a thread out about 2 months ago posing this same question when it became apparent the SDM in my DA 17-70 f4.0 was dying. The consensus of opinion I got was that the 16-85 overall was a better choice than the Sigma 17-70C, especially now that they are selling for about the same price. I ended up getting the 16-85. I admit, I did not handle the Sigma for comparison but sharpness was priority one, and both are very sharp. But my next highest priority was WR which for me is more important than the speed of the lens and that steered me to the 16-85.

---

Last edited by jddwoods; 09-01-2017 at 09:31 AM.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Well, we are really speculating based on our own priorities at this point. It isn't clear what the OP wants in terms of IQ, size, lens speed, build and pricing. We're just sharing our particular needs. Norm is absolutely right, assuming that the OP is willing to compromise a bit on IQ, wants low pricing, and seeks considerable reach. Bottom line, there are a lot of good choices out there for mid-range zooms - even in Pentax.

It is entirely possible that we have provided a bit more feedback than the OP is wanting to process. Might be best to say look at the lens reviews on this site, but narrow choices based on needs before you look at all those options.

I want the one that is really small, super fast, plenty of reach, excellent build and extremely high IQ at a very low price. Can hardly wait until that one shows up.

[reeftool]

The increases in low light performance on newer bodies probably makes this a moot point. I don't use my walk around lenses indoors for the most part. If we are talking about an indoor lens, then we are talking a completely different set of specs. Now we are talking Tamron 17-50 ƒ2.8, but usually my 35 2.4 or FA 50 1.7. We have used the 18-135 indoors for family gatherings without issue. I use the 1.7 when it's actually dark, and I want a decent shutter speed. In my mind, expecting your low light lens and your walk around lens to be the same lens just isn't intuitive.

This topic engenders this type of suggestion.

"I need the 2.8 of the 17-70 wide open for events, but i don't need the constant 2.8 of the 17-50, 50-135. I don't need the 7:1 zoom range of the 18-135 over the 17-70, but I do need the zoom range of the 17-70 or 16-85 over the various 1x-50 2.8s." Is it me or is this just drawing lines in the sand?

My walk around decision is much more simple. I want the best zoom range with acceptable image quality. If it doesn't have that, in my mind it's not a walk around lens. Starting to mix in things like low light performance etc. are just confusing the issue. Camera companies make the different types of lenses, because they are different things. And I want the best weight/performance ratio, because, I'm going to be walking around carrying the lens and camera. That pretty much gets rid of 2.8 lenses. 2.8 zoom lenses are heavier than they need to be for people who normally are shooting ƒ5.6 to ƒ8 out doors, while walking around. One stop better low light performance is twice the weight. That is critical in your "walk around" thinking. Large apertures are not your friend if you are weight conscious.

The whole thing with a walk around lens is you don't know what you will encounter. That's different from an event lens. For some something like the Sigma 18-250 is the perfect walk around lens. That's not enough IQ for me but the 18-135 is. That's not good enough for some but the 17-70 is. That's not good enough for some but the 16-85 is. That's not good enough for some but the 28-105 on the K-1 is.

IN every case every increase in IQ, and the increases in IQ are at best minimal, cost you zoom range and flexibility. While it's interesting hearing where everyone draws the line, the OP still has to figure out what compromise he's comfortable with.

I suggest, going with the highest zoom range with an IQ you can live with. Some seem to be suggesting looking for the best combo of zoom range and low light performance (which I think is completely different category but could conceivably be what the OP is asking for.)

But I think it pays to understand, people are talking about different types of lenses in their recommendations. That's complicating the issue. But the OP can clarify by deciding what's really important to him.

If a fast aperture isn't an issue, that greatly simplifies your choices.
If a faster aperture is desired, that also greatly simplifies your choices.
That's where I'd make the first cut of my possible choices list.
After that, I'd look at the images of the various systems try and figure out where your personal IQ limit is. If an 18-250 is good enough for you, why would you waste your money on something else?

You have to be really picky about IQ to spend a lot of money on a pricey walk around lens with great low light performance etc.. That doesn't always produce the kinds of results people think it should. Many would be better off with an 18-250, they just read the lens charts and refuse to consider it. For some that's a mistake, for others it sin't. But choosing one or the other isn't a good ro abad decision, it's all about you and what makes you happy. My preference for the 18-135 really has no bearing on that. The 18135 could be the lens that makes you happiest, but more likely it will be one of the others, just because there are so many choices at least 4 more ways to go, and all else being equal, the chance of any one of them being for you, given 4 choices is about 25%. These lenses are not better than each other, these lenses are different from each other. Each one does things the others don't, ( eg. the 17-70 lets in more light than the 18-135 but is almost half the focal length) and does 85% of what the others do. Your decision should be based on what you want in that last 15%.

I understand what you're saying but like many of us, I have to pick a single lens to do multiple tasks due to costs. That's even more important now that I'm semi retired with considerable less income. The best case will be that Sigma will be able to fix my lens for less than a replacement. If the repair price is over $400, I will replace the lens. I'm inclined to get another Sigma 17-70 because I was happy with my old one and there is no question in my mind that it will do what I want. WR has been a non issue as I have shot in all kinds of conditions without problems.My gear travels in a Harley saddlebag half the year. If I have to replace the lens, the DA 16-85 is an option that wasn't available to me back when I bought the Sigma. For just an event lens, the Sigma 17-50/2.8 is currently on sale for $369.

Back when I bought the 17-70, the additional reach was my main motivation and at the time, it was cheaper than the 18-135 by over $100. As time has gone on, I have begun using the lens more for events as well as a walk around. I do make a little money on the side at events (emphasis on little). If I could afford it, I would just buy a K1 and 24-70/2.8 and be done with it but that's out of the question right now.

[sbh]

Would that not be the 28-105?

Yes but f/5.6 is a bit much for me. I prefer to have the 2.8 aperture but occasionally do miss that bit of extra reach.

I am a bit reluctant to recommend the 17-70. It is sharp but the big issue with this lens is its autofocus. I have both the 17-70 and the 16-85 and overall I feel the 16-85 is definitely the better of the two. The advantages of the 16-85 are the much better autofocus, add in WR, the wider zoom range, better sharpness especially above 50 mm and it is the 16-85 that is almost always on my K-3. The one advantage of the 17-70 is the constant F4.0 aperture but I think that advantage is very small compared to the advantages of the 16-85. Size wise and weight wise they are about the same. Build quality is definitely better on the 16-85, the 16-85 feels much more solid with none of the inner barrel wobble that is noticeable on my 17-70.

All of that makes sense, no question. I enjoy shooting wide apertures and low iso, but that's just my personal taste. Also the DA 17-70 f/4 is really cheap to get occasionally. When I broke mine, I bought a used copy for 220 € iirc. It was just a great fit for me.

[jddwoods]

Yes but f/5.6 is a bit much for me. I prefer to have the 2.8 aperture but occasionally do miss that bit of extra reach.



All of that makes sense, no question. I enjoy shooting wide apertures and low iso, but that's just my personal taste. Also the DA 17-70 f/4 is really cheap to get occasionally. When I broke mine, I bought a used copy for 220 € iirc. It was just a great fit for me.

I have also seen used DA 17-70 lenses selling at good prices around $250 to $280 in the US which is close to what you paid. Given the good optical quality of the lens, that could be a really good buy, especially if you get one with a good SDM motor. My hesitation to recommend that lens is based on the cost for a new one. The selling price of the DA 17-70 new at B&H is $479 and the selling price of a new 16-85 ranges from &499 to $549. With that price difference there only one choice to me and that would be the 16-85. For the two of us, it is a win, win. You have a good 17-70 which fits your needs and for me the 16-85. where the autofocus is fast and reliable for birds, butterflies and dragonflies which is important to me.

[jgnfld]

I shoot in Newfoundland which is often quite dark even during the day due to thick, thick cloud layers. My recently purchased copy the Pentax 16-85 greatly outperforms my 17-50 2.8 Sigma outside on landscapes/large shots (even when the same higher f-stops are used). For shots with close subjects, I find them much closer, but since landscape is a large part of my interest, I rarely take out the 17-50 these days. If I was shooting a family gathering I probably would.

[normhead]

I shoot in Newfoundland which is often quite dark even during the day due to thick, thick cloud layers. My recently purchased copy the Pentax 16-85 greatly outperforms my 17-50 2.8 Sigma outside on landscapes/large shots (even when the same higher f-stops are used). For shots with close subjects, I find them much closer, but since landscape is a large part of my interest, I rarely take out the 17-50 these days. If I was shooting a family gathering I probably would.

That's exactly how my Tamron 17-50 gets used. We thought it was going to be an every day lens, but it's become a "shooting inside lens." And even then, it gets taken off for the 35 2.4, or 50 1.7 if opportunity presents itself. It really has become a lens without much purpose. Especially since the D FA 28-105 became our preferred landscape lens.

[robgski]

My walk around decision is much more simple. I want the best zoom range with acceptable image quality. If it doesn't have that, in my mind it's not a walk around lens. Starting to mix in things like low light performance etc. are just confusing the issue.

I agree, and considering you can select at least ISO 1600-3200 with confidence, "faster lenses are not my concern in a walk around situation. Indoors, social events, etc, I am likely to choose a faster prime and move or crop as necessary to get eh shot I want

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

I shoot in Newfoundland which is often quite dark even during the day due to thick, thick cloud layers. My recently purchased copy the Pentax 16-85 greatly outperforms my 17-50 2.8 Sigma outside on landscapes/large shots (even when the same higher f-stops are used). For shots with close subjects, I find them much closer, but since landscape is a large part of my interest, I rarely take out the 17-50 these days. If I was shooting a family gathering I probably would.

I'd have to wonder if you got a slightly off Sigma 17-50 because there shouldn't be much difference in sharpness between the two when stopped down. Possibly contrast, rendition and saturation favor the Pentax 16-85, but it would be good to know how you get to "greatly outperforms." Personally, for serious landscape work, especially in marginal light, I would rely only on primes. Especially so toward the wide angle side of things, you simply get more consistently sharp results with lower CA issues - and wide zooms tend to have so much field curvature (the major failing of the Tamron 17-50, for instance).

[jgnfld]

I'd have to wonder if you got a slightly off Sigma 17-50 ...

I wonder the same. That's why I always qualify my statements about the 17-50 with "my copy of".

[reeftool]

I got some good news today from Sigma. My 17-70 is repairable and will cost $180 so I'm off the hook for a new lens purchase for the time being. Hopefully, it will be good as new. The DA 16-85 still looks interesting, though.