Pentax 17-70 f4?????

mokey · 11-07-2008, 04:50 PM

Ok ! I did it! I went with the 16-50 2.8. Holy mother of god that's a nice lens. And I'm not sure if the stars were aligned or what, but I got it for the same price as the 17-70. It was an insurance thing, and I used the store's insurance person, and they dropped the price by $250 because I went thru them. I'm almost scared that they are gonna phone me and say they made a mistake.
Thanks for all the advise!

Peter Zack · 11-07-2008, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by mokey

you know , I agree with you regarding the 16-45. My friend has one, and I tested it against my 18-55 at the time , and I didn't find $300 difference. Maybe I should just go with the new 18-55 II that comes with the k20d. (my original 18-55 had a mishap with the k10d-thus I'm on to new and hopefully better things)

Maybe you should grab that 18-55mm VII that's on the marketplace for $75.00 Canadian $$ which is around $64 USD.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographers-marketplace/39937-sale-pent...-da-al-ii.html

figure-five · 11-07-2008, 07:08 PM

I have tried and then sold a few different lenses in this middle range between the sigma 10-20 and the FA 50 f1.4.

The 16-50mm made great images but was too big and heavy (> 20 oz) for a lens that will stay on the camera a lot.

I don't have experience with the kit lens.

The 16-45 and the 17-70 are both bulky and long, and the 17-70 is as heavy as the 16-50mm. The 16-45 weighs about 12 oz.

I've loved the 20-35 for its excellent sharpness (likely due to the smaller zoom range and constant aperture), compact form factor (about the size of the kit lens) and light weight (~ 8 oz). It barely changes length with focusing or zooming which is cool. To me it's like having 4 great pentax primes (20, 24, 28, 35) and it's one of the most modern FA optical designs. Plus it will be viable on a future full-frame body.

One-stop difference in speed from the 2.8's is not worth the weight or bulk to me. Plus sensors will continue to improve for better high-ISO performance in the end, and a fast 50mm is an easy solution for now.

figure-five · 11-07-2008, 07:11 PM

Ha oops didn't see the second page of posts. Hope you enjoy your new lens, I'm sure you'll have fun with it.

wachix · 11-08-2008, 12:28 AM

I also have this lens form july. It is hard to compare it with other pentax lenses. It is quite versatile and performs well. I agree with pon pon, that it has noticible barrel extortion on wide end, but personaly - i love that.

It is bit soft and AF works not so good. It is very good on higher F at least 5.6. And I like to use even bigger Fs.

I made a lot of pictures with it and i notice that it stays on body most of the time.

But as I noticed - it is not popular lens. I don't now way.

stevelink · 07-07-2012, 11:58 AM

Greetings! Well, I have the Pentax 16-45 (among other superb Pentax optics), and am frankly torn between keeping it or selling it for the Pentax 17-70, just for the longer reach. My BIG concern is Sharpness. I am pleased with the sharpness of my 16-45 on my K-5, and obviously want equal or better sharpness from the 17-70, but I've read many conflicting reports on this issue. Indeed, the Pentax forums rate the 16-45 a bit higher on sharpness than the 17-70, which I assume is related the the single ED element in the 16-45 that is not in the 17-70. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Ideally, I'm looking at selling the 16-45 and a beautiful Pentax DA*55 f/1.4 to finance a Sigma 8-16 and the Pentax 17-70 for an upcoming trip to California. (I want to travel as "light" as possible.) Thanks all, for your lens expertise!

sam-joseph · 07-09-2012, 02:43 AM

Well done on your purchase. It's never easy making the decision between two or three lenses. LBA is a savage mistress, so no matter what you've bought, you'll almost certainly be still eyeballing the "losing" lenses in this particular battle. I myself have the Sigma 17-70, and I reckon it's a great lens. Some say it's a bit heavy, but after going on a hike with a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 hanging off the K7 around my neck, the 17-70 isn't too heavy after all.

Regards

northcoastgreg · 07-09-2012, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by stevelink

I'm looking at selling the 16-45 and a beautiful Pentax DA*55 f/1.4 to finance a Sigma 8-16 and the Pentax 17-70 for an upcoming trip to California

If you really believe you need something wider than 16mm, than go for it. Whatever differences there are between the 16-45 and the 17-70, they are probably not great enough to be worth worrying about. That said, if I were working on a two lens kit for California, I would be looking for something longer to compliment the 16-45, like, for example, the DA 50-135 or the DA 55-300, rather than something wider. Also, keep in mind, you can always rent lenses for your California trip.

Blue · 07-10-2012, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by stevelink

Greetings! Well, I have the Pentax 16-45 (among other superb Pentax optics), and am frankly torn between keeping it or selling it for the Pentax 17-70, just for the longer reach. My BIG concern is Sharpness. I am pleased with the sharpness of my 16-45 on my K-5, and obviously want equal or better sharpness from the 17-70, but I've read many conflicting reports on this issue. Indeed, the Pentax forums rate the 16-45 a bit higher on sharpness than the 17-70, which I assume is related the the single ED element in the 16-45 that is not in the 17-70. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Ideally, I'm looking at selling the 16-45 and a beautiful Pentax DA*55 f/1.4 to finance a Sigma 8-16 and the Pentax 17-70 for an upcoming trip to California. (I want to travel as "light" as possible.) Thanks all, for your lens expertise!

Given the lenses you are selling to get the DA 17-70/4, I think you will be disappointed. A good copy of the lens will perform well for you. Plus it is IF. IQ wise on a good copy I never found to be much better than the 16-45 but like the way the 17-70 was set up better. However, neither lens is going to be in the league with the DA* 55/1.4. At the end of the day, I liked the F 35-70 f3.5-4.5 better than the DA 17-70mm other than the wide end.

Tom S. · 07-10-2012, 12:42 PM

Have you looked at or considered this lens:

Sigma 18mm-125mm

Besides looking considerably cheaper than the Pentax, it out scored it for sharpness and would give you more flexibility.

11-07-2008, 07:08 PM	#18
figure-five Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 86	try the FA 20-35mm f4 I have tried and then sold a few different lenses in this middle range between the sigma 10-20 and the FA 50 f1.4. The 16-50mm made great images but was too big and heavy (> 20 oz) for a lens that will stay on the camera a lot. I don't have experience with the kit lens. The 16-45 and the 17-70 are both bulky and long, and the 17-70 is as heavy as the 16-50mm. The 16-45 weighs about 12 oz. I've loved the 20-35 for its excellent sharpness (likely due to the smaller zoom range and constant aperture), compact form factor (about the size of the kit lens) and light weight (~ 8 oz). It barely changes length with focusing or zooming which is cool. To me it's like having 4 great pentax primes (20, 24, 28, 35) and it's one of the most modern FA optical designs. Plus it will be viable on a future full-frame body. One-stop difference in speed from the 2.8's is not worth the weight or bulk to me. Plus sensors will continue to improve for better high-ISO performance in the end, and a fast 50mm is an easy solution for now.

11-07-2008, 07:11 PM	#19
figure-five Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 86	ha Ha oops didn't see the second page of posts. Hope you enjoy your new lens, I'm sure you'll have fun with it.

11-07-2008, 04:50 PM	#16
mokey Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: BC Posts: 219 Original Poster	Ok ! I did it! I went with the 16-50 2.8. Holy mother of god that's a nice lens. And I'm not sure if the stars were aligned or what, but I got it for the same price as the 17-70. It was an insurance thing, and I used the store's insurance person, and they dropped the price by $250 because I went thru them. I'm almost scared that they are gonna phone me and say they made a mistake. Thanks for all the advise!

11-07-2008, 06:07 PM	#17
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	Originally posted by mokey you know , I agree with you regarding the 16-45. My friend has one, and I tested it against my 18-55 at the time , and I didn't find $300 difference. Maybe I should just go with the new 18-55 II that comes with the k20d. (my original 18-55 had a mishap with the k10d-thus I'm on to new and hopefully better things) Maybe you should grab that 18-55mm VII that's on the marketplace for $75.00 Canadian $$ which is around $64 USD. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographers-marketplace/39937-sale-pent...-da-al-ii.html

11-08-2008, 12:28 AM	#20
wachix Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Vilnius, Lithuania Posts: 7	I also have this lens form july. It is hard to compare it with other pentax lenses. It is quite versatile and performs well. I agree with pon pon, that it has noticible barrel extortion on wide end, but personaly - i love that. It is bit soft and AF works not so good. It is very good on higher F at least 5.6. And I like to use even bigger Fs. I made a lot of pictures with it and i notice that it stays on body most of the time. But as I noticed - it is not popular lens. I don't now way.

07-07-2012, 11:58 AM	#21
stevelink Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Dallas TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 92	Greetings! Well, I have the Pentax 16-45 (among other superb Pentax optics), and am frankly torn between keeping it or selling it for the Pentax 17-70, just for the longer reach. My BIG concern is Sharpness. I am pleased with the sharpness of my 16-45 on my K-5, and obviously want equal or better sharpness from the 17-70, but I've read many conflicting reports on this issue. Indeed, the Pentax forums rate the 16-45 a bit higher on sharpness than the 17-70, which I assume is related the the single ED element in the 16-45 that is not in the 17-70. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Ideally, I'm looking at selling the 16-45 and a beautiful Pentax DA*55 f/1.4 to finance a Sigma 8-16 and the Pentax 17-70 for an upcoming trip to California. (I want to travel as "light" as possible.) Thanks all, for your lens expertise!

07-09-2012, 02:43 AM	#22
sam-joseph Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,086	Well done on your purchase. It's never easy making the decision between two or three lenses. LBA is a savage mistress, so no matter what you've bought, you'll almost certainly be still eyeballing the "losing" lenses in this particular battle. I myself have the Sigma 17-70, and I reckon it's a great lens. Some say it's a bit heavy, but after going on a hike with a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 hanging off the K7 around my neck, the 17-70 isn't too heavy after all. Regards

07-09-2012, 07:35 AM	#23
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	Originally posted by stevelink I'm looking at selling the 16-45 and a beautiful Pentax DA*55 f/1.4 to finance a Sigma 8-16 and the Pentax 17-70 for an upcoming trip to California If you really believe you need something wider than 16mm, than go for it. Whatever differences there are between the 16-45 and the 17-70, they are probably not great enough to be worth worrying about. That said, if I were working on a two lens kit for California, I would be looking for something longer to compliment the 16-45, like, for example, the DA 50-135 or the DA 55-300, rather than something wider. Also, keep in mind, you can always rent lenses for your California trip.

07-10-2012, 11:14 AM	#24
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by stevelink Greetings! Well, I have the Pentax 16-45 (among other superb Pentax optics), and am frankly torn between keeping it or selling it for the Pentax 17-70, just for the longer reach. My BIG concern is Sharpness. I am pleased with the sharpness of my 16-45 on my K-5, and obviously want equal or better sharpness from the 17-70, but I've read many conflicting reports on this issue. Indeed, the Pentax forums rate the 16-45 a bit higher on sharpness than the 17-70, which I assume is related the the single ED element in the 16-45 that is not in the 17-70. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Ideally, I'm looking at selling the 16-45 and a beautiful Pentax DA55 f/1.4 to finance a Sigma 8-16 and the Pentax 17-70 for an upcoming trip to California. (I want to travel as "light" as possible.) Thanks all, for your lens expertise! Given the lenses you are selling to get the DA 17-70/4, I think you will be disappointed. A good copy of the lens will perform well for you. Plus it is IF. IQ wise on a good copy I never found to be much better than the 16-45 but like the way the 17-70 was set up better. However, neither lens is going to be in the league with the DA 55/1.4. At the end of the day, I liked the F 35-70 f3.5-4.5 better than the DA 17-70mm other than the wide end.

07-10-2012, 12:42 PM	#25
Tom S. Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 4,317	Have you looked at or considered this lens: Sigma 18mm-125mm Besides looking considerably cheaper than the Pentax, it out scored it for sharpness and would give you more flexibility.