Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-07-2008, 04:50 PM   #16
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
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
QuoteOriginally posted by mokey Quote
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
11-07-2008, 07:08 PM   #18
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
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.

11-08-2008, 12:28 AM   #20
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
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dallas TX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 90
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
Veteran Member
sam-joseph's Avatar

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
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,972
QuoteOriginally posted by stevelink Quote
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
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by stevelink Quote
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.
07-10-2012, 12:42 PM   #25
Moderator
Tom S.'s Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: S.E. Michigan
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,239
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.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
f4, k-mount, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:38 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top