[SpecialK]

A 17-x is really not much wider than an 18-x.

A 16-x will at least have a more-noticeable wide end.

But, the 12-24 is a killer, has a very useful range, and is now under $700.

[AndrewG NY]

The DA 17-70 certainly does not "suck" over 50mm. If you want to shoot >50mm, it's certainly a better better choice than DA*16-50, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-50, etc. [none of which offer FL >50mm ]

I did a comparison at 70mm against many other lenses, and my general sense puts it at #3 behind the DA70/2.4 and FA24-90/3.5-4.5. (Not surprisingly, the DA70/2.4 really outclassed everything else I had available. The only lens I wish I had to add to the comparison would have been the DA* 50-135.) I have always had somewhat mixed feelings about my 16-45--which were generally addressed by the DA17-70. In terms of build, it's considerably better-feeling than the DA16-45. Having the 45-70 range is important to me--so much so that I've been trying lots of F and FA film zooms. But this nearly always meant bringing another lens for the wide angle--sometimes you just want to bring one lens. I never seriously considered the Sigma 17-70, partially because I already owned the 16-45 and some film zooms, and also because I don't like that Sigma's zoom & focus rings operate in the opposite direction from Pentax's, and I didn't really want to deal with the Sigma's 72mm filter size.

I have not been terribly impressed with the short end of telezooms like DA55-300 or DA50-200 for this purpose in particular because the minimum focus distance is often an issue for me, and their use is likely to result in a good deal more lens changes for me. I don't necessarily need a macro lens but I like to be able to focus fairly close for headshots--and the long ends of standard zooms usually focus closer than the short ends of telezooms.

[Mann]

joefru, for what it's worth...

I'd simply get the Sigma 17-70 for versatility. Others recommend it as well here (also to me when I just got on the forum), and I gotta say it's a damn fine lens. I probably wouldn't need 12, because I'd find a way to get what I want with what I got, but I assume you want 12 in some situations.

The non-constant aperture is what I also thought would be a problem, but it isn't (at least not to me). It's just a sacrifice for a lens that has very good price-performance ratio.

17-70 and 70-200 is pretty much all I use, but the 17-70 gets the most use of course.

I think, if you get the 17-70, you might as well get rid of the kit lens. If you really want wider, than indeed add a wider lens.

[hinman]

There are many good choices. I have the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 and it is a very good walk-around with good close up capability. And I personally like the focal range over 18-55 in the kit's lens. And I wish the DA 17-70 is faster in f/2.8.

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5







Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5

This is a good value lens. If I were to choose a better lens for landscape but on a tight budget, I would opt for the DA 16-45mm. If versatility, close-up, and walk-around is important, I will pick the Sigma 17-70. If portrait and event is important, I will choose the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. If money is not a concern and I want the best in IQ, I will pick the DA* 16-50mm.

Also, I frequently pair the Sigma 17-70 with Pentax DA 10-17 f/3.5-4.5 and Tamron 70-300mm in family trip so that I have 10-300mm covered in 3 lens. The close up in Sigma 17-70 is in 1:2.3 and it comes in very handy for close up.

Thanks,
Hin

---

Last edited by hinman; 06-25-2009 at 06:01 PM.

[GeneV]

The Sigma looks like a great lens, especially for the money. I went with the DA 17-70, though and haven't regretted it. If I don't use my Ltd primes for a while, I am extremely impressed with the sharpness. When I snap a few landscapes with the 40 or the FA 77, I come back to earth on the DA 17-70.

However, the SDM is really sweet. The quiet is almost disquieting. It's hard to believe how much quieter this good sized lens is than the tiny 40 pancake.

[benjikan]

The Pentax DA 17-70 is an excellent lens as long as you stop down 1 to 1.5 stops in the long end, i.e. 50-70mm.

[Rondec]

I'm surprised asdf hasn't shown up yet -- the DA 17-70 is his favorite lens, I think. Photozone reviewed it and really liked it -- said that it was actually very sharp in the 17-70 range and had good edge to edge sharpness throughout. Brett on the DP Review forum said the exact opposite. I think the reality is that it is copy specific -- some are probably sharper than others.

[mungbean66]

Hey Guys, If I can raise the cash in time, I may be getting a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DG. After reading a review and looking at test shots, the lens has 'neutral' colour tones and pictures look flat. However it is rated as a good lens.

Whilst the 17-70 both Sigma and the DA have awesome colour and seem to 'pop' out at you. Is it the picture taking that effects this (area, exposure, contrast ect.) or the lens?. I simply dont want a lens that I wont be able to compensate for or work propely with.

Sorry to hijack the thread but I didn't want to start a new one for this. Thank you.