New 17-70 vs Sigma vs 16-45

joefru · 06-14-2009, 09:14 PM

Certainly I'm not the only one who has been in this boat, but the forum is telling me that "17-70" is not found, so searching is doing me no good.

I finally have money for a new lens. I've really been loving wide angle, keeping my kit lens locked at 18mm much of the time. But I want something a little wider and better quality. The obvious answer seems to be the new 17-70 SDM, but they say it sucks above 50mm. But the Sigma isn't constant aperture, and the 16-45 is less versatile on the tele end (but better wide, which is nice...)

And I DO NOT have $700 for a 16-50. I can probably swing $400 max, but I was gonna figure out some way to get an extra 100 for the 17-70.

What do you guys think? (Feel free to link to older posts, as I'm sure this has been covered before.)

xxxxx · 06-14-2009, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by joefru

Certainly I'm not the only one who has been in this boat, but the forum is telling me that "17-70" is not found, so searching is doing me no good.

I finally have money for a new lens. I've really been loving wide angle, keeping my kit lens locked at 18mm much of the time. But I want something a little wider and better quality. The obvious answer seems to be the new 17-70 SDM, but they say it sucks above 50mm. But the Sigma isn't constant aperture, and the 16-45 is less versatile on the tele end (but better wide, which is nice...)

And I DO NOT have $700 for a 16-50. I can probably swing $400 max, but I was gonna figure out some way to get an extra 100 for the 17-70.

What do you guys think? (Feel free to link to older posts, as I'm sure this has been covered before.)

How about get the 16-45mm? Relatively cheap and tested.

imtheguy · 06-14-2009, 11:01 PM

I cant help with the search (i tried it too, a couple different ways, no joy) but when i had to make the same decision a few months back i ended up with the 16-45mm but only because i got a great deal and wanted to start off with a couple genuine Pentax lenses. I actually like the specs on the Sigma better as its faster and has a useful macro mode although the Pentax can focus very close. If you have no use for the constant aperture then that feature buys you nothing and they cost nearly the same new. If one of your requirements is the long end then Sigma wins hands down. I only needed the wide end. If you need fast aperture at the wide end the Sigma wins. If you need the widest possible, the Pentax has 1mm on the Sigma. So I am just stating things you know which is how selections are made. Compare your requirements to the functionality of each...then pick the shiny one! I dont think you will go wrong with either.

joefru · 06-15-2009, 07:06 AM

So no one's gonna disagree on the pentax 17-70? I've been away from the boards for a while, so I've heard nothing about it except the soft above 50 thing. You'd recommend the 16-45 even over the Pentax 17-70?

imtheguy · 06-15-2009, 07:13 AM

We can give you an accurate recommendation if you can give us an accurate listing of your top 3-5 requirements in order of importance.

heatherslightbox · 06-15-2009, 07:13 AM

Why not take a look at the Sigma 17-70? You get an excellent, very versatile lens that will fit within your $400 budget, especially if you pick up a gently used one.

HTH,
Heather

joefru · 06-15-2009, 08:24 AM

The only knock I have against the Sigma is the variable aperture. Not that it's a terrible thing, but I mostly use Av mode, so keeping it constant while zooming would be nice.

As for what I need, I like the kit lens, but I want something:

Wider
Faster
Better IQ

**TER-OR** · 06-15-2009, 08:53 AM

I don't have the Sigma, but I do have the Pentax 16-45. It's very easy to use and works well at both ends of the zoom. I use it a lot indoors, where the wide side is handy, and I don't need to use a flash in a fairly well-lit room. I used it outdoors this past weekend at the zoo, and have to say it focused very quickly and was a pleasure to use. I don't think anyone would be disappointed using it in a casual setting. I'm newly returned to SLR photography, with a used K-10.

deejjjaaaa · 06-15-2009, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by joefru

I mostly use Av mode, so keeping it constant while zooming would be nice.

set it to >= 4.5 and Av will keep it constant... if it is the issue.

ryno · 06-15-2009, 09:02 AM

My DA17-70 is soft above 50mm, at f8 and wider, if you manually focus at infinity.
My copy will focus a little past infinity when you manually focus, and with the smaller depth of field you get with smaller f-stops, infinity is a little out of focus. When I use auto focus, or manual focus with confirmation, 70mm is as sharp as any other focal length. When I don't need the speed of primes, or want a single lens for hiking, the 17-70 is near perfect. I was worried about all the reports of soft above 50mm, but I have no regrets at all with my purchase.
Ryan

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/55729-doing-wr...eview-com.html

ballgofar · 06-15-2009, 09:03 AM

If "wider" is the first priority, maybe you should take a look at an ultra-wide like the DA 12-24 or the Sigma 10-20 to suppliment the kit lens instead. Then later you could replace the kit with a constant f/2.8 zoom (Tamron 28-75, Sigma 24-70, Sigma 28-70) with significantly increased image quality without having to worry about covering the wide end.

Otherwise, I like the DA 16-45 quite a bit myself, but I have no experience with the others so I cannot make an accurate recommendation.

RBellavance · 06-15-2009, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by deejjjaaaa

set it to >= 4.5 and Av will keep it constant... if it is the issue.

You can even set it at f/4, and it will be "constant" below 63mm...

joefru · 06-15-2009, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by ballgofar

If "wider" is the first priority, maybe you should take a look at an ultra-wide...

That thought has definitely occurred to me... they're just so expensive! I really don't want to go much above f/4 for a max ap, so that leaves me looking at the 12-24, and I'm up in the $700s real quick.

joefru · 06-15-2009, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by RBellavance

You can even set it at f/4, and it will be "constant" below 63mm...

Those are good points... The more I look at it, the more I'm leaning toward the Sigma.

The 12-24 may very well be my next purchase... but I won't be able to afford a new lens for at least another year or two.

drec · 06-20-2009, 03:20 PM

No problems at all with the "DA17-70" (which, by the way, is what I put into the search box here... and it works) which I bought 2nd-hand from Henry's in Toronto. I'm not used to such a big lens, coming from having traded in a DA21 because of more versatility... but otherwise, it's handled very well and image quality is great. Infinity and all.

06-14-2009, 09:14 PM	#1
joefru Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Louisiana Photos: Gallery Posts: 210	New 17-70 vs Sigma vs 16-45 Certainly I'm not the only one who has been in this boat, but the forum is telling me that "17-70" is not found, so searching is doing me no good. I finally have money for a new lens. I've really been loving wide angle, keeping my kit lens locked at 18mm much of the time. But I want something a little wider and better quality. The obvious answer seems to be the new 17-70 SDM, but they say it sucks above 50mm. But the Sigma isn't constant aperture, and the 16-45 is less versatile on the tele end (but better wide, which is nice...) And I DO NOT have $700 for a 16-50. I can probably swing $400 max, but I was gonna figure out some way to get an extra 100 for the 17-70. What do you guys think? (Feel free to link to older posts, as I'm sure this has been covered before.)

06-15-2009, 09:02 AM	#10
ryno Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Gallery Posts: 220	My DA17-70 is soft above 50mm, at f8 and wider, if you manually focus at infinity. My copy will focus a little past infinity when you manually focus, and with the smaller depth of field you get with smaller f-stops, infinity is a little out of focus. When I use auto focus, or manual focus with confirmation, 70mm is as sharp as any other focal length. When I don't need the speed of primes, or want a single lens for hiking, the 17-70 is near perfect. I was worried about all the reports of soft above 50mm, but I have no regrets at all with my purchase. Ryan https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/55729-doing-wr...eview-com.html Last edited by ryno; 06-15-2009 at 09:07 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K20D, D-BG2 grip, Sigma 17-70, Sigma 10-20, SMC Takumar 1000mm	deadwolfbones	Sold Items	23	10-21-2009 02:57 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax AF-540FGZ Flash, Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6, Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3	davebest	Sold Items	12	06-25-2009 02:48 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Lens Blowout; 50mm 1.4, Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 400mm, etc.	nufenstein	Sold Items	13	03-30-2009 12:00 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: FA 77mm limited, Sigma 17-70mm DC Macro, Sigma 70-300mm APO DG	chemxaj	Sold Items	10	03-17-2008 08:55 AM

06-14-2009, 10:58 PM	#2
xxxxx Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 52	Originally posted by joefru Certainly I'm not the only one who has been in this boat, but the forum is telling me that "17-70" is not found, so searching is doing me no good. I finally have money for a new lens. I've really been loving wide angle, keeping my kit lens locked at 18mm much of the time. But I want something a little wider and better quality. The obvious answer seems to be the new 17-70 SDM, but they say it sucks above 50mm. But the Sigma isn't constant aperture, and the 16-45 is less versatile on the tele end (but better wide, which is nice...) And I DO NOT have $700 for a 16-50. I can probably swing $400 max, but I was gonna figure out some way to get an extra 100 for the 17-70. What do you guys think? (Feel free to link to older posts, as I'm sure this has been covered before.) How about get the 16-45mm? Relatively cheap and tested.

06-14-2009, 11:01 PM	#3
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	I cant help with the search (i tried it too, a couple different ways, no joy) but when i had to make the same decision a few months back i ended up with the 16-45mm but only because i got a great deal and wanted to start off with a couple genuine Pentax lenses. I actually like the specs on the Sigma better as its faster and has a useful macro mode although the Pentax can focus very close. If you have no use for the constant aperture then that feature buys you nothing and they cost nearly the same new. If one of your requirements is the long end then Sigma wins hands down. I only needed the wide end. If you need fast aperture at the wide end the Sigma wins. If you need the widest possible, the Pentax has 1mm on the Sigma. So I am just stating things you know which is how selections are made. Compare your requirements to the functionality of each...then pick the shiny one! I dont think you will go wrong with either.

06-15-2009, 07:06 AM	#4
joefru Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Louisiana Photos: Gallery Posts: 210 Original Poster	So no one's gonna disagree on the pentax 17-70? I've been away from the boards for a while, so I've heard nothing about it except the soft above 50 thing. You'd recommend the 16-45 even over the Pentax 17-70?

06-15-2009, 07:13 AM	#5
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	We can give you an accurate recommendation if you can give us an accurate listing of your top 3-5 requirements in order of importance.

06-15-2009, 07:13 AM	#6
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599	Why not take a look at the Sigma 17-70? You get an excellent, very versatile lens that will fit within your $400 budget, especially if you pick up a gently used one. HTH, Heather

06-15-2009, 08:24 AM	#7
joefru Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Louisiana Photos: Gallery Posts: 210 Original Poster	The only knock I have against the Sigma is the variable aperture. Not that it's a terrible thing, but I mostly use Av mode, so keeping it constant while zooming would be nice. As for what I need, I like the kit lens, but I want something: Wider Faster Better IQ

06-15-2009, 08:53 AM	#8
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	I don't have the Sigma, but I do have the Pentax 16-45. It's very easy to use and works well at both ends of the zoom. I use it a lot indoors, where the wide side is handy, and I don't need to use a flash in a fairly well-lit room. I used it outdoors this past weekend at the zoo, and have to say it focused very quickly and was a pleasure to use. I don't think anyone would be disappointed using it in a casual setting. I'm newly returned to SLR photography, with a used K-10.

06-15-2009, 08:54 AM	#9
deejjjaaaa Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: steel city / rust belt Posts: 2,043	Originally posted by joefru I mostly use Av mode, so keeping it constant while zooming would be nice. set it to >= 4.5 and Av will keep it constant... if it is the issue.

06-15-2009, 09:03 AM	#11
ballgofar Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 87	If "wider" is the first priority, maybe you should take a look at an ultra-wide like the DA 12-24 or the Sigma 10-20 to suppliment the kit lens instead. Then later you could replace the kit with a constant f/2.8 zoom (Tamron 28-75, Sigma 24-70, Sigma 28-70) with significantly increased image quality without having to worry about covering the wide end. Otherwise, I like the DA 16-45 quite a bit myself, but I have no experience with the others so I cannot make an accurate recommendation.

06-15-2009, 09:19 AM	#12
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by deejjjaaaa set it to >= 4.5 and Av will keep it constant... if it is the issue. You can even set it at f/4, and it will be "constant" below 63mm...

06-15-2009, 09:42 AM	#13
joefru Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Louisiana Photos: Gallery Posts: 210 Original Poster	Originally posted by ballgofar If "wider" is the first priority, maybe you should take a look at an ultra-wide... That thought has definitely occurred to me... they're just so expensive! I really don't want to go much above f/4 for a max ap, so that leaves me looking at the 12-24, and I'm up in the $700s real quick.

06-15-2009, 10:34 AM	#14
joefru Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Louisiana Photos: Gallery Posts: 210 Original Poster	Originally posted by RBellavance You can even set it at f/4, and it will be "constant" below 63mm... Those are good points... The more I look at it, the more I'm leaning toward the Sigma. The 12-24 may very well be my next purchase... but I won't be able to afford a new lens for at least another year or two.

06-20-2009, 03:20 PM	#15
drec Forum Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Toronto Posts: 53	No problems at all with the "DA17-70" (which, by the way, is what I put into the search box here... and it works) which I bought 2nd-hand from Henry's in Toronto. I'm not used to such a big lens, coming from having traded in a DA21 because of more versatility... but otherwise, it's handled very well and image quality is great. Infinity and all.