How does the DA 17-70 go up against the 16-45 in IQ

LeDave · 12-05-2009, 12:53 AM

Now that the DA 16-45 f/4 is discontinued, how does the DA 17-70 f/4 go up against it? I've heard a lot of great things about the 16-45 here and there everyday; nothing about the 17-70 but only that the Sigma is better for the pricing due to it's rivaled IQ and larger f-stop in the wide-end.

So is the DA16-45 f/4 better in IQ than the DA 17-70 f/4? I am guessing it is so, and if that's the case then it's a shame the 16-45 f/4 was discontinued. Anybody here who have both (Although I doubt anybody does), can you do a side-by-side comparison shot of center and corners.

frank · 12-05-2009, 12:58 AM

I haven't done any comparison between these two side by side myself, but most reviews show that the DA 1770 is a better lens optically, except slight more distortion at the wide end.

If you can wait, the newly announced Sigam 1770/2.8-4 OS HSM is probably another good choice.

audiobomber · 12-05-2009, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by frank

I haven't done any comparison between these two side by side myself, but most reviews show that the DA 1770 is a better lens optically, except slight more distortion at the wide end.

That's what my research said too, DA 17-70 IQ slightly better than the 16-45, and 16-45 slightly better IQ than Sigma 17-70 (IQ meaning resolution, colour, contrast). The 16-45 has lower distortion than the others at the wide end.

the swede · 12-05-2009, 06:13 AM

At Welcome to Photozone! the 17-70 come out with better results overall than 16-45.

Im currently in the waiting......dont know if should by the 16-50 or "settle" for the 17-70.

rustynail925 · 12-05-2009, 06:14 AM

Im also researching about the DA 16-45mm and the Sigma 17-70mm.. The lens that i would really really want will be the Tamron 17-50 but have to disregard because of the ff issues.

ytterbium · 12-05-2009, 06:14 AM

I apologize for a slight off topic, but since we now have 18-55 WR and 16-50 WR, by discontinuing the lens in the middle Pentax should go even further and make that position WR as well, to make it more competitive.

Otherwise, with camera like k-7 you're having serious downgrade if you're not willing to push the limits and get 16-50. Basically it is voiding the K-7 WR itself, since you're removing one of the most important seals (lens/mount - a big, exposed hole).

Otherwise one may be getting something like tamron 17-50/2.8 for that price.

LeDave · 12-05-2009, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by ytterbium

I apologize for a slight off topic, but since we now have 18-55 WR and 16-50 WR, by discontinuing the lens in the middle Pentax should go even further and make that position WR as well, to make it more competitive.

Otherwise, with camera like k-7 you're having serious downgrade if you're not willing to push the limits and get 16-50. Basically it is voiding the K-7 WR itself, since you're removing one of the most important seals (lens/mount - a big, exposed hole).

Otherwise one may be getting something like tamron 17-50/2.8 for that price.

I used to have the DA* 50-135 but I sold it feeling unsure about it's future as SDM failure may be it's demise, it had no warranty as I bought it from another user.

Now for the DA* 16-50, it comes to even larger problems. More SDM failures reported on this lens, huge de-centering problem that plagues this lens. Sure it's WR but I am not going to gamble it's future, especially with only 1 year warranty for these premium DA* lenses, one year for their top lenses.

This is the reason why I am most probably going to buy a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 over the DA* 50-135, regardless of it's poorer AF and no weather-seals. As long as it's AF is guaranteed to last and a bonus is it's also full frame compatible without any problems. A shame for Pentax for not being able to make these premium line-up of DA*'s the quality that it should be, especially for a first party lens maker.

Also it's the main reason why I am avoiding the DA* 16-50. Sure I am not taking advantage of the K-7's WR, but believe it or not I have never taken it out in the rain before. I believe that I am not limiting my K-7 in any way at all. The FA Limiteds are not weather sealed, the DA Limiteds are not weather sealed for example. I'm quite sure that there are a lot of people who limit themselves to primes almost entirely.

Due to the K-x and K-m, I am guessing Pentax are planning to make more non-weathersealed bodies in the future so I don't entirely think Pentax is trying to get rid of non-WR lenses just replace them with WR ones. Whatever they're doing, I just hope it's not some hidden illusion for this price-rise that's getting closer to Canikon prices.

Last edited by LeDave; 12-05-2009 at 06:39 AM.

jsherman999 · 12-05-2009, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by LeDave

Now that the DA 16-45 f/4 is discontinued, how does the DA 17-70 f/4 go up against it? I've heard a lot of great things about the 16-45 here and there everyday; nothing about the 17-70 but only that the Sigma is better for the pricing due to it's rivaled IQ and larger f-stop in the wide-end.

So is the DA16-45 f/4 better in IQ than the DA 17-70 f/4? I am guessing it is so, and if that's the case then it's a shame the 16-45 f/4 was discontinued. Anybody here who have both (Although I doubt anybody does), can you do a side-by-side comparison shot of center and corners.

.

I chose the DA 16-45 based on my intended usage - WA walkabout, shot mostly at f/5.6 to f/11. I rarely shoot it past 20mm, because that's not why I got it. It's an inexpensive, small WA specialist with extreme sharpness and typical DA color/contrast - meaning beautiful, vivid.

The DA 17-70 looks like it's a great lens, but it's not weather-sealed, and I have to admit that I'm a bit worried about SDM. For me the 16-45 made a lot more sense.

That new Sigma is intriguing, but the stabilization doesn't add much for Pentaxians. CaNikonians, who need VR in lens, are drooling over it. The close-focus capability is very nice, as is f/2.8 from 17-20mm or so.

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is also stellar (Have it in Nikon mount.)

.

Biro · 12-05-2009, 10:43 AM

Well, all I can say is I put my money where my mouth is. I just picked up a DA 16-45mm from Willoughby's Camera in NYC for $304. That's a brand-new lens with warranty and about $100 less than it's selling at most other places right now.

Why the 16-45? Because I already have the DA* 16-50mm and, frankly, I'm concerned about SDM problems down the road and I wanted a reliable non-SDM zoom in roughly the same range. That rules out the 17-70 - although that still looks like a nice lens. Plus the 16-45, by most accounts, is still optically superior to the 18-55mm kit lens - particularly when it comes to sharpness, low distortion and color/contrast. And finally, this deal on the 16-45 was still roughly $200 less than the 17-70 right now.

audiobomber · 12-05-2009, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

I chose the DA 16-45 based on my intended usage - WA walkabout, shot mostly at f/5.6 to f/11. I rarely shoot it past 20mm, because that's not why I got it. It's an inexpensive, small WA specialist with extreme sharpness and typical DA color/contrast - meaning beautiful, vivid.
.

Similar story here. I use the 16-45 as a substitute for a bunch of primes in the 16-28mm range. It's that good; low distortion, great colour and contrast, prime sharp at F4, peaks at f5.6.

ScooterMaxi Jim · 12-05-2009, 08:11 PM

Hey LeDave, I'm in MN as well.

I have the 16-45 (but not the Sigma) and find the image quality to be at least as good as even the most-positive reviews. It is good, IMHO, because unlike most wide angle zooms (I have had several), this lens has good IQ throughout the range and at all apertures (16 at f/4 is decent, not excellent). Long end of the zoom is really under-rated even though not used often. The macro function is as good as it gets for a zoom (OK, that's a major caveat).

It probably comes down to the question of whether you want wide and portrait in the same lens. For my use, I don't see the need. One thing I can tell you for sure is that the Pentax is far-more capable at 16mm because, well, it goes down to 16 - and that seemingly slight difference does come in handy at times.

aerodave · 12-06-2009, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by ytterbium

Otherwise, with camera like k-7 you're having serious downgrade if you're not willing to push the limits and get 16-50. Basically it is voiding the K-7 WR itself, since you're removing one of the most important seals (lens/mount - a big, exposed hole).

The DA 17-70mm has a seal on the lens mount. This has come up on the forums before, though no one seems to know what the story behind it is. Presumably, the rest of the lens doesn't carry weather seals, or it would be "WR" lens. But the big hole you refer to does have a gasket on this lens.

Does that make it a good lens to show off the K-7's weather resistance? No. But it should keep the water out of your camera body, giving you only one piece of expensive hardware to fret over, instead of two.

rustynail925 · 12-06-2009, 09:39 AM

How close can you focus on the subject with the 16-45mm compare to the kit lens 18-55mm?

LeDave · 12-06-2009, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by aerodave

The DA 17-70mm has a seal on the lens mount. This has come up on the forums before, though no one seems to know what the story behind it is. Presumably, the rest of the lens doesn't carry weather seals, or it would be "WR" lens. But the big hole you refer to does have a gasket on this lens.

Does that make it a good lens to show off the K-7's weather resistance? No. But it should keep the water out of your camera body, giving you only one piece of expensive hardware to fret over, instead of two.

I believe that a seal on the mount makes it harder for dust to get inside and that's all, which is a great thing to have. Although not entirely weather-sealed, it's still a nice seal to have, in fact I believe manufacturers should start having a sealed-mount regardless whether the entire body is or not..

LeDave · 12-06-2009, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by the swede

At Welcome to Photozone! the 17-70 come out with better results overall than 16-45.

Im currently in the waiting......dont know if should by the 16-50 or "settle" for the 17-70.

I would settle for the 16-50 because the fixed 2.8 is enough for the 200 price differential. The weather-sealed and better build is just an added bonus, but at the same time worth more than that 200 differential. Sure the 17-70 is great, but at an f4, I can't say it's the best for its price. But problem with the 16-50 is you have to make sure you get a good copy without any de-centering defects that many people are encountering with this lens.

12-05-2009, 12:53 AM	#1
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	How does the DA 17-70 go up against the 16-45 in IQ Now that the DA 16-45 f/4 is discontinued, how does the DA 17-70 f/4 go up against it? I've heard a lot of great things about the 16-45 here and there everyday; nothing about the 17-70 but only that the Sigma is better for the pricing due to it's rivaled IQ and larger f-stop in the wide-end. So is the DA16-45 f/4 better in IQ than the DA 17-70 f/4? I am guessing it is so, and if that's the case then it's a shame the 16-45 f/4 was discontinued. Anybody here who have both (Although I doubt anybody does), can you do a side-by-side comparison shot of center and corners.

12-05-2009, 10:43 AM	#9
Biro Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,200	Well, all I can say is I put my money where my mouth is. I just picked up a DA 16-45mm from Willoughby's Camera in NYC for $304. That's a brand-new lens with warranty and about $100 less than it's selling at most other places right now. Why the 16-45? Because I already have the DA* 16-50mm and, frankly, I'm concerned about SDM problems down the road and I wanted a reliable non-SDM zoom in roughly the same range. That rules out the 17-70 - although that still looks like a nice lens. Plus the 16-45, by most accounts, is still optically superior to the 18-55mm kit lens - particularly when it comes to sharpness, low distortion and color/contrast. And finally, this deal on the 16-45 was still roughly $200 less than the 17-70 right now. Last edited by Biro; 12-05-2009 at 02:16 PM.

12-05-2009, 12:58 AM	#2
frank Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,202	I haven't done any comparison between these two side by side myself, but most reviews show that the DA 1770 is a better lens optically, except slight more distortion at the wide end. If you can wait, the newly announced Sigam 1770/2.8-4 OS HSM is probably another good choice.

12-05-2009, 05:57 AM	#3
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by frank I haven't done any comparison between these two side by side myself, but most reviews show that the DA 1770 is a better lens optically, except slight more distortion at the wide end. That's what my research said too, DA 17-70 IQ slightly better than the 16-45, and 16-45 slightly better IQ than Sigma 17-70 (IQ meaning resolution, colour, contrast). The 16-45 has lower distortion than the others at the wide end.

12-05-2009, 06:13 AM	#4
the swede Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 2,310	At Welcome to Photozone! the 17-70 come out with better results overall than 16-45. Im currently in the waiting......dont know if should by the 16-50 or "settle" for the 17-70.

12-05-2009, 06:14 AM	#5
rustynail925 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,551	Im also researching about the DA 16-45mm and the Sigma 17-70mm.. The lens that i would really really want will be the Tamron 17-50 but have to disregard because of the ff issues.

12-05-2009, 06:14 AM	#6
ytterbium Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,076	I apologize for a slight off topic, but since we now have 18-55 WR and 16-50 WR, by discontinuing the lens in the middle Pentax should go even further and make that position WR as well, to make it more competitive. Otherwise, with camera like k-7 you're having serious downgrade if you're not willing to push the limits and get 16-50. Basically it is voiding the K-7 WR itself, since you're removing one of the most important seals (lens/mount - a big, exposed hole). Otherwise one may be getting something like tamron 17-50/2.8 for that price.

12-05-2009, 06:33 AM	#7
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067 Original Poster	Originally posted by ytterbium I apologize for a slight off topic, but since we now have 18-55 WR and 16-50 WR, by discontinuing the lens in the middle Pentax should go even further and make that position WR as well, to make it more competitive. Otherwise, with camera like k-7 you're having serious downgrade if you're not willing to push the limits and get 16-50. Basically it is voiding the K-7 WR itself, since you're removing one of the most important seals (lens/mount - a big, exposed hole). Otherwise one may be getting something like tamron 17-50/2.8 for that price. I used to have the DA* 50-135 but I sold it feeling unsure about it's future as SDM failure may be it's demise, it had no warranty as I bought it from another user. Now for the DA* 16-50, it comes to even larger problems. More SDM failures reported on this lens, huge de-centering problem that plagues this lens. Sure it's WR but I am not going to gamble it's future, especially with only 1 year warranty for these premium DA* lenses, one year for their top lenses. This is the reason why I am most probably going to buy a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 over the DA* 50-135, regardless of it's poorer AF and no weather-seals. As long as it's AF is guaranteed to last and a bonus is it's also full frame compatible without any problems. A shame for Pentax for not being able to make these premium line-up of DA's the quality that it should be, especially for a first party lens maker. Also it's the main reason why I am avoiding the DA 16-50. Sure I am not taking advantage of the K-7's WR, but believe it or not I have never taken it out in the rain before. I believe that I am not limiting my K-7 in any way at all. The FA Limiteds are not weather sealed, the DA Limiteds are not weather sealed for example. I'm quite sure that there are a lot of people who limit themselves to primes almost entirely. Due to the K-x and K-m, I am guessing Pentax are planning to make more non-weathersealed bodies in the future so I don't entirely think Pentax is trying to get rid of non-WR lenses just replace them with WR ones. Whatever they're doing, I just hope it's not some hidden illusion for this price-rise that's getting closer to Canikon prices. Last edited by LeDave; 12-05-2009 at 06:39 AM.

12-05-2009, 09:46 AM	#8
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by LeDave Now that the DA 16-45 f/4 is discontinued, how does the DA 17-70 f/4 go up against it? I've heard a lot of great things about the 16-45 here and there everyday; nothing about the 17-70 but only that the Sigma is better for the pricing due to it's rivaled IQ and larger f-stop in the wide-end. So is the DA16-45 f/4 better in IQ than the DA 17-70 f/4? I am guessing it is so, and if that's the case then it's a shame the 16-45 f/4 was discontinued. Anybody here who have both (Although I doubt anybody does), can you do a side-by-side comparison shot of center and corners. . I chose the DA 16-45 based on my intended usage - WA walkabout, shot mostly at f/5.6 to f/11. I rarely shoot it past 20mm, because that's not why I got it. It's an inexpensive, small WA specialist with extreme sharpness and typical DA color/contrast - meaning beautiful, vivid. The DA 17-70 looks like it's a great lens, but it's not weather-sealed, and I have to admit that I'm a bit worried about SDM. For me the 16-45 made a lot more sense. That new Sigma is intriguing, but the stabilization doesn't add much for Pentaxians. CaNikonians, who need VR in lens, are drooling over it. The close-focus capability is very nice, as is f/2.8 from 17-20mm or so. The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is also stellar (Have it in Nikon mount.) .

12-05-2009, 11:34 AM	#10
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by jsherman999 I chose the DA 16-45 based on my intended usage - WA walkabout, shot mostly at f/5.6 to f/11. I rarely shoot it past 20mm, because that's not why I got it. It's an inexpensive, small WA specialist with extreme sharpness and typical DA color/contrast - meaning beautiful, vivid. . Similar story here. I use the 16-45 as a substitute for a bunch of primes in the 16-28mm range. It's that good; low distortion, great colour and contrast, prime sharp at F4, peaks at f5.6.

12-05-2009, 08:11 PM	#11
ScooterMaxi Jim Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,520	Hey LeDave, I'm in MN as well. I have the 16-45 (but not the Sigma) and find the image quality to be at least as good as even the most-positive reviews. It is good, IMHO, because unlike most wide angle zooms (I have had several), this lens has good IQ throughout the range and at all apertures (16 at f/4 is decent, not excellent). Long end of the zoom is really under-rated even though not used often. The macro function is as good as it gets for a zoom (OK, that's a major caveat). It probably comes down to the question of whether you want wide and portrait in the same lens. For my use, I don't see the need. One thing I can tell you for sure is that the Pentax is far-more capable at 16mm because, well, it goes down to 16 - and that seemingly slight difference does come in handy at times.

12-06-2009, 08:22 AM	#12
aerodave Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Dayton, OH Posts: 365	Originally posted by ytterbium Otherwise, with camera like k-7 you're having serious downgrade if you're not willing to push the limits and get 16-50. Basically it is voiding the K-7 WR itself, since you're removing one of the most important seals (lens/mount - a big, exposed hole). The DA 17-70mm has a seal on the lens mount. This has come up on the forums before, though no one seems to know what the story behind it is. Presumably, the rest of the lens doesn't carry weather seals, or it would be "WR" lens. But the big hole you refer to does have a gasket on this lens. Does that make it a good lens to show off the K-7's weather resistance? No. But it should keep the water out of your camera body, giving you only one piece of expensive hardware to fret over, instead of two.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-06-2009, 09:39 AM	#13
rustynail925 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,551	How close can you focus on the subject with the 16-45mm compare to the kit lens 18-55mm?

12-06-2009, 09:45 AM	#14
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067 Original Poster	Originally posted by aerodave The DA 17-70mm has a seal on the lens mount. This has come up on the forums before, though no one seems to know what the story behind it is. Presumably, the rest of the lens doesn't carry weather seals, or it would be "WR" lens. But the big hole you refer to does have a gasket on this lens. Does that make it a good lens to show off the K-7's weather resistance? No. But it should keep the water out of your camera body, giving you only one piece of expensive hardware to fret over, instead of two. I believe that a seal on the mount makes it harder for dust to get inside and that's all, which is a great thing to have. Although not entirely weather-sealed, it's still a nice seal to have, in fact I believe manufacturers should start having a sealed-mount regardless whether the entire body is or not..

12-06-2009, 09:48 AM	#15
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067 Original Poster	Originally posted by the swede At Welcome to Photozone! the 17-70 come out with better results overall than 16-45. Im currently in the waiting......dont know if should by the 16-50 or "settle" for the 17-70. I would settle for the 16-50 because the fixed 2.8 is enough for the 200 price differential. The weather-sealed and better build is just an added bonus, but at the same time worth more than that 200 differential. Sure the 17-70 is great, but at an f4, I can't say it's the best for its price. But problem with the 16-50 is you have to make sure you get a good copy without any de-centering defects that many people are encountering with this lens.