Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Which do you prefer?
18-55 646.15%
17-70 753.85%
Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-04-2010, 08:59 AM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Scarborough, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 488
18-55 versus 17-70?

How much of an upgrade would getting a 17-70 be? compared to say... a DA 18-55 II or the DA L version? Which one would you favour?

04-04-2010, 10:38 AM   #2
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,157
For the moment, money is the only thing holding me from buying a 17-70. As a walkaround, I am consistently finding the 18-55 kit lens just a little short and am changing lenses. I'm not knocking the kit lens. I think it does a decent job. I would not buy another version of the kit lens. If I was to purchase something else in that size range it would be the 16-50 which is a sharper and faster zoom. I think that for my uses, a 17-70 would work nicely. I didn't vote because I haven't bought one yet and am looking on the used market and may very well end up with a 24-70 or a 28-70. For my uses, the longer reach is more useful.
04-04-2010, 10:49 AM   #3
PFH
Site Supporter
PFH's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 482
After all reports, I donīt trust SDM so I have kept my 18-55 WR.
04-04-2010, 11:21 AM   #4
Veteran Member
henryjing's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 467
The weight should be considered, I choose the 18-55

04-04-2010, 12:07 PM   #5
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
if you don't need a 70mm focal length, the DA16-45 is a great upgrade.
04-04-2010, 01:32 PM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Scarborough, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 488
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
if you don't need a 70mm focal length, the DA16-45 is a great upgrade.
I think I'd need that 70mm, but in terms of IQ? which is better?
04-04-2010, 01:44 PM   #7
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by NecroticSoldier Quote
I think I'd need that 70mm, but in terms of IQ? which is better?
the 16-45. but both lenses are very good and no slouch. for a one lens setup, the 17-70 would be great and much more handy to use. as for a 70mm, having a DA70, Sigma 70 or FA77 are great for such focal length. size wise, the Pentax LTD's are great. IQ performance and macro quality, the Sigma 70 is great but big.
04-04-2010, 01:49 PM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Scarborough, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 488
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
the 16-45. but both lenses are very good and no slouch. for a one lens setup, the 17-70 would be great and much more handy to use. as for a 70mm, having a DA70, Sigma 70 or FA77 are great for such focal length. size wise, the Pentax LTD's are great. IQ performance and macro quality, the Sigma 70 is great but big.
Oh I see!... but I can't seem to find a set up that would include a 16-45... I seem to lean towards being a zoom person because it's very convenient... So I was wondering probably a 12-24, 17-70, 55-300 as a set up... being able to overlap each other's focal lengths.

04-04-2010, 01:52 PM   #9
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by NecroticSoldier Quote
Oh I see!... but I can't seem to find a set up that would include a 16-45... I seem to lean towards being a zoom person because it's very convenient... So I was wondering probably a 12-24, 17-70, 55-300 as a set up... being able to overlap each other's focal lengths.
that's not bad and actually is a very nice set. I was just saying a 16-45 and a 70+mm prime if it were me. mind you that I'm more of a prime user and just own the zooms for occasions where it requires such use.
04-04-2010, 01:59 PM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Scarborough, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 488
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
that's not bad and actually is a very nice set. I was just saying a 16-45 and a 70+mm prime if it were me. mind you that I'm more of a prime user and just own the zooms for occasions where it requires such use.
Oh, ;D that sounds good then. I'm not totally out of my mind. For now I'm just going to aim for a 18-55 + 55-300 though or a DA 17-70 + Tamron 70-300. Hehe, the only primes I use is... 50mm and 135mm and maybe a TC.
04-04-2010, 02:22 PM   #11
Veteran Member
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,118
QuoteOriginally posted by NecroticSoldier Quote
Oh I see!... but I can't seem to find a set up that would include a 16-45... I seem to lean towards being a zoom person because it's very convenient... So I was wondering probably a 12-24, 17-70, 55-300 as a set up... being able to overlap each other's focal lengths.
You could get the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 to cover the (small) gap. Very sharp and a great portrait lens.
04-04-2010, 02:25 PM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Scarborough, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 488
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
You could get the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 to cover the (small) gap. Very sharp and a great portrait lens.
Wow, great suggestion! I like your set up btw.
04-04-2010, 02:53 PM   #13
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
You could get the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 to cover the (small) gap. Very sharp and a great portrait lens.
I think this is a better suggestion since there is no overlap at the wide end and with a longer focal length at 75mm. not to mention a fast aperture opening at f2.8. the DA55-300 would probably cover and be used from 100-300mm.
04-04-2010, 03:07 PM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Scarborough, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 488
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
I think this is a better suggestion since there is no overlap at the wide end and with a longer focal length at 75mm. not to mention a fast aperture opening at f2.8. the DA55-300 would probably cover and be used from 100-300mm.
Yeah it does sound pretty good,but that means I'll have maybe 4 lense set up? Gah so many lenses, but I don't want 9999999999 lenses.
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!
da, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1.4x TC + 55-300 versus 1.7x TC + 55-300 versus 55-300mm + cropping. Pentaxor Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 09-05-2009 02:41 PM
DA versus DA* navcom Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 12-22-2008 07:16 AM
Versus Teo D'Or Post Your Photos! 1 05-21-2008 07:52 AM
16-50 versus 12-24? Bart Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 12-14-2007 05:00 AM
mm versus $$$ sandpiper6 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 01-23-2007 01:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:01 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