[RBellavance]

It may be a great lens, but it is awfully slow for the price.

I'll grant you it's not a constant f/2.8, but can you show me anything faster than the Sigma with the same (or better) range, for any price at all ?

---

Last edited by RBellavance; 12-28-2007 at 12:58 PM.

[thibs]

At laest it has the merit of existing and providing an alternative to the DA16-45 for those wanting to live dangerously (read compatibility problems).

[vinzer]

There are rumours of a sealed K200D so that would be very neat.

Dreaaaam, dream dream dreaaaamm

I wanna dream too!

Where'd you find that rumor? I'd be glad to read it also.

[mutley]

I'll grant you it's not a constant f/2.8, but can show me anything faster than the Sigma with the same (or better) range, for any price at all ?

With Olympus coming up with f2.8 lenses all over the place, (and f2 pro lenses) Pentax doesn't need to make the design of this slow 17-70 lens locked in stone.

Now with Hoya providing lens blanks with an ability to make them far less expensive than other companies pay, plus the high profit margins in lenses, they don't need to stick with these dim f/4 expensive lenses, and should be able to make a 17-70 f2.8 constant zoom at an affordable consumer zoom price. The money would also be saved by not weather sealing them, so if they absolutely must have weather sealing, there is the 16-50mm f2.8 (though with more limited range).

If f2.8 is such an incredibly big deal (which it isn't for Hoya), then even f3.5 would be better.

Its too bad that the rumors say that it is going to be f/4 no matter what.

[thibs]

Oh no, not again...

Did you ever measured the Oly sensor size? Guess they have the choice?
Their f/2.8 lenses barely (on a DOF point of view) equal Pentax f/4 on an APS-C sensor.

Of and BTW, did you ever notice Pentax had that 16-50/2.8 available? Yes it equals (again, DOF POV) the Oly f/2 lenses. So what are you complaining about exactly?

[Kunzite]

Everything!

I really doubt that Pentax is now - by magic - able to make a 17-70 f/2.8 as small and as cheap as a f/4 version, and this without compromising the image quality. Somehow, I doubt the lens blanks cost is the one and only issue in this case

[Tom M]

17-70 and 70-300 makes for an alternate combo to 18-55 and 50-200, and, by the way, is more desired it seems..

[SCGushue]

Yes, it is still "there" but it is so tentative that there is even no a preliminary image of it. See the latest updated official roadmap below:

http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/roadmap.pdf

Do note also that in the above latest roadmap that all the "tentative" release dates have been removed. So, afterall, we have nothing but just paperware! :-(

Rice,

This roadmap will look nothing like the one that will be displayed soon. The new roadmap should include an arsenal of new lenses to compete head to head with the competition even at longer focal lengths.

They won't all get to the breakfast table together but they will be produced faster than many would think possible.

The future is rather promising. Let's just wait a little while longer to see exactly what Pentax has up it's sleeves.

Stephen

[ricardobeat]

It may be a great lens, but it is awfully slow for the price.

Awfully slow? It's 2.8-4 with almost-macro capabilities, as sharp or sharper than the 16-45, for US$350 - you can't get any better than that. What would you say about the 16-45? A complete waste of money?

As for compatibility problems, I have 2 Sigmas and both work perfectly and focus as fast as any pentax AF.

I find this really annoying. Everyone complains all the time about not having more lenses from other manufacturers, why some Sigmas are not available in KAF mount... their lenses are very good quality for the price (way better build than the DA`s), yet most people talk about compatibility problems that don't exist on the new ones, or any other abstract issues and it'sjustnotapentaxness.

[thibs]

Usually there are not many compatibility problems with lenses and cameras from the same 'era'.
If the lens comes short after the body: no problem.

If there's a firmware change (see Sigma flashes) or a new generation body, usually the problem arise (when they do) at that time.

Do not think that because you have no problem now, you won't have any later. (and reciprocally, no way to beleive you will have a problem).

[clawhammer]

honestly, when looking at that pentax roadmap I take anything that hasn't been seen physically as pentax saying, "Yeah, it'd be nice if we had this lens..." Even then, the 645D seems to be on the path to becomming vapourware to the degree of Duke Nukem Forever- always a little something tantilizing, but nothing really new.

[mawz]

With Olympus coming up with f2.8 lenses all over the place, (and f2 pro lenses) Pentax doesn't need to make the design of this slow 17-70 lens locked in stone.

Now with Hoya providing lens blanks with an ability to make them far less expensive than other companies pay, plus the high profit margins in lenses, they don't need to stick with these dim f/4 expensive lenses, and should be able to make a 17-70 f2.8 constant zoom at an affordable consumer zoom price. The money would also be saved by not weather sealing them, so if they absolutely must have weather sealing, there is the 16-50mm f2.8 (though with more limited range).

If f2.8 is such an incredibly big deal (which it isn't for Hoya), then even f3.5 would be better.

Its too bad that the rumors say that it is going to be f/4 no matter what.

Remember that Oly needs those f2 lenses to be in shouting distance for high ISO performance and DoF considerations due to the small 4/3rds sensor's poor high ISO performance and larger DoF for a give FoV (Even the E-3's 'breakthrough' high ISO performance barely matches a D200 or K10D, despite having a 2 year newer sensor and improved processing). And they're bloody expensive (Around twice the cost of a DA*).

A 17-70 f2.8 would be bloody massive, even as a DA lens (Ever held a Tamron 28-105 f2.8? Makes an FA* 28-70 look small and light).

The 17-70 f4 SDM would be a good replacement for the 16-45 in most cases (I'd miss the mm at the wide end though).

[rvannatta]

Rice,

This roadmap will look nothing like the one that will be displayed soon. The new roadmap should include an arsenal of new lenses to compete head to head with the competition even at longer focal lengths.

They won't all get to the breakfast table together but they will be produced faster than many would think possible.

The future is rather promising. Let's just wait a little while longer to see exactly what Pentax has up it's sleeves.

Stephen

The road map is all we have had. while it has some deficiencies, the most glaring is that Pentax hasn't delivered most of what's on it. I should think that everything in the future should be SDM in anticipation of the day when they can abandon the screw drive motor on the low end models. I suspect there are lots of folks like me that have a closet full of
screw drive lenses, but if we do--we aren't likely to buy the low end model body either.

[mutley]

Remember that Oly needs those f2 lenses to be in shouting distance for high ISO performance and DoF considerations due to the small 4/3rds sensor's poor high ISO performance and larger DoF

While the negatives of the 4/3 sensor are why many here don't own Oly digitals (I don't either, though I love my OM-4T), my point was that the wider apertures are extremely useful for the option of faster shutter speeds and hand held shots in low light in conjunction with SR.

And they're bloody expensive (Around twice the cost of a DA*).

The Oly 12-60 f2.8-4 is equivalent to an APS-C 16-80mm! Better on both ends than the 17-70. It is extremely expensive at $800, but it incorporates a fast ring motor (instead of Pentax low-torque, not faster, micro motors - And this Pentax will not have a motor). The 17-70 is only f/4, and will only be gear driven, but it would be great if they saw the need for that extra range.

Since the Sigma does the 17-70 range already, but gives you f2.8-3.5 through most of the range at $350, I assume the dimmer Pentax 17-70 can't be more than $350.

A 17-70 f2.8 would be bloody massive, even as a DA lens

The 17-70 f4 SDM would be a good replacement for the 16-45 in most cases (I'd miss the mm at the wide end though).

At least compromise and make it a continuous f3.5 which won't be as huge. That way it would be a great value "wow" lens, rather than one people are already explaining away, though "missing the mm at the wide end", etc. Pentax should stop aiming for "sorta OK" range zooms, and aim for "WOW" zooms at greater value while taking advantage of being owned by glass blank maker Hoya.

[ricardobeat]

Going from f4 to f3.5 surely wouldn't make me go "Wow"...

...maybe "wow that's expensive"!