Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-04-2008, 06:02 PM   #61
Veteran Member
Tom M's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lincoln Park, NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 782
rparmar - not worth the few words I'll type to tell you it's not worth the argument but.. because you obviously believe that Pentax is going to produce a replacement lens that's worse than the current, already stellar and prime like DA 16-45.. Go shoot Canikon or something.. lol

06-04-2008, 07:13 PM   #62
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,455
Chasseur d'Images **** rating, DA 17-70

Chasseur d'Images gave the 17-70 four stars ****, the same rating as the DA* 16-50 and DA* 50-135.
  • The lens vignettes at the short and long ends of the focal range, not in the middle of the range.
  • The black mark of the lens is CA in the first half of the focal range.
  • Exceptionally sharp to 50 mm, then needs two stops closed
  • Quality and Potential are much superior to a standard zoom such as the 18-55.
  • Add in SDM, even without quick touch up, and weather proofing and it is a very good "expert" choice.
Freely translated by me to give the sense of the review.

I see no problems with the lens that cannot be lived with, except the missing mm at the short end. It isn't however worth swapping my DA* 16-50 for it, (I got a good one, first try) despite the extra 20mm at the long end.
06-04-2008, 07:42 PM   #63
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brazil
Posts: 377
Longer, heavier, slower and more expensive than the Sigma! And I doubt it will surpass it's quality, what's the point?
06-04-2008, 08:09 PM   #64
Veteran Member
clawhammer's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Logan, Utah
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 976
QuoteOriginally posted by Torphoto Quote
What the hell is this stupid bickering about! Why are we making such a fuss over a new lens and making claims like over priced and poor IQ when it's not even fuly tested or on the shelves as yet!


Lets see how the lens performs and the street prices before we condem it! hell this is worse than the condemnation when the K20D came out and it's just 1 new lens!
What he said. I'm reminded of a post I read over at dpreview by a sony owner. He said that the pentax forum was just as bad as the sony forum in regards to whining over price. That's what I like about this place- most people seemed level-headed.

I think it's ludicrous to decry this lens with only a single review ever done of it, and as has been pointed out many times MSRP != street price. Unless you're backpacking for 30 miles, are you really going to notice the extra 30 grams of weight over the Sigma? To put it in perspecitve, 30 grams is the weight of the hood! It's not that much weight! And Length! Pentax: 3.7 inches, Sigma: 3.2 inches! Half a bloomin inch!

[/RANT]

We now return you to your regularly schedule speculations... This IS the rumor forum, after all.

06-04-2008, 08:40 PM   #65
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brazil
Posts: 377
QuoteOriginally posted by clawhammer Quote
What he said. I'm reminded of a post I read over at dpreview by a sony owner. He said that the pentax forum was just as bad as the sony forum in regards to whining over price. That's what I like about this place- most people seemed level-headed.

I think it's ludicrous to decry this lens with only a single review ever done of it, and as has been pointed out many times MSRP != street price. Unless you're backpacking for 30 miles, are you really going to notice the extra 30 grams of weight over the Sigma? To put it in perspecitve, 30 grams is the weight of the hood! It's not that much weight! And Length! Pentax: 3.7 inches, Sigma: 3.2 inches! Half a bloomin inch!

[/RANT]

We now return you to your regularly schedule speculations... This IS the rumor forum, after all.
The Sigma is just a centimeter "fatter" than other lenses but it feels way bigger, and it is already a bit heavy (doesn't go that well with the K100D). I was hoping the Pentax, being an F4, would be a lighter alternative.

But, what I really mean is actually exactly what I said. What's the point? What is it offering over the Sigma (if it's image quality, then it will be an instant classic)? Did they made it just to have a similar Pentax-branded offer?
06-05-2008, 12:21 AM   #66
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,246
QuoteOriginally posted by ricardobeat Quote
Longer, heavier, slower and more expensive than the Sigma! And I doubt it will surpass it's quality, what's the point?
Do you mean those crappy variable aperture lenses? Of course if you never use manual mode you don't care the hell but actually constant aperture is a feature in case you missed it.

As for QC problem I find that funny to notice that point when comparing to a Sigma.

Performance: well you idn't test it so why whine?
06-05-2008, 06:37 AM   #67
Veteran Member
AndrewG NY's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chappaqua, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 679
I don't think I'm alone here in thinking that these specs are excellent. For me It is at the longer end (portraits, action, more susceptible to camera shake) where the speed is most appreciated--and the Sigma is slower here. I like the smaller 67mm filter size as well. At the shortest focal lengths I would probably stop down anyway as you're not often isolating backgrounds at very wide angles--usually here I want the extra depth of field. I'm also not going to moan about 17mm vs. 16mm--even though the difference might be somewhat noticeable, honestly how many images will *work* at 16mm but not at 17mm?

I'm hoping that the build quality will be an improvement over the 16-45--more akin to at least 50-200 (I haven't yet handled 55-300) or even dare I hope 12-24 (not counting on that).
06-05-2008, 07:11 AM   #68
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
@Tom M: That's your best response to the interesting debate on where this lens fits in the Pentax line-up? "Go shoot Canikon or something"? Do you think I have to slavishly love every Pentax lens or I am somehow not worthy? I guess I am not enough of a fanboy for you, with my 600 posts, hundreds of images, and dozen blog articles all promoting (for free) the system you apparently love.

And would it really be terrible if I did shoot Nikon? Would that make me less of a person in your eyes? Sheesh man, get a grip.

06-05-2008, 07:57 AM   #69
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Owego, NY
Posts: 976
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Do you mean those crappy variable aperture lenses? Of course if you never use manual mode you don't care the hell but actually constant aperture is a feature in case you missed it.

As for QC problem I find that funny to notice that point when comparing to a Sigma.

Performance: well you idn't test it so why whine?
I can see f/2.8 constant aperture being a feature, but I cannot see f/4 constant aperture being a feature, at least not compared to a lens that is f/2.8-4.5 (and that 4.5 only in the last few millimeters of its zoom).
06-05-2008, 05:15 PM   #70
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ft. Myers Florida
Posts: 169
QuoteOriginally posted by Tom M Quote
This is the DA 16-45 f4 replacement. The DA 17-70 f4 is supposedly sharper, better CA/PF control and of course has SDM focusing than that of the DA 16-45 f4 it replaces.

So, when you can no longer purchase the DA 16-45 and don't need to spend the $$ on the DA* 16-50, this will be your only choice.

Being that the DA 16-45 f4 was consistently selling at $409, the price of MSRP $599 seems completely reasonable for a better, faster, sharper DA 16-45..

I agree and am willing to pay $400 for the lens.
06-05-2008, 05:40 PM   #71
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Georgia
Posts: 376
I don't see whats wrong with this lens. I've already sold my 16-45 in anticipation of it.
06-06-2008, 06:51 AM   #72
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,530
I'm not sure if this was posted yet but Ned Bunnell's blog has some sample photos from this lens along with side-by-side pictures with the 16-45:

NED BUNNELL: DA 17-70 Sample Photos
06-06-2008, 07:57 AM   #73
Veteran Member
Tom M's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lincoln Park, NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 782
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
@Tom M: That's your best response to the interesting debate on where this lens fits in the Pentax line-up? "Go shoot Canikon or something"? Do you think I have to slavishly love every Pentax lens or I am somehow not worthy? I guess I am not enough of a fanboy for you, with my 600 posts, hundreds of images, and dozen blog articles all promoting (for free) the system you apparently love.

And would it really be terrible if I did shoot Nikon? Would that make me less of a person in your eyes? Sheesh man, get a grip.
rparmar - it has nothing to do with being a fanboy or anything, I criticize as much as I praise Pentax - This is about you being too damn ignorant to accept the fact this lens is a replacement for the 16-45 and it's priced correctly at an MSRP of $599 - considering it will sell for $400 at Adorama and B&H within weeks of being released. Combine the good price with SDM, a weather seal around the mount, better CA and PF performance as well as more useable focal length, and only some twit who wants to complain is going to argue those facts as being negative. And you sir, are that twit.

Last edited by Tom M; 06-06-2008 at 08:02 AM.
06-06-2008, 08:11 AM   #74
Not Registered
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Tom M Quote
rparmar - it has nothing to do with being a fanboy or anything, I criticize as much as I praise Pentax - This is about you being too damn ignorant to accept the fact this lens is a replacement for the 16-45 and it's priced correctly at an MSRP of $599 - considering it will sell for $400 at Adorama and B&H within weeks of being released. Combine the good price with SDM, a weather seal around the mount, better CA and PF performance as well as more useable focal length, and only some twit who wants to complain is going to argue those facts as being negative. And you sir, are that twit.
Just a couple of questions:

How do you know this:"it's priced correctly at an MSRP of $599 - considering it will sell for $400 at Adorama and B&H within weeks of being released"

And why do you think that you are right on this:"Combine the good price ???with SDM, a weather seal around the mount, better CA and PF performance ??? as well as more useable focal length"

Dont get me wrong. Both are logical affirmations but I dont see any reliable source of information that can lead you to call ignorant to other people just cos they disagree with you.
06-06-2008, 08:48 AM   #75
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by Tom M Quote
This is about you being too damn ignorant to accept the fact this lens is a replacement for the 16-45 and it's priced correctly at an MSRP of $599 - considering it will sell for $400 at Adorama and B&H within weeks of being released.
I did not criticize the price. You must be confusing me with someone else. In any case the 16-45 will always be cheaper so your point is not relevant. Oh, and insulting me... that really makes you look special.

QuoteOriginally posted by Tom M Quote
Combine the good price with SDM, a weather seal around the mount, better CA and PF performance as well as more useable focal length, and only some twit who wants to complain is going to argue those facts as being negative.
Better performance from which independent test? How much better do you expect it to be to justify an upgrade? There is nothing wrong with the IQ on the 16-45 as it is. Oh and only one seal does not a weather-sealed lens make. Pentax do not claim it as one -- why do you? And whether it has more usable focal length given that it is bulkier than the 16-45 is a matter of opinion. My opinion differs from yours. Get used to it.

QuoteOriginally posted by Tom M Quote
And you sir, are that twit.
Bad logic since I did not do what you said I needed to do to make me a twit. I think you should look up "straw man".

Your inability to argue your point rationally, accept that others have different opinions, and comprehend what you read means you have only one recourse... insults. And not even an appropriate insult. Better expand your vocabulary if you really want to sling mud with the best of them.

(I will not bother replying to any further flame bait and apologise to the other readers for the bandwidth already wasted on this pointless exchange.)
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, da 17-70mm f/4, pentax, pentax da 17-70mm, pentax news, pentax rumors, press, price, release
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 17-70mm f4 SDM lens (CONUS) raymeedc Sold Items 2 09-14-2010 02:58 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 17-70mm SDM lens TaiChiTom Sold Items 4 11-29-2009 03:38 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 17-70mm SDM Lens jglover Sold Items 6 11-04-2009 02:08 PM
About the new Pentax DA 17-70mm SDM Lens gubak Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 06-04-2008 12:05 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:51 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