Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-26-2011, 11:55 PM   #16
Site Supporter
yyyzzz's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 509
Used the DA17-70. Other than a dead SDM motor, I have been pleased with the lens. It is not much superior to the kit lens in terms of resolution. But it does give a larger range and slightly better color. Turning on lens adjustment, the camera will adjust for some of the problems such as distortion and CA.

I have to say it is not a prime lens and it should be treated as such. It is more sensitive to the ambient environment such as sun light and color reflection from the objects you are shooting at. IMQ degrades in low light and at largest aperture more than prime lenses. My experience is that IMQ is better for shorter distance than for objects that are far away.

I have skipped DA*16-50 and plan to use the combo between the DA17-70 and DA*55 instead. Zoom lenses can never beat primes in low light and in indoor environment. My next target is DA*60-250 and skip DA*50-135. I have a few primes to fill the gap.

10-28-2011, 03:05 AM   #17
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by yyyzzz Quote
My next target is DA*60-250 and skip DA*50-135. I have a few primes to fill the gap.
Well, don't try the 50-135 then. You'd want to buy it
10-28-2011, 12:21 PM   #18
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,642
QuoteOriginally posted by kevinf7 Quote
Out of curiosity do any other 17-70 owners also experience the same IQ results as those shown in the article?
I really liked the pictures from my DA 17-70, much more so than the *16-50 and 16-45, which I owned all at the same time. The photos were very sharp and had great color, and I loved the range of the lens.

I wish there was a happy ending to this story though. When the lens was three months old the SDM went out. I had it repaired and sold both it and the *16-50. I'm happy with the 16-45 and occasionally wish it was a bit longer, but it's reliable and almost as good as the 17-70 was.
06-21-2012, 08:00 PM   #19
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dallas TX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 90
Man, I have the Pentax 16-45, but after reading the photozone (and other) review of the Pentax 17-70, have decided to sell my 16-45 for the supposedly build and optically superior Pentax 17-70. However, I don't have teh time (or patience) to play "lottery" with lens Quality Control! I am seriously hoping that Pentax gets it right with me on the first try! (I do have other Pentax optics such as the FA43, and DA 70 Limited, both outstandingly sharp lenses, so I know Pentax lens quality can be up with the best!

06-21-2012, 08:37 PM   #20
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,203
That's too bad because 17-70mm is such a useful range...between the spotty IQ and SDM failures I wouldn't want to risk my money on one.
06-21-2012, 11:10 PM   #21
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dallas TX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 90
That's good to hear, Britt! I am still thinking I should sell my 16-45 and go with the Pentax 17-70. I plan to also acquire a Sigma 8-16 to cover the ultra-wide end. I figure the 8-16 and 17-70 would be a nice travel kit with my K-5.
06-22-2012, 01:56 AM   #22
Pentaxian
Mike.P's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South Coast .. UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,734
QuoteOriginally posted by Ponosby Britt Quote
Actually, the Pentax 17-70 is a very good lens, wonderful image quality, end to end, with constant aperture so its very handy for manual exposure. I'm not sure quite what to think about a review written in 2008 but it is 2012. Difficult to appreciate the negative comments here without examples of its reputed unreliable mediocrity. All words, no photographs or as the Americans say, all hat, no cattle.
Totally agree ... my 17-70mm gets a lot more use than the 16-50mm f2.8

Great first post btw.
06-22-2012, 09:55 AM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,705
QuoteOriginally posted by Ponosby Britt Quote
Actually, the Pentax 17-70 is a very good lens, wonderful image quality, end to end, with constant aperture so its very handy for manual exposure. I'm not sure quite what to think about a review written in 2008 but it is 2012. Difficult to appreciate the negative comments here without examples of its reputed unreliable mediocrity. All words, no photographs or as the Americans say, all hat, no cattle.
Well, you could always check this forum's lens reviews section, and also threads about the 17-70. Your statement, "All words, no photographs or as the Americans say, all hat, no cattle." maybe should be changed to, "I didn't bother to check outside this thread."

WRT the 2008 review, I'd bet that the sharpness problem could be at least partially rectified with some in-body lens calibration.

06-22-2012, 11:02 AM   #24
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,642
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
Well, you could always check this forum's lens reviews section, and also threads about the 17-70. Your statement, "All words, no photographs or as the Americans say, all hat, no cattle." maybe should be changed to, "I didn't bother to check outside this thread."

WRT the 2008 review, I'd bet that the sharpness problem could be at least partially rectified with some in-body lens calibration.
+1. I was tempted to reply, but didn't. Now that I'm publicly agreeing to your statement I guess I'll include my reply.

I could have included a photograph of my 17-70 with a dead SDM, but that picture would look identical to one of my lens when it worked properly so I didn't see the point!
06-24-2012, 12:52 AM   #25
Veteran Member
cbaytan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Trabzon/Turkey
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,010
QuoteOriginally posted by stevelink Quote
Man, I have the Pentax 16-45, but after reading the photozone (and other) review of the Pentax 17-70, have decided to sell my 16-45 for the supposedly
I was tempted with the 17-70 coverage and I carried out same plan 2 years ago and returned 17-70 in no time, if you ask why I found 17-70 is a soft mediocre lens, well at least my copy of course.
06-24-2012, 03:34 AM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 841
I've had my DA 17-70 for some years now and I'm still happy with it.
Useful range, good build quality, nice colors, sharper than the 18-55. It's my most used lens.
06-26-2012, 05:46 AM   #27
Pentaxian
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,021
I made a 100% crop of the center section of a photo I made with the 17-70 at 70mm and f/4. Unedited, unprocessed, directly converted to JPEG:


This is the entire frame:


Keeping in mind this is taken at its limits for both aperture and focal length, I find it quite sharp! The corners are no doubt softer - but that's to be expected. And judging from the entire frame, they're not bad.

This is my second sample though - the first one was softer. That's what I hate about lenses. You do seem to have to play roulette.
07-04-2012, 08:28 PM   #28
New Member
RKIT's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 11
IMHO DA 17-70 is very good lens and their focal range is useful for all traveller who need only 1 len around the world.
07-04-2012, 08:45 PM   #29
Banned




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,683
QuoteOriginally posted by Ponosby Britt Quote
Actually, the Pentax 17-70 is a very good lens, wonderful image quality, end to end, with constant aperture so its very handy for manual exposure. I'm not sure quite what to think about a review written in 2008 but it is 2012. Difficult to appreciate the negative comments here without examples of its reputed unreliable mediocrity. All words, no photographs or as the Americans say, all hat, no cattle.
Almost all things are easily described with words.

For instance... One could describe a plane such as a Concorde without pics; and do quite well just with words. Would it be more effective with pics? Perhaps, but not always.
07-05-2012, 10:42 PM   #30
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dallas TX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 90
Nice shots! I am pretty much convinced that the Pentax 17-70 is a good lens. However, I'm still not sure if it is sharper than the Pentax 16-45 at a given aperture/focal length! My copy of the 16-45 is quite sharp on my K-5 (for a zoom). I just wanted the reach of the 17-70, while not sacrificing sharpness. Thank you.
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!
17-70mm, lens, pentax news, pentax rumors, review
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tried to re-review my Kx KxBlaze Site Suggestions and Help 2 08-25-2010 01:27 PM
KX IS HERE its on DP review! lurchlarson Pentax News and Rumors 65 09-18-2009 04:42 AM
From DP Review Aristophanes General Talk 3 03-08-2009 08:00 PM
DP Review modifies K2000 Review jeffkrol Pentax News and Rumors 8 02-05-2009 07:44 PM
Photography Review K10D Review benjikan Pentax DSLR Discussion 29 03-04-2007 12:34 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:44 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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