17-70/4 review, what the .. ?

yyyzzz · 10-26-2011, 11:55 PM

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.

thibs · 10-28-2011, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by yyyzzz

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

builttospill · 10-28-2011, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by kevinf7

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.

stevelink · 06-21-2012, 08:00 PM

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!

cali92rs · 06-21-2012, 08:37 PM

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.

Ponosby Britt · 06-21-2012, 09:10 PM - **1 Like**

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.

stevelink · 06-21-2012, 11:10 PM

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.

Mike.P® · 06-22-2012, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by Ponosby Britt

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.

**luftfluss** · 06-22-2012, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Ponosby Britt

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.

builttospill · 06-22-2012, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by luftfluss

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!

cbaytan · 06-24-2012, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by stevelink

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.

RMabo · 06-24-2012, 03:34 AM

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.

starbase218 · 06-26-2012, 05:46 AM

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.

RKIT · 07-04-2012, 08:28 PM

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.

Medium FormatPro · 07-04-2012, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Ponosby Britt

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.

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

10-26-2011, 11:55 PM	#16
yyyzzz Veteran Member 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 DA16-50 and plan to use the combo between the DA17-70 and DA55 instead. Zoom lenses can never beat primes in low light and in indoor environment. My next target is DA60-250 and skip DA50-135. I have a few primes to fill the gap.

10-28-2011, 03:05 AM	#17
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by yyyzzz My next target is DA60-250 and skip DA50-135. 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
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	Originally posted by kevinf7 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
stevelink Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Dallas TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 92	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
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	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, 09:10 PM - 1 Like	#21
Ponosby Britt Closed Account Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 227	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.

06-21-2012, 11:10 PM	#22
stevelink Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Dallas TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 92	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	#23
Mike.P® Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Milton, Hampshire, UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,154	Originally posted by Ponosby Britt 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	#24
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,619	Originally posted by Ponosby Britt 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	#25
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	Originally posted by luftfluss 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	#26
cbaytan Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Trabzon/Turkey Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,010	Originally posted by stevelink 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	#27
RMabo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 845	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	#28
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	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	#29
RKIT New Member 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	#30
Medium FormatPro Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh Photos: Albums Posts: 1,668	Originally posted by Ponosby Britt 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.