[lotech]

Hi there,

I am looking for replacement for my well used and worn 16-50mm/f2.8, since I decided to skip FF so there are 2 lenses in my mind, the 16-85mm/f3.5-5.6 and the older 17-70mm/f4, I am more inclined to the latter for some reasons. The 17-70mm is cheaper, little brighter with fixed aperture, the range is just right for me, and new old stock still available, I don’t see too much info about the 16-85mm not even Youtube review I wonder why.


Ever since I started shooting with film long time ago I found there is always a short zoom like 28-85mm (FF) in every brand, this range is great for everyday use from landscape, groups to portrait, together with a 70-210mm to complete a basic kit. But since the digital era a wider and shorter zoom like 24-70mm/f2.8 (FF) has become de facto standard and most wanted in the kit, I don’t see the reason why. I know all such lenses are made to the highest standard the best in the line, but I found the range is ‘embarrassing’ does not really suit everyday use at least for me.

For general use 28mm for landscape is about right, but 70mm is bit too short for portrait lacks the isolation needed. In my book 85-105mm or even 135mm is best range for portrait, so that in every brand there is always a 85mm/f1.4 but rarely heard of 75mm or below, I know there is one or two but not commonly mentioned and used. I will not spend again on the first class standard zoom of today but a cheaper more useful 2nd class one. I know the 2 stops advantage is worth the extra money for some, but I am not a bokeh-holic, and nowadays digital is really great at high ISO, future more, more depth is most welcome ex. in close up shoot than super shallow DOF, or we shoot wide open simply because it is wide ?

[AstroDave]

On my K-3, it's the 18-135

On my K-1, it's the 28-105

If I'm out for a day hike and on vacation, these are the must-haves.

Maybe not THE best lenses, but both offer a great range of focal lengths and WR (if that matters).

[hcc]

Tough question and you will get many answers.
My everyday lens is the one that I feel to use. I am a prime lens shooter and I tend to take the lens that I feel right. Today, my Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f1.4 is my all day lens. Last Saturday, it was my DA15mm Ltd. I would say that my 'all day' lens has a focal length between 15mm and 77 mm, generally. (I use a APS-C camera.). Below or above this focal length range, I use more specialised lenses that I would not call my every day lens.
I fully appreciate that it may not help you directly, but these primes are my every day lenses...
My 5 cents.

[monochrome]

There really isn’t one. The lens on my camera is whatever was on it when I last put it away. Often that is the 24-70 on my K-1 or the 28-105 on my KP, but every time I go out I change the other lenses in the camera bag, so what’s on a camera on a given day depends on what was on it the prior day.

[Kobie]

I use combination of the the following..
Good weather = Sigma 17-70 F/2.8-4 DC Macro HSM and/or Pentax HD DA 55-300 F/4.5-6.3 ED WR PLM
Bad weather or just heading out and walking around shooting = DA 18-135 F/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR and/or Pentax HD DA 55-300 F/4.5-6.3 ED WR PLM
I always have my 55-300 PLM with me.

[Kozlok]

The 16-85 is a nice lens. It's similar in sharpness to the 16-50.

If WR isn't important to you, I agree with Kobie, the Sigma 17-70 is quite nice as well, and available used significantly cheaper than the Pentax lens. One thing I really like about the sigma is the focusing is quite close. I like to take close-focus wide-angle shots, and the Sigma really shines at that. If you get the old screw-drive version, they are very inexpensive.

I have and use all three; the 16-50, the 16-85 and the screw-drive Sigma 17-70. I use the 16-50 for low-light, the 16-85 outside when I can't count on the weather (for example when traveling), and I use the Sigma when I want closer focusing. I also have the 18-135, and it's a fine one-lens travel companion, but I prefer the 16-85 almost always.

[ramseybuckeye]

Similar to Monochrome, today I used the DA 20-40, Tamron 90 macro, DA 55-300PLM, and the DA 15. Tomorrow who knows. My most used are the DA20-40 and the DA55-300. Except sometimes I will use the DA*300 or the DA 15 more. I have the 18-135 but it does not get used as much as it used to. I find myself shooting more at the wide and long ends, not as much at normal and short tele, at least lately. Weather sealing does make a difference for me, it's preferred since I shoot mostly outside. I think you are doing the right thing looking at what you shoot, and I think you may have your mind set, just making sure nobody throws you a curve. I've never used either of the two you are considering, I read nothing but good things about the 16-85 and it is weather sealed. In the user reviews here the 16-85 is rated higher. The most I have read about the 17-70 here is SDM failure, but hopefully new ones sitting out there have a better motor than earlier ones. I;m sure either lens will work out OK, good luck!

[nosliwmit]

My FA 43mm f1.9 Ltd has become my go-to lens on my K-1 Mark II. It's a great focal length if I want to bring just my camera and a single lens. And it's a fantastic lens.

[jatrax]

the 16-85mm/f3.5-5.6 and the older 17-70mm/f4,

The 16-85 lives on my K-3II. The 17-70 is an older SDM lens. I don't remember it having as many issues as some other SDM lenses but.......

The 16-85 is 1mm wider and 15mm longer. It focuses quickly, silently and surely. It is weather sealed and a modern design. It has HD coatings instead of the older SMC.

The 17-70 is constant f/4 and maybe cheaper.

Unless budget is the primary concern I think the 16-85 is the better buy. I considered both and bought the 16-85. YMMV.

[Alex645]

I am looking for replacement for my well used and worn 16-50mm/f2.8, since I decided to skip FF so there are 2 lenses in my mind, the 16-85mm/f3.5-5.6 and the older 17-70mm/f4, I am more inclined to the latter for some reasons. The 17-70mm is cheaper, little brighter with fixed aperture, the range is just right for me, and new old stock still available, I don’t see too much info about the 16-85mm not even Youtube review I wonder why.

I would go with the 16-85mm because I prefer both the wider angle at 16mm and the longer end at 85mm. Yes, the 17-70mm has its merits, but when I use a zoom, I often find myself at the extremes and in this case one lens can do what the other can't.

When I use a zoom, convenience is often the priority. Otherwise, I'd be using my primes for speed or IQ.

With that said, if you don't need 16mm or 70-85mm, the Sigma 17-70mm is the better choice.

Full disclosure: What is my everyday lens? An Apple 4.15mm f/2.2.

[clackers]

Hi there,

I am looking for replacement for my well used and worn 16-50mm/f2.8, since I decided to skip FF so there are 2 lenses in my mind, the 16-85mm/f3.5-5.6 and the older 17-70mm/f4, I am more inclined to the latter for some reasons. The 17-70mm is cheaper, little brighter with fixed aperture, the range is just right for me, and new old stock still available, I don’t see too much info about the 16-85mm not even Youtube review I wonder why.


Ever since I started shooting with film long time ago I found there is always a short zoom like 28-85mm (FF) in every brand, this range is great for everyday use from landscape, groups to portrait, together with a 70-210mm to complete a basic kit. But since the digital era a wider and shorter zoom like 24-70mm/f2.8 (FF) has become de facto standard and most wanted in the kit, I don’t see the reason why. I know all such lenses are made to the highest standard the best in the line, but I found the range is ‘embarrassing’ does not really suit everyday use at least for me.

For general use 28mm for landscape is about right, but 70mm is bit too short for portrait lacks the isolation needed. In my book 85-105mm or even 135mm is best range for portrait, so that in every brand there is always a 85mm/f1.4 but rarely heard of 75mm or below, I know there is one or two but not commonly mentioned and used. I will not spend again on the first class standard zoom of today but a cheaper more useful 2nd class one. I know the 2 stops advantage is worth the extra money for some, but I am not a bokeh-holic, and nowadays digital is really great at high ISO, future more, more depth is most welcome ex. in close up shoot than super shallow DOF, or we shoot wide open simply because it is wide ?

I think asking other people what their favourite lens is maybe counterproductive, lotech, because they don't shoot the same pictures as you or have the same philosophies as you.

But if you're looking at that 17-70mm f4, I agree you should also consider the Sigma 17-70.

[lotech]

There really isn’t one. The lens on my camera is whatever was on it when I last put it away. Often that is the 24-70 on my K-1 or the 28-105 on my KP, but every time I go out I change the other lenses in the camera bag, so what’s on a camera on a given day depends on what was on it the prior day.

28-105 on KP would be 'too long' for me for everyday use, but the same focal length on FF is perfect.

---------- Post added 06-10-20 at 02:14 PM ----------

I think asking other people what their favourite lens is maybe counterproductive, lotech, because they don't shoot the same pictures as you or have the same philosophies as you.

But if you're looking at that 17-70mm f4, I agree you should also consider the Sigma 17-70.

Actually I checked review of both and still inclined to the Pentax version, coz it has full time MF override (does it ?), and some level of weather sealing not widely known.

[johnha]

The DA17-70/4 is my goto lens on the K-5 (if it had been available at the time I may have gone for the DA20-40 for styling and WR). It has manual focus override, but the focus throw is very short. The focussing is fast and quiet, I haven't had any SDM problems with mine.

The 17-70 is my 'just about' lens: just about wide enough, just about long enough, just about fast enough and just about compact enough. If travelling I pair it with an M135/3.5 and that covers everything I need.

[clackers]

Actually I checked review of both and still inclined to the Pentax version, coz it has full time MF override (does it ?), and some level of weather sealing not widely known.

(Laughs) It sounds like your thread title should be, "What is your everyday lens - by the way, whatever you people say, I'm not actually interested, I'm going to get the DA17-70 anyway."

I have both the Pentax and Sigma 17-70s, by the way.

[35mmfilmfan]

Maybe we should start a 17-70 Club ? I don't really have an 'Everyday' lens - as others have said, depends on where I'm going, what I'm shooting, and the effect I hope to achieve. And some of my favourite (not necessarily 'best') shots have been taken with whichever lens I happen to have on the camera at the time, regardless of whether it was the lens I'd have chosen had I had more time for thought. After all, 'Any photo is better than the one you didn't take'.