Reading mode: Light Dark

Pentax 17-70. Happy?

Go to last post
D

daleeight

Veteran Member
Messages
3,205
Solutions
1
Reaction score
2,645
Location
Kentucky, US
How many are really or extremely satisfied with their Pentax 17-70 f/4, and not really missing the Pentax 16-50 f/2.8? Does the IQ keep you that way? Does the extra reach keep you there? The extra stop not a limiting factor?
--
Dale
 
Also very interested in this.
 
Well I had a DA*16-50 but found it rather large and bulky as well as a bit short in range for a general purpose lens. Eventually I sold it and bought a DA18-70. The range suits me better and as the recent Pentax cameras have usable high ISO the loss of a stop from f2.8 to f4 has not been a problem. The loss of 2mm at the wide end is not a problem for me as I have a DA15mm Ltd.

It is an individual choice as I tend to use a zoom for the convenience of an all in one solution for casual photography and primes for the more demanding stuff. If you stick to zooms your priorities might well be different.

Archie
 
I'm also inbetween these two lenses. With today's ISOs, I'm not worried about the loss of stop for low-light, but am concerned about the resulting increase in DoF.

I want to isolate my subjects, does the 20mm added focal length make up for the extra stop in terms of subject isolation?

Thanks
 
I'm fortunate to have both the DA*16-50 and the DA17-70 zooms. The DA17-70 lives on my camera most of the time, as I find the extra reach very useful and with the excellent high ISO performance of my K-x and K-5 I don't miss the extra stop most of the time. My copy of the 17-70 has very good IQ, although if I pixel-peep the 16-50 has the edge.

That said, I still like the DA*16-50 for portrait work when the limited DOF at f2.8 is wanted, and for outdoor use in bad weather. Horses for courses...
--
Jim King - Retired Colormonger - Suburban Detroit, Michigan, USA; GMT -5h (EST)
Pentaxian for over 45 years.



* * * * *
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
  • Sir Winston Churchill
* * * * *
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
  • Albert Einstein
 
Jim King said:
I'm fortunate to have both the DA*16-50 and the DA17-70 zooms. The DA17-70 lives on my camera most of the time, as I find the extra reach very useful and with the excellent high ISO performance of my K-x and K-5 I don't miss the extra stop most of the time. My copy of the 17-70 has very good IQ, although if I pixel-peep the 16-50 has the edge.

That said, I still like the DA*16-50 for portrait work when the limited DOF at f2.8 is wanted, and for outdoor use in bad weather. Horses for courses...
--
Jim King - Retired Colormonger - Suburban Detroit, Michigan, USA; GMT -5h (EST)
Pentaxian for over 45 years.
Click to expand...
could we bother you for some comparison shots at 50mm f2.8 for the 16-50 and 50mm f4 and 70mm f4 for the 17-70?
 
Interesting question...
--
Dale
 
I can see his point, but you'd want to see a typical portrait image, correct? Given the lens to subject distance...
--
Dale
 
First one had a focus issue (back/front - can't recall) so sent it back to B&H who replaced it immediately.... and the second one was FANTASTIC! I only wish it had been made WR.

Other than that - it was sharp as nails, felt built really well... etc.
--
Nik-Nik
 
I own both the DA17-70 and DA*16-50. The DA*16-50 is large and fast. It's image quality is very good. The DA17-70 is smaller but still has very good image quality. I use the DA*16-60 for event photography and the DA17-70 has been my general use lens.

Dave
--

 
A lot full size samples here from K5 and DA17-70.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27001769@N02/

The color from this lens is quite good.

The wide angle shots indeed have soft corners; the telephoto end is not razor sharp; however, the image quality is generally good, with some feeling of delicacy.
Not flawless but still a very usefule and interesting lens.
 
I previously owned a 17-70 but had problems with softness at the long end. Others have reported the same experience. Pentax service told me that it was operating within specifications, but that was not good enough for me. I sold it and got a 16-50, which is much better in virtually every way. All that it lacks is 20mm on the long end, but for that, I have a 77 Limited. The 16-50 stays on my camera 95% of the time, rain or shine. It exhibits significant barrel distortion at the short end, but this is to be expected of a zoom lens at 16mm and is simple to fix in PP. I use PTLens, which makes it all go away within seconds. CA, which can show up at f2.8, is also easily remedied. At f5.6, this is a very sharp lens.

Rob
 
illdefined said:
could we bother you for some comparison shots at 50mm f2.8 for the 16-50 and 50mm f4 and 70mm f4 for the 17-70?
Click to expand...
Sorry but I'm traveling this week and don't have access to any of my photos. I'll try to remember to post some next week.
--
Jim King - Retired Colormonger - Suburban Detroit, Michigan, USA; GMT -5h (EST)
Pentaxian for over 45 years.



* * * * *
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
  • Sir Winston Churchill
* * * * *
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
  • Albert Einstein
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top