16-45 or 17-70?

I haven't owned the 16-45 but own the DA17-70 which I think is excellent, probably nothing to choose between the two lenses regarding sharpness, colour and contrast I guess are both similar (very nice). I think the DA17-70 has less CA/PF than the 16-45 from what I've seen.

I don't think you can go wrong with either, your decision is probably down to price & focal range as much as anything

Simon

I have both
The 16-45 is much lighter than the 17-70.

Optically, I much prefer the bokeh on the 17-70 (it is very smooth and similar to the 50/1.4 and 24-90). The 16-45 is a bit too busy for me. But that's personal opinion.

The 16-45 zoom mechanism is interesting. It extends at the 16mm end which allows for totally bizarre points of view when used close up. (Pretty fun actually!) The 17-70 is conventional, and has a half decent macro facility.

Of course the 17-70 is SDM only. The focus throw is pretty short, and it can hunt on occasions, but this can be reduced by gently holding the focus rim - to dampen it.

It looks like the 17-70 is partially weather sealed. Not sure how much, but it has the O-ring on the body.

I really like the extra length - the 45-70mm range I use a lot, and I don't miss the 1mm too much at all.

Resolution and contrast on the 17-70 is higher, but the 16-45 is certainly excellent.

It's a tough call... the 16-45 is available at stupidly low prices, but I wouldn't trade my 17-70 (Only possibly for the DA*16-50, but that's another decision!!!)

Matt