16-45 or 17-70?
Posted 06/06/2011 - 09:49 - Helpful Comment
Link
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 don't think you can go wrong with either, your decision is probably down to price & focal range as much as anything
Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
Posted 06/06/2011 - 10:21
Link
I recently owned a 16-45 and it was terrible, maybe just a bad copy. sent it back and got the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 DC Macro and it's superb.
Pentax k-5
Metz 50 AF-1
Pentax SMC 50mm 1.4
Sigma 70mm 2.8 MACRO
Sigma 17mm-70mm F2.8 - 4
Pentax 18mm-55mm f3.5-56 DA WR
Pentax 50mm-200mm f3.5-5.6 DA WR
Metz 50 AF-1
Pentax SMC 50mm 1.4
Sigma 70mm 2.8 MACRO
Sigma 17mm-70mm F2.8 - 4
Pentax 18mm-55mm f3.5-56 DA WR
Pentax 50mm-200mm f3.5-5.6 DA WR
Posted 06/06/2011 - 11:05 - Helpful Comment
Link
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
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
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
(For gallery, tips and links)
Posted 06/06/2011 - 13:56
Link
Thanks guys...
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 06/06/2011 - 16:07
Link
The DA16-45 is an excellent lens with superlative IQ -- better than the DA*16-50 in fact. The DA17-70 is also good from all accounts. So get the cheapest one.
I do have to ask whether you really need such a beast? I find I hardly use it since owning the DA12-24. There's never any time I need to "fill" the focal range between 24mm and 50mm, except with a fast prime.
I do have to ask whether you really need such a beast? I find I hardly use it since owning the DA12-24. There's never any time I need to "fill" the focal range between 24mm and 50mm, except with a fast prime.
Posted 06/06/2011 - 16:34
Link
Somewhat academic now... thread
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
(For gallery, tips and links)
Posted 06/06/2011 - 21:39
Link
Possibly we'll have to see how things go...
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
2342 posts
16 years
Storbritannia
I want to go back to Zooms, I bought the DA Ltd's to teach me better shot discipline and I think I have now learned my lesson, so time to move on...
So to go in between the 12-24 and the 50-135, which is best optically?
Don't care about SDM as I don't feel it's a factor in such short focal lengths, or the missing 5mm in the 16-45, just the optics...
They seem very similar judging by all the reviews...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com