Any DA17-70 owners swapped for the DA18-235?


simonkit

Link Posted 07/04/2011 - 18:27
I've posted a few times recently about thoughts on my lens line-up and how I decided I couldn't be without the DA17-70.

We'll here I go again as my K5 purchase is probably on hold for a while!!

I'm interested to here from anyone who has owned both the Da17-70 and DA18-135, most importantly I'm wanting info on how the colour rendition/contrast & CA handling compare. WR/DC are nice to haves but on their own won't convince me to move from the DA17-70

thanks

Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com

My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk

Find me on Google+ link

Cisco

Link Posted 07/04/2011 - 18:50
Oooh !! a new lens ! much bigger range !

must sell my 18-135 and get one !! lol


K-7 | K10 | DA 18-135 | DA 18-250 | DA 55-300 | DFA 100 |
Last Edited by Cisco on 07/04/2011 - 18:51

simonkit

Link Posted 07/04/2011 - 19:06
Cisco wrote:
Oooh !! a new lens ! much bigger range !

must sell my 18-135 and get one !! lol




Sorry to get everyone excited - I mean the 18-135 of course
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com

My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk

Find me on Google+ link
Last Edited by simonkit on 07/04/2011 - 19:07

luk_gb

Link Posted 08/04/2011 - 23:07
In my opinion:
18-135 F4-F5.6 - center is very sharp, borders are little soft, corners are much more soft
17-70 F4 - center is sharp, borders and corners are only little soft

18-135 F8 - center is very sharp, borders and corners are little soft
17-70 F8 - center is very sharp, borders and corners are sharp

CA is only big problem in 18-135 in range 100-135 (unavailable in 17-70 )
colour rendition - is the same
contrast - is little better in 17-70

I think that most important is AF reliability in 18-135 (if AF miss your photo is blur and even fantastic optics not help...)
AF in 17-70 is not bad... but AF in 18-135 is simply better

If you want I can share my test photos.

P.S.
Sorry but my English is horrible.
K200d

simonkit

Link Posted 09/04/2011 - 11:03
luk_gb wrote:
In my opinion:
18-135 F4-F5.6 - center is very sharp, borders are little soft, corners are much more soft
17-70 F4 - center is sharp, borders and corners are only little soft

18-135 F8 - center is very sharp, borders and corners are little soft
17-70 F8 - center is very sharp, borders and corners are sharp

CA is only big problem in 18-135 in range 100-135 (unavailable in 17-70 )
colour rendition - is the same
contrast - is little better in 17-70

I think that most important is AF reliability in 18-135 (if AF miss your photo is blur and even fantastic optics not help...)
AF in 17-70 is not bad... but AF in 18-135 is simply better

If you want I can share my test photos.

P.S.
Sorry but my English is horrible.

Thanks for the information, very useful - no need for the comparison photos

Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com

My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk

Find me on Google+ link

patrickt

Link Posted 09/04/2011 - 15:09
My 17-70 was terrible. It would not get a focus lock at the long end or even close to it.

I bought the 18-135 and I couldn't be happier. It focuses great throught the range and the results are all I expected. The range is great for my daily uses.

My only negative comment is that the focusing is so fast and quiet I often don't realize it has focused.

johnwhit

Link Posted 10/04/2011 - 10:46
patrickt wrote:
My 17-70 was terrible. It would not get a focus lock at the long end or even close to it.

The focus is very fast and not well damped with a very short travel, it tends to overshoot and then over compensate in certain situations, resting the tip of the index finger lightly against the focus ring resolves the issue.

John
PPG link

In LBA hiatus.

sam-joseph

Link Posted 10/04/2011 - 10:57
Tokina now does a 16.5-135. Is that the same lens as the Pentax, with just a little bit longer zoom movement inside? Pity it's not in Pentax mount.
Sorry to be of absolutely no help whatsoever.
Regards
Sam-Joseph
Pentax K7, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5, Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO EX, Sigma 70-300 APO, Sigma 1.4x TC, Vivitar 2x TC. Takumar 135mm f2.5, SMC Pentax A 50mm 1:1.7, SMC Pentax -M 1:4 200mm, Pentax X70

chaude

Link Posted 10/04/2011 - 13:39
I've owned the 17-70mm before, and used it as my one and only lens for quite a few trips and found it very good, both IQ and focus, maybe I got lucky?!
Now I have a 18-250mm, very interested to see if anyone's compared it to the 18-135mm really, though I can't afford to get it

Mike-P

Link Posted 10/04/2011 - 15:09
johnwhit wrote:
patrickt wrote:
My 17-70 was terrible. It would not get a focus lock at the long end or even close to it.

The focus is very fast and not well damped with a very short travel, it tends to overshoot and then over compensate in certain situations, resting the tip of the index finger lightly against the focus ring resolves the issue.

John

I couldn't get my 17-70mm to lock on anything over 50mm either .. quite a common fault I believe. 18-135mm is in a totally different league AF wise. With regard to IQ they are very very similar but the added bonus of being able to focus on anything over 50mm wins me over every time. Add the longer length and WR ... no contest.

As for sharpness .. one from Spain this week.



IMGP1452 by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr
. My Flickr

luk_gb

Link Posted 14/04/2011 - 14:32
And some photos from last weekend (k200d + 18-135):

https://picasaweb.google.com/luccas.nl/Torun2011MuzeumPodroznikowImTonyEgoHalika...

difficult environment: tungsten light and all exhibits behind a glass

P.S.
Photos from Explorers` Museum in Toruń (Tony Halik was very famous polish explorer)

P.S. 2
PEF -> DxO (res. 2640px) -> JPG
K200d
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.