Buying a used Pentax 17-70 f4 yay or nay?


D0n

Link Posted 03/04/2016 - 17:57
I keep hearing this lens has af issues and breaks often..
but I found a clean looking used one for about half the price of new and am tempted to snag it as an upgrade for my 16-45 for studio portraits with flash. ( I usually work at f8 for magazine reproduction work).
good Idea or bad Idea?
I do also use primes such as the 35 2.4 the 50 1.8 and 100 macro so you see I have a gap at the 70-85 mm range for primes.... maybe an ltd or rokinon 85 would be a better idea that the 17-70?
Last Edited by D0n on 03/04/2016 - 17:58

truckerathome

Link Posted 03/04/2016 - 18:46
I would say Yay but there might be others with a different opinion.
I upgraded from the 16-45 to a second-hand 17-70 and had it for quite a few years. I didn't use it that often but every time I did, I never had any problems whatsoever with it.
I have now upgraded to the 16-85 (advertised at a fantastic price) mainly for the weatherproofing aspect, so the 17-70 was sold to help fund the upgrade.

Martin

Helpful

D0n

Link Posted 03/04/2016 - 19:17
truckerathome wrote:
I would say Yay but there might be others with a different opinion.
I upgraded from the 16-45 to a second-hand 17-70 and had it for quite a few years. I didn't use it that often but every time I did, I never had any problems whatsoever with it.
I have now upgraded to the 16-85 (advertised at a fantastic price) mainly for the weatherproofing aspect, so the 17-70 was sold to help fund the upgrade.

Martin

yeah I snagged a great deal on the 18-135 wr and very happy but for this intended use a constant aperture is needed, and if I am going to buy new and spend big buck I'll wait for the reviews on the new 24-70 but still. you can get the 17-70 AND a nice prime or two for that price.. .. this lens is appealing for the price... but I worry about if it's reliable...
Last Edited by D0n on 03/04/2016 - 19:19

stu62

Link Posted 03/04/2016 - 21:40
i would say yay it is a good lens i enjoy mine i have had it a while now with no problems
i tell a lie
there is a problem but it is that minorand it is minor the 17/70 as a litle bit of playin the focusing ring but it is that minute it is not a problem

and to be honist it dosent matter what lens you get they will never be perfect

Helpful

kingfisher

Link Posted 04/04/2016 - 08:17
depends...i have one myself, gave to a friend who starts with photography alongside my old k10d....it is very unpredictable in regards of focusing.....sort of moody. Sometimes it focuses well even in low light, sometimes it hunts - that keeps me puzzled. Optically it is quite good lens. If you find one for a good price, consider it. I wouldn't buy it again, but then....i now have primes covering all i need. When I bought it it served me well though, i even shot 3 wedings with it (and with primes)

Helpful

MattMatic

Link Posted 04/04/2016 - 09:06
I have found the DA17-70 an excellent lens, especially for walkabout.
When trawling through my shots, many of my favourites were taken with this. I upgraded to a DA*16-50 - which recently had the SDM and clutch go wrong. JPSS did a splendid job on the 16-50 and it's now utterly lovely.

However, while the 16-50 was on its way wrong, I snagged a 17-70 again from SRS as a P/X. Now I'm in a good position to compare (and my son has my old DA16-45 which is still going after many, many years!).

The SDM on the 17-70 is excellent. The "issue" with focus is largely down to the ultra light focus weight which causes some issues with the K5, K7 and earlier. The K5ii/iis and K3 have updated focus mechanisms that now handle it well. The simple solution (and it's particularly at the 50-70mm end in low light) is to dampen the focus ring by gently resting a finger on it as the camera focusses - it stops the 'overshoot' and hunt

Optically I find this lens lovely. The 7 blade aperture gives a really smooth bokeh and rendering - much less nervous than the DA16-45, and it has a really decent close focus point (compared to the DA*16-50 which can't do anything like close!). It's sharp even wide open, balances well (my son is after it as it feels more weighty than the 16-45), and has the excellent Pentax colour and contrast.

If you're shooting at f/8 there won't be much in it, TBH, except that you'll have the 50-70mm end. A good copy at less than 200 is definitely worth consideration in my view!

Is the DA*16-50 worth the extra? For me, yes. My copy was a bit "hmmm", but was serviced and calibrated by JPSS (and now SDM fixed hopefully for good) and it's tack-sharp, heavy, bright, and a beautiful piece of glass.

With all of the lenses, I'd recommend shooting RAW and enabling Lightroom's lens profile option - it cleans up 99% of any CA, adjusts any distortions and vignetting.

Hope that helps!
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)

Helpful

D0n

Link Posted 04/04/2016 - 14:48
well it is retailing for $599.99 CDN here and the seller wants about half that so maybe I'll put the change (as compared to the new 24-70 coming out) towards the 70 ltd then and have a more complete set of primes.

Stanovich

Link Posted 27/04/2016 - 22:14
I have used a 17-70 as my main walkabout lens for maybe 4-5 years and on the whole I'm very pleased with it. I previously swapped between a 16-45 and 24-90. Overall I think the 17-70 has slightly better colour rendition than the 16-45, and I make use of the longer end quite a lot. I seem to get more underexposed shots with it than with other lenses, though as it's on the camera (K5IIs) 90% of the time that may be subjective. I've never had any problems with it.

Truckerathome - I haven't tried the 16-85, but would be interested on your views on how they compare.
K5IIs & ME Super with FA24-90, DA17-70, DA55-300, misc old primes; Fuji X20.

truckerathome

Link Posted 30/04/2016 - 20:17
Stanovich wrote:
I have used a 17-70 as my main walkabout lens for maybe 4-5 years and on the whole I'm very pleased with it. I previously swapped between a 16-45 and 24-90. Overall I think the 17-70 has slightly better colour rendition than the 16-45, and I make use of the longer end quite a lot. I seem to get more underexposed shots with it than with other lenses, though as it's on the camera (K5IIs) 90% of the time that may be subjective. I've never had any problems with it.

Truckerathome - I haven't tried the 16-85, but would be interested on your views on how they compare.

TBH I haven't used it that much as most of my photography is with longer lenses but in my opinion the 16-85 seems to focus quicker, build quality is definitely better, and obviously it is weatherproofed. Colour rendition though I thought was better on the 17-70 but bear in mind that I changed from a K5II to a K3II in between using the lenses, so not really a fair comparison apart from the build specifications. I might have even had the K20 on the 17-70 as well and personally I still think pictures taken with the K20 had a certain look in the colours that I liked, obviously a personal preference but even with adjustments on the K3II I cant seem to get that now ... but suppose that's what comes with progress. I am not a pixel peeper so cant help you on that side of the specs. I only changed as due to a special deal on the 16-85 and with the sale of the 17-70 it worked out at just over a hundred pounds to upgrade so with getting extended zoom ration and weatherproofing and good reviews it seems a no-brainer to me.
I have recently acquired an 18-135 along with camera as a kit from a user member and have been using that rather than the 16-85 as I tend to use the longer end also and its gives similar results (so might be an option for you) but it seems as if it is not quite as quick at focusing although there is not that much in it. Hope that helps.

Martin

SteveF

Link Posted 30/04/2016 - 22:05
I bought secondhand from a forum member in November 2012 and my copy hasn't missed a beat since. And it's had plenty of use.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.