choice of four

my 17/70 is on its last legs i can have it repair or go new but what do i get
a nother pentax 17/70 or the sigma 17/70
pentax 18/135or the 16/85
any suggestions and why to help me make my mind up

Unless it's not long enough for you, the Tamron 17-50 might also be worth considering.

Cheers.
Philip

I'd guessed that those shorter options (Pentax 16-45 / Sigma and Tamron 17-50) were not on the table ..? I've resisted them also as I'd ideally want to extend the range of my kit zoom with an even more versatile and higher quality choice.

But then Philip, you're someone who chooses the 20-40! The shortest zoom surely, and a connoisseurs choice! You appreciate that you can't have it 'all in one'

I'm going to be bold and say there's only one to go for .... The 16-85! It's got it all. WR, performance across the zoom range, good build, reliable DC motor. Now really, who the heck needs F2.8 or even F4 constant in a standard zoom now?? With ISO performance that you've got Stu, no reason not to just bump that up if things get unsteady ... And really, if you want more OOF effect then you need to focus closer or switch to a specialised prime lens for the purpose.

Set P mode, auto -ISO and set the ISO priority to 'speed' ... That will keep things steady if you just keep the aperture wide. Flick the aperture down quickly if you get bright light and want more DOF temporarily.

Another vote for the 16-85, and for the same reasons listed above.

I've the 18-135, and have been very pleased with it as a general purpose, do everything lens. Been great for hiking etc. But I wouldn't see this as a replacement for the 17-70.

Gotta say if I were in your shoes I'd also be taking a very serious look at the 16-85. Reports on it are really positive.

For a general purpose zoom I'd never consider a lens that ends at anything slower than f/4 because it wouldn't be fit for purpose. I'd go for the Sigma or Tamron 17-50mm or the Sigma 17-70, though I've read the latter is soft in the corners at the wide end.

Not fit for what purpose? If you mean light gathering purposes, then surely things have moved on a lot since we were stuck having already loaded ASA 100 .....

If price is a serious issue, Stu (and there are few for whom it isn't) the Tamron has to be high on your list. Its only drawback, as Nigel says, is the lack of reach at the "long" end.

I very much enjoy using mine, although the combined weight of the K5 plus Tamron is not inconsiderable: there's a price to pay for the constant 2.8 aperture which gives one a lovely bright image in the viewfinder. I've a five year manufacturer's guarantee but I'm not certain they're still offering this.

I would tend to agree with this, and my opinion is that unless you need a lens especially for lots of low light work you should be fine with Pentax 18-135 or 16-85, the 16-85 is sharper but heavier and larger, the 18-135 is still very good and light and compact!

i think the 17/50 is not in the equation as i would then have a gap in my lens range so i would stiil have to get anotherto bridge that
price is not the issue
and if i rember correctly the 16/85 is only about 8 grams hevier than the 17/ 70 which as just died
and as for the speed it dont bother me as some people have slated me for useing high iso in bright sunlight but it worked well and the effect worked
and the k3ii dose work well in low light

I have had the Tamron 17-50 and it is a cracking lens. I then bought the first version of the Sigma 17-70 on here for a mere £80. Great lens. It is sharp enough and is more versatile as I shoot walking around the city centre. The weight is also manageable.

Cheers

Mac