considering selling the Da 17-70

Since buying a DA 12-24 & DA 35mm F2.4 I've started to wonder if I really need the DA 17-70 any longer, despite being very happy with the shots it produces - I also own a DA 55-300

My thinking is that the 12-24 will now cover 70% of my landscape shots and IQ wise it's definitely above the 17-70, the DA 35mm also fills the gap nicely between the 12-24 & 55-300. The only time I can think I may need the 17-70 would be whilst on holiday as a travel lens, for this purpose I may well be starting to move more towards the versatility of the 18-135, despite not being too interested initially, although I'm still not convinced I need a travel lens

I just wondered if anyone had a similar line-up?

Simon

I sold my 16-45mm when I managed to get a DA 17-70mm for a decent price (£260) on Ebay .. had been looking to buy one for absolutely ages. Just as it arrived I had to send my K-5 back so never got to test it but the replacement camera arrived 7 weeks later and I got to try the lens out. Have to say I was very impressed actually but I had a problem with it in that it didn't want to lock focus at 50-70mm which was ruddy annoying to say the least. After 7 weeks I was pretty sure nothing could be done but contacted the seller anyway and to his credit he seemed quite happy to take it back (I think he is a member here although I'm not sure).

Anyway .. to the point, am off to Spain for 10 days next month and wanting to keep light I decided to take the 55-300mm but after some thought decided not to find another 17-70mm and so ordered a 18-135mm which is coming Tuesday.

So yes .. I will more or less have a similar lineup for travel.

Hi Mike,

Sorry but I think my inital post wasn't very clear - I'm thinking more about there not been a need for a travel lens such as the 17-70/18-135 and instead selling the 17-70 and just having the 12-24,35mm and 55-300. Obviously this would involve the odd lens change when travelling but wouldn't mean me having a lens like the 17-70/18-135 which I'm unlikely to use for anything other than the odd holiday.

What got me thinking about this is that I recently spent 3 weeks in China with pretty much the combination I mention (40mm instead of 35mm though, left the 17-70 at home) and despite my concerns found it worked well - as it was mainly cities we visited the 12-24 proved invaluable covering around 70-80% of the shots.

I wondered how many others live comfortably without a travel lens?

Simon

Travel photography can be more like action photography and to enable fleeting moments to be caught I think a standard zoom is needed. Messing around changing lenses can be downright hazardous in markets teeming with people or tourist spots where pickpockets target the distracted.

I would fit something like the 18-250mm for preference. A wide range, good quality and close focusing. In closer quarters the 12-24mm is invaluable.

A 35mm on its own is about the same as a 50mm would have been on film. Yes, it's a standard lens, but highly limiting for travel.

...OTOH the small size of something like the DA35 would be a benefit in a market scenario, as it might attract less attention than a big zoom which 'looks more serious' and 'expensive'. Even more importantly you'd be able to shoot in low light, and have creative control of dof, areas where a superzoom might be 'limiting'.

It's a very personal thing, of course, and there are space and weight factors to take into account when flying, but are you expecting your style to change when you travel? And if not, why change a lens line-up if you know that it works for you? Last trip abroad (apart from a TLR) I carried three primes for a 35mm camera and a DSLR - that gave me six focal lengths. But then that's what I usually carry on any trip out.

Some good points to consider here...John mentioning the 18-250 has made me think - as it looks unlikely that I'll use the 17-70 for my landscapes now, replacing it with the 18-250 makes quite a bit of sense, I'll have pretty much all bases covered...

DA12-24 / 35mm - landscapes
18-250 - travel
55-300 - wildlife/tele beyond 200mmm (better than 18-250)

Simon

Just re-opening this thread as temptation gave way due to a Tamron 18-250 coming my way via a friend of a friend and whilst I've only tried a few shots around the house initial impressions are very positive, I'm actually surprised how good the IQ appears to be. Real world shots will prove more useful though as I'd like to compare the colour/contrast to the DA17-70 as it's this which I find most appealing.

I've read with interest the threads on the 18-135 too, it sounds pretty good and I'm quite intrigued to see any comparisons between it & the 18-250 offerings.

Simon

My plan at the moment is:

12-24
16-45
55-300

But this may change ...


Vic.

Having now managed a few shots (nothing worth posting) with the 18-250 I'm definitely beginning to see why it has such a good reputation as a travel lens, despite reading that its not too impressive beyond 150mm I actually find that it's pretty good - corners are a little soft but centre is fine - not quite so sharp as the DA55-300 but not too far off either.

Having said the above my impression is also that it doesn't quite produce the excellent colour/contrast of the DA17-70 and as a result I've had a rethink - a slightly costly one. I'm going to keep both the 17-70 & 18-250 for the following setup


DA12-24 & DA17-70 - landscape usage

DA12-24 & 18-250 - travel usage

Occasionally I do the odd uk wildlife trip and the DA55-300 is definitely the better option here so I'll be keeping it - the DA 35mm F2.4 should be great as either a pano lens or a low-light option when travelling. That's certainly it for my lens line-up now, just waiting for the K5 to fall in price a bit more and that should keep me going for a good while

Simon