DA*16-50 vs DA17-70

Hi all,

I'm in limbo!
I've only ever had the kit lenses in the past, and as I have saved/earned/scraped together funds to upgrade I was just wondering what to do, esp in light of probs with the DA*.

Is the Da*16-50 worth the extra over the DA17-70?
Is there anyone who has had the chance to compare these two lenses?
I've heard lots about CA and PF of the *DA and focus probs people have had.

At the end of the day I just want to know whether I'll end up regretting spending loads on the DA*.
I'll be hoping to get the DA*50-135 at some point as it seems to be a cracker.
The 60-250 is too long coming and can't wait any longer.

Any help would be greatfully appreciated.
Look forward to ALL the replies.

Regards
ali

The thing about the DA*16-50 or the 50-135 is that as soon as you own one of them you have to get the other one. Once you have them both then you don't really fell you need anything else in that range and are just missing the DA*200 and 300.

At least that it how I feel. I'd go for the 50-135 first though as you already have the kit lens.

An other point to be made is that if you have a partner who also shoots Pentax they are likely to try and sneak off with your lenses when they go away for the weekend. I am currently minus my 16-50 for that very reason. My 50-135 feels lonely, as do I

Well, I suspect that your chance of getting a bad 16-50 is actually rather low, and if it is bad, your supplier will change it. So that's not really a major issue, and it should not deter you from buying the lens if you decide you want it.

There IS a difference between 16 and 17, and since whichever you buy is quite likely to be your widest lens, you might prefer to get the wider of the two. At the other end, you will probably have a longer lens, so the gap between 50 and 70 will be less significant.

So the 16-50 is slightly wider, a stop faster,and perhaps better optically. The downside is price. £375 against £449. The choice is yours.

G

Don't I know it! We're trying to keep our lens collection as sensible as possible (honest!) but the amount of times I've found out the lens I want is in Fiona's bag is annoying!

I only have two lenses I use now which are the two DA*s.

I do get to borrow her 90mm Tamron Macro but only when she is around. She makes sure she takes that one with her wherever she goes.

She did leave the 18-55 but it is not the same.

I opted for the 17-70. I couldn't afford the 16-50, and even if I could have I would rather put the money towards the 60-250 when and if it appears.
Not having the 16-50 I can't compare the two, and I haven't yet had a real chance to try out the 17-70 yet. But I do like the weight of it, and it is quite a bit lighter than the 16-50. It sits well on the K20D. The few snapshots I have taken have been good, fast, silent focussing, no obvious problems with it. Coming from the kit lens and *ist Ds I like the range on it too.
The plan is to go out later today and try it out, but with the sun shining at last I have washing to get done and a thousand other things that need doing after (only) 4 days away, so I may not manage it.

I've had two DA*16-50mm lenses, both with focussing issues, failing to focus lock on an evenly lit contrasty landscape scene.

The 2nd one is on it's way back to SRS for another replacement. I hope I get a good one this time as I have lost a little faith in this lens.

Unlocker had a similar issue I think. That said, don't let it put you off buying one, they're not all bad, and if you buy from a reputable retail supplier you'll have no trouble replacing it if it is faulty.

The images are first class from all of the DA* lens range. They are heavier though, which is why I have a 'proper' kit, and a 'lightweight' kit.

I don't think that is an issue with the lens. The K10D's AF sensors need very strong contrast which is why it isn't very good in low light or flatter scenes.

Hmm. I think this is overstating the issues with Pentax AF.

Evenly lit, contrasty landscape?

There's nothing at all wrong with the K10D's AF in such conditions.

This is the only lens I've had any problem with, other than the well documented BF/FF issues with the K10D. A K20D is on its way to me, we'll see how that copes.

I would have to say my 16-50 is my most used lens at the moment, I have done a few family functions of late, mostly indoors and at night and I can't praise it enough, focus lock has not been an issue and the results speak for themselves. But then I have had very little use with it on landscapes either.

Maybe I have a good example, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone who will listen.

PS and it works equally well on the K10 as opposed to the K20.

The questions I'd ask (and why) are these:

which lens has closer focus abilities? (when shooting wide I like to get up close).

Which lens has a constant aperture? (I do own and use studio lights, and have some work that requires very high standards, so having to recalculate exposere just to zoom the lens is wasting time.)

Which lens controls distortion and flare better? (Wedding jobs have more than people in them, and then there's corporate etc where you need straight lines straight).

What about low light? (wide apertures easier to focus in low light, like receptions).

So what I'm saying is this: HOW you intend to use the lens matters MORE than how much it costs.

Definately an issue with the lens when it's a faulty one! Sometimes outdoors in good light, just wouldn't focus even with good contrast, K10 or K20. Swapped it for a new one, and in SRS, where it is quite dark, the replacement locked on with no probs.

It was / appeared to be fine for I would say 3-4 months before odd little things happened very occassionally, then gradually got worse to the point of totally being unable to focus properly at all, very bad back focussing issues which were not there before, all on the day before the weding shoot.

New one is perfect so far, and would definately buy one again. Hopefully all the problems have been ironed out by now as my 1st was originally bought in December.

Would have to agree with what Don has mentioned as well, not only that but at SRS prices, for £75 you are getting weather sealing and an extra stop. At that price difference, to me it's a no brainer to go for the DA*, plus it will match the DA*50-135 better too!

Thanks for all your input folks, I appreciate your comments.

As mentioned it's a pricey lens, but not much above the 17-70.
I knew I was after this lens was just concerned about some issues I've read.

I know it's about how I use and want lens for, and to be honest I've seen questions on other site like 'what lens will I buy now etc' and I thought haha and I hated doing similar

I suppose one good thing... my other half don't do photo's so the lenses are ALL mine.

Looks like I'll be into the piggy bank later too check on the funds

Many thanks

Regards

ali

If cash is a consideration and you are considering the 17-70 range the Sigma 17-70 will serve you well

simon