DA 17-70 vs DA 18-55 WR?

Having just about made my mind up to buy the K5 the current cashback means that its as cheap to buy it with the 18-55WR lens. I'm now wondering if the 18-55WR would make my DA17-70 obsolete as I believ the quality of the kit lens has improved over the last couple of generations.

Has anyone compared both these lenses?

thanks

Simon

Hi Simon

Although the kit lens has improved, the 18-55WR is not as good as the DA17-70 in terms of IQ. However, the18-55WR is weather sealed unlike the DA17-70. Moreover my wife has found the extra focal length of theDA17-70 very useful. I guess it all depends on what you need and want, and at the end of the day only you know that.

Am currently going through the same decision process myself - partly because I'm using primes more these days at this focal length, so the 17-70 isn't perhaps getting used as much as it should. I will probably get the 18-55 whatever - for the cashback and the WR (I don't yet have a WR lens). The question is do I offload the 17-70 when I'm in the UK? Being a cautious person I'll probably wait until the next trip.

Having looked at images produced by the 18-55 mkII, they seem better than the MkI (certainly mine). However, vignetting is still in evidence wide and wide open (though it seems improved). However, I'm sure the 17-70 has it beat on everything but barrel distortion - it really is a good lens (my only real gripe being the fact that it's f4 not f2.8 ) . But if the margin's not so great (and bearing in mind my use of primes), then perhaps the 17-70 will have to go.

If the 18-135 were a bit more attractively (realistically:roll) priced I'd be seriously considering one of those (assuming its performance was decent) - but I'm not going to pay ca.£500 for consumer zoom performance (allbeit with WR).

Back again! I agree with Mhuni, the 18-135 is very attractive, but the price is a little to high at the moment. Very interesting lens though. I have not seen any in depth reviews though.

Simon, I suggest you buy the kit, and decide for yourself which is better for you. You can always sell one or other lens later.

I'm hanging on to my 17-70 for now, as I like the range it offers, but the 18-135 is also tempting. Just the price is a problem.

Thanks everyone, I've pretty much gone through the thought process you all describe...

The DA17-70 is an excellent lens without doubt and I'd be very suprised if the 18-55 was as good, the WR is reasonably appealing though - having said that in nearly 4yrs of DSLR ownership I've never had any issues with non-WR lenses.

The reason I raised the question is that having just bought the top-notch 12-24 I now have a fair overlap (12-24, 17-70, 55-300), the new 18-135 would worsen this so isn't a consideration for me. I'm guessing I'll probably keep the 18-55wr as a backup.

My main thoughts are about the 17-70, swapping this for a 35mm prime is something I'm thinking about as a possibility as it fills the gap between 24mm & 55mm nicely. The arrival of the new 35mm AL looks well timed !!

Simon

It's worth getting it with the WR, even if you sell it later. I suspect the 17-70 is rather more WR than it lets on. Otherwise why go to the expense of putting those red seals on it?
I must say that I'm rather surprised that Pentax haven't got samples of either of the new lenses out for reiew. It's free publicity and gets the LBA juices flowing. So that makes me suspicious that they underperform. I hope I'm wrong because the 18-135 is very tempting but at that price it better be pretty damn good too.