DA 18-70 review

Hi

I apologise if this has been posted before.

http://www.monuniverspentax.com/test_da17_70/test_da17_70.html

Review,comparison and lost of pics. Use babble-fish French to English.

Well worth a look.

Luke

Your title says 18-70 so thought it was a new lens
Only too bad I can't read that

I'm still not sure to get a 16-50 or 17-70

Hi again,

Sorry for the typo 17-70 not 18-70.

I can't decide either 16-45, 16-50, 17-70, Sigma, Pentax, Tamron. At the rate of the price increases soon I won't be able to afford any of them. I was thinking of going with the tried and trusted 16-45 but the review persuades me that the 17-70 might be an OK lense despite its detractors. But for that money I could get a Sigma 16-50 f2.8. Then there is the Pentax "look" to consider.

Luke

I have the 17-70. It is a very good walkabout lens. Much less weight than the 16-50 and a more useful range than the 16-45.

The fact that it is an f-4 lens has not been a problem, even in dark rainforests in the pouring rain it took good photos. I'd rather have the extra focal length than the extra stop.

I haven't attempted to read the review completely, my French isn't up to that and I don't like Babel fish type translations, but what I read seems to conclude it is a good lens.

The Mount St Helens photos I posted a few days ago were taken with it.

You're very right Gwyn about the 17-70 and I like it overlaps the DA*50-135 and it's a very useful walk about lens.
Then again f/2.8 and weather sealing... the 17-70 seems to have also some minimal sealing if i'm correct. A seal around the lens mount?

Don't forget for the 17-70 you have to have a SDM compatable camera as it has no screw drive focus

I would have probably gone for the 17-70 myself but weather and dust sealing plus robust build are also important to me. Not saying the 17-70 isn't robust but the 16-50 is built like a tank

It is sealed around the mount. But I stood in the pouring rain taking photos, with no ill effects to lens or camera. When you are touring you don't get the chance to go back to photograph something in better weather, and rain kind of goes with a rain forest doesn't it?

I chose the 17-70 for the range, which suits me better, and because it is an SDM lens. If I had chosen the 16-50 I would have been changing lenses all the time and getting very annoyed. Not to mention how my husband would have reacted - he was getting fed up with me changing lenses all the time as it was. He had the Tamron 28-300 on the Ds so never changed lens, even when I suggested a wider angle would be better.

Okay the 17-70 sounds like a good deal then.
Was a bit worried about rain and SDM motor...

The range is very suitable I often find the kit lens not long enough so 70mm should be perfect. 17mm for landscapes and 70mm for portrait what more do you need?

If I had a 17-70 I would only use in damp conditions with caution.
Simply because it just doesn't have the same level of protection as the DA* lens range.

Indeed but a mild rain, drizzle should be a problem.
I'm wonder what the current there runs over the SDM, if it's only low water shouldn't be a problem... well it isn't good of course but you wont fry the thing instantly

Stefan you are right, mild rain or drizzle, probably OK (with a bit care) but heavy rain I wouldn't risk.

SDM current I wouldn't know but obviously with camera PSU (battery) limitations they are probably a very particular beast, not like industrial linear motors for example

I had no choice - if I wanted the photos I had to get out there and get wet. Normally I wouldn't have bothered, but with only a short time in the area it was get out and get the photos or miss them. I certainly wouldn't have tried it with any other make of camera .
Everything survived just fine. the camera was in a waterproof bag most of the time only coming out for the desired shots. I even left the tripod behind to reduce the time the camera was exposed to the weather - which is where SR came in very handy.

When I have converted them I'll post a couple. The rain worked better for the rain forest than sun did, as in sun the contrasts would have been too great. We went to another area of rain forest later in the holiday, when it was sunny. The photos are all useless.