Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50


jules

Link Posted 20/02/2012 - 09:33
Yes done to death!
Right I ordered A 17-70 F4 SDM With my K5 it has arrived and I'm quite dissapointed with the Build, I seem to have missed in all my research the point about the Rotating Focus ring, it's really irksome to me. I am pepared to send it back for a 16-50mm F2.8 SDM but I'm wondering what I will gain (Apart form a stop! Before you Start Mike P!). Problem: I like to travel lighter, I like SDM, so that rules out the 16-45, (Yes I know)I like the range of the 17-70, it seems to focus fine (I've read all the reports of bad focus over 50mm and this un doesn't seem to suffer). The 16-50 seems overpriced for what it is, I really don't like the handling of Sigma Standard zooms (17-50/24-70)Apart form the 8-16 wide which I loved with my Nion D7000.
Other 17-70 users, do you get used to it over time and does it stop being a deal at all (I know you've had a few of em Mike and don't like it) I have the opportunity to send it back or should I just get over myself???
Cheers Jules...
tri-elmar-fudd

Back in the room!
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”...Ansel Adams
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Last Edited by jules on 20/02/2012 - 09:35

bforbes

Link Posted 20/02/2012 - 09:52
I'm waiting to try out the Pentax 16-45 and the Sigma 24-70 against the Pentax 17-70, because it annoys me.
Barrie
Too Old To Die Young

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/barrieforbes
https://www.flickr.com/photos/189482630@N03/

Gwyn

Link Posted 20/02/2012 - 09:55
It doesn't annoy me one bit.

It is the one lens I would hang on to if I had to sell everything else, and that includes my beloved Bigma and the 60-250*.

john941

Link Posted 20/02/2012 - 09:56
I love my 17-70 it lives on my K5 90% of the time. Focus spot on, IQ great and nothing wrong with the build as far as I can see, I dropped it the other day but it suffered no damage and works perfect.

jules

Link Posted 20/02/2012 - 10:02
Hmm, I must admit it works into my plan far better than the 16-50 F2.8, which due to it's cost would upset the Applecart somewhat!
12-24/17-70/60-250 All F4, A.S.A.P. Which will soak up every penny of my available funds, and when I get round to it and have some cash! Maybe two or three of the Ltd's again for low light etc, Probably 35 F2.8 and the 70 F2.4 Along with the old 15mm F4, well just because...
For some reason I never warmed to the 43 F1.9 and the 77 F1.8 that I owned previously and the 31mm just doesn't appeal at all...
Cheers Jules...
tri-elmar-fudd

Back in the room!
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”...Ansel Adams
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Last Edited by jules on 20/02/2012 - 10:06

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 20/02/2012 - 10:13
If you are looking for alternatives to the rather expensive 16-50mm, check out Pentax Forum's comparitive review (go to the main site and click on 'In Depth Reviews').
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

LennyBloke

Link Posted 20/02/2012 - 10:28
I'm not qualified to comment on a comparison between the 17-70 and 16-50, but I did take the route of upgrading from 18-55 to 16-45 to 16-50 and although I am primarily a prime lens fan, the 16-50 is superb in terms of Quality, SDM and Weather Sealing. It's probably on my camera more than any other lens.
LennyBloke

MattMatic

Link Posted 20/02/2012 - 10:38
Have tried all three of the Pentax zooms

The DA17-70 is an excellent lens. Sometimes it hunts because the zoom ring has almost no inertia. Gently holding a finger on the ring is enough to dampen it. But, it's almost impossible to video with this lens.

In the end I plumped for the DA*16-50. Purple fringing (EDIT: actually longitudinal chromatic aberration) is worse with this, showing its ugly head at apertures wider than about f/4. But, there is definitely 'something' about the rendering compared with the DA17-70. Not sure, but it can be quite stunning with portraits.It's also quite a monster!

It's a tricky one... it was good having the same filter thread size between the DA17-70 and DA*50-135, but I also like the WR of the DA*, and having the extra stop. I would say that for portraiture and closer work the DA* trumps the DA, but for landscape the DA17-70 is probably sharper (but lacking WR). Having the extra 1mm is helpful, and means I hardly use the DA12-24.

My wife has the DA16-45, and that's still a superb lens. I've seen it sell for stupidly low values! (Think I saw one go for £160 recently )

Each lens has its own merits - unfortunately there isn't the perfect combination (yet). For example, I still have the FA24-90 and coupled with the DA12-24 this is a stunning combination. Build quality of the FA24-90 is certainly not up to the SDM series, but it's also incredibly light and compact. The DA17-70 build is definitely better

I would say that the DA*16-50 isn't exactly travelling light! The DA17-70 was just on the boundary of that for me...

Don't suppose that helps you much!
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
Last Edited by MattMatic on 20/02/2012 - 13:42

Mike-P

Link Posted 20/02/2012 - 11:04
At the moment I have here the 16-45mm, the 16-50mm and in the last few days the 17-70mm. I also have the 18-135mm in the cupboard.

The 17-70mm annoyed the hell out of me because of the 50-70mm problem so this time I bought new from Jessops and it is fine (at the moment).

They all do different jobs and get used at different times, I have recently sold the 16-45mm (to pay for the 17-70mm) and that should be going to a new home soon.

Which lens would I choose if I could only have the one?

Pentax DA 17-70mm.
No equipment list here but thanks for taking an interest. My Flickr

Mike-P

Link Posted 20/02/2012 - 11:08
Gwyn wrote:

It is the one lens I would hang on to if I had to sell everything else, and that includes my beloved Bigma and the 60-250*.

...
No equipment list here but thanks for taking an interest. My Flickr

George Lazarette

Link Posted 20/02/2012 - 12:04
I haven't had the kit lens, but I used to own the 16-50, and when I dropped it off the roof of my car (ouch!) I replaced it with a 17-70.

Frankly, although the 17-70 is a very good lens, it just isn't in the same league as the 16-50. As Matt says, the latter has that indefinable something that makes you say "Ah!". It's not quite on a par with the Ltds (and I own the three proper Ltds), but it's not too far away.

For those who place great stress on image quality, and like the extra stop, and the SDM, and the weather-sealing, then it's the lens to go for. If these things are of less importance than size and weight and more range at the top end, go for the 17-70.

One last thing I should say about the 17-70. It encourages you to try other lenses. With the 16-50, however, once it's on the camera you never want to take it off.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Last Edited by George Lazarette on 20/02/2012 - 12:04

jules

Link Posted 20/02/2012 - 12:30
Mike-P wrote:
Gwyn wrote:

It is the one lens I would hang on to if I had to sell everything else, and that includes my beloved Bigma and the 60-250*.

...

He He! I suspect I can't Prise Gwyns 60-250 away anymore than your's Mike
Cheers Jules...
tri-elmar-fudd

Back in the room!
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”...Ansel Adams
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Last Edited by jules on 20/02/2012 - 12:31

jules

Link Posted 20/02/2012 - 12:34
George Lazarette wrote:
I haven't had the kit lens, but I used to own the 16-50, and when I dropped it off the roof of my car (ouch!) I replaced it with a 17-70.

Frankly, although the 17-70 is a very good lens, it just isn't in the same league as the 16-50. As Matt says, the latter has that indefinable something that makes you say "Ah!". It's not quite on a par with the Ltds (and I own the three proper Ltds), but it's not too far away.

For those who place great stress on image quality, and like the extra stop, and the SDM, and the weather-sealing, then it's the lens to go for. If these things are of less importance than size and weight and more range at the top end, go for the 17-70.

One last thing I should say about the 17-70. It encourages you to try other lenses. With the 16-50, however, once it's on the camera you never want to take it off.

G

Thanks George, I think I'll investigate getting a few Lt'ds at some point Again but I want to get the Zooms right first as they'll get the most useage, I just can't see me warming too much to the 16-50 but then I've never tried it Might have to change that...
Cheers Jules...
tri-elmar-fudd

Back in the room!
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”...Ansel Adams
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Last Edited by jules on 20/02/2012 - 12:35

MattMatic

Link Posted 20/02/2012 - 12:42
Jules - I believe George means the "proper" Ltds
i.e. 31mm, 43mm, 77mm.
They'll set you back a pretty penny

(Have tried the 31 & 77 - astonishing build quality and just beautiful to use! Optically superb, but surprisingly some of the other Pentax glass isn't too far behind for most shots. I daren't get a taste for them though!!)

Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)

Gwyn

Link Posted 20/02/2012 - 13:03
Sorry Jules. I don't need to sell up (yet!) so I'm afraid you'll just have to be patient..

I've never owned a 16-50, so I can't comment on it, but I do really like my 17-70 for all it's shortcomings. It has always seemed pretty weatherproof to me, having been subjected to heavy Pacific Northwest downpours, and snow and ice and freezing temps in Norway.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.