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


Algernon

Link Posted 02/03/2012 - 15:30
Tiffen's site shows an example of a haze filter.
It not only removes haze it increases sharpness... probably
by increasing contrast. I found it sharper, more so at the edges
with a Pentax-K 28mm f/3.5 lens and the Tiffen Haze-1 filter.

link

A quote from a web page I came across:

"Isn't it a marvel that Ansel Adams was able to
produce all those masterpieces while handicapping
himself by using image degrading filters?"



-
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Last Edited by Algernon on 02/03/2012 - 15:47

womble

Link Posted 02/03/2012 - 17:19
I seem to spend most of my time with a yellow, orange or red filter on the end of my lenses...

K.
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.

My website

jules

Link Posted 02/03/2012 - 17:38
womble wrote:
I seem to spend most of my time with a yellow, orange or red filter on the end of my lenses...

K.

B+W?
No there Hoya! Ha Ha Ha I crack myself up!

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

johnha

Link Posted 04/03/2012 - 22:58
I've just bought the 17-70, my first DA or SDM lens, I can't compare it to the others. I really needed something wider than my FA 28-80 for my K-5. I did briefly consider the 16-50 but the extra 20mm fits my lens coverage (not to mention budget) better. First impressions are very good (and a massive improvement over the FA lens).
PPG Flickr

jules

Link Posted 05/03/2012 - 10:01
johnha wrote:
I've just bought the 17-70, my first DA or SDM lens, I can't compare it to the others. I really needed something wider than my FA 28-80 for my K-5. I did briefly consider the 16-50 but the extra 20mm fits my lens coverage (not to mention budget) better. First impressions are very good (and a massive improvement over the FA lens).

Already enjoying mine and have forgotten about the spinning focus ring thing, almost entirely!
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/the-fun-begins-33750
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 05/03/2012 - 10:02

K10D

Link Posted 05/03/2012 - 12:01
Spotted this in a camera dealers in Margaret River yesterday.




Saw it and thought about this thread.

To filter or not to filter, that is the question.

While your arguing your points of view, retailers are selling filters based on cold, hard sales techniques.

Best regards

tyronet2000

Link Posted 05/03/2012 - 12:07
If Filters are such a waste of time and money etc., why do most of the sellers in the Classified say the lens they are selling have had a filter on since day one (and how do they prove it). I think I only recall one seller saying he doesn't normally use a filter but will include an UV filter if required.
Regards
Stan

PPG
Last Edited by tyronet2000 on 05/03/2012 - 12:08

K10D

Link Posted 05/03/2012 - 12:25
tyronet2000 wrote:
If Filters are such a waste of time and money etc.,

"IF" being the key word. I use filters on all my lenses that take them. I do have a couple of lenses that don't take filters. They are the exception.

As some people say, loss of light, not sharp and other optical deficiencies are there to be seen? So that evidence as well as me only shooting JPEG's and not RAW may explain the lack of sharpness, detail and contrast on my images.

Thinking positively, I have plenty of room to improve!!

Best regards

greynolds999

Link Posted 05/03/2012 - 12:38
UV and polarizing filters are both essential when used correctly. Neither can be simulated fully in post-production.

But I don't keep a UV on my lenses all the time, just when they are needed.
My Photobucket

tyronet2000

Link Posted 05/03/2012 - 12:43
K10D wrote:
tyronet2000 wrote:
If Filters are such a waste of time and money etc.,

"IF" being the key word. I use filters on all my lenses that take them. I do have a couple of lenses that don't take filters. They are the exception.

Thinking positively, I have plenty of room to improve!!

Best regards

I use them too What I blame for the lack of quality in my photos is anything and everything except the real cause, me to quote one member "The camera doesn't lie about the person behind it"
Regards
Stan

PPG

johnriley

Link Posted 05/03/2012 - 14:42
Sellers simply use the fact a filter has been on a lens as a selling point, and it is in the sense that it implies that they have kept their cleaning excesses off the lens and scratched the filter instead....

In fact, cleaning a lens should be very infrequent, but if it's going to be overdone then better it's overdone on the filter.

If the buyer believes it's an advantage, then it enhances the value of the lens.
Best regards, John

George Lazarette

Link Posted 06/03/2012 - 02:31
johnha wrote:
I've just bought the 17-70, my first DA or SDM lens, I can't compare it to the others. I really needed something wider than my FA 28-80 for my K-5. I did briefly consider the 16-50 but the extra 20mm fits my lens coverage (not to mention budget) better. First impressions are very good (and a massive improvement over the FA lens).

The FA 28-80 (I have one, but never use it) was never a highly regarded lens, so any modern zoom should be an improvement.

The 17-70 is not a bad lens at all, but the 16-50 is noticeably better (as it should be, at the price). And the 31mm and 77mm are better again, though I would say there is a wider gap between the 17-70 and the 16-50 than there is between the latter and the Ltds. I occasionally think that a 16-50 picture might have been taken with the 31mm. You could never think that of a 17-70 image.

So when the budget improves, a 16-50 and a 50-135 will do you nicely!

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.