Pentax 17-28mm anyone used it?


Link Posted 13/11/2004 - 01:19
I'm finally preparing to break down and buy a good piece of Pentax glass for my ist D. I have had a lot of trouble with non-Pentax lenses (Sigma, Tamron) not focussing correctly and creating photos that I'm not real pleased with. <<<WARNING- don't expect a Tamron 28-300mm f3.5 to perform worth a darn on an ist d!>>>
I've considered the 16-45mm, but would like something back-compatible with my 35mm Pentax. So I was wondering if anyone has had experience with the Pentax 17-28mm AF lens particularly on an ist d.

George Lazarette

Link Posted 13/11/2004 - 10:11
You do realise this is a fish-eye?

I had a fish-eye once, and rarely used it. Be sure you really want it before parting with the hard-earned.

The two lenses I'm looking out for at the moment for my *ist D are the 77 Limited and (despite all I've said in the past about zooms!) the 18-55 zoom. I know the latter won't work on 35mm, but I very, very rarely use 35mm now.

But to answer your question, I haven't used the 17-28, though it gets reasonable reviews on Stan's site.



Link Posted 13/11/2004 - 13:54
Yes I was aware that it is a fisheye, but it wasn't until you pointed out the waste of money that I realised that maybe a full-time fisheye ain't the best idea. I suppose I can continue using my ancient Sigma 16mm for wide shots.
So how about a good 28-XX lenses for under $5 trillion?

Kevin Stephens

Link Posted 13/11/2004 - 14:34
there are some user reviews here:,Zoom/Pentax/PRD_83562_3128crx.aspx

Personally I would want a standard (ie not distorted WA zoom before getting a fisheye)

also autofocus is less critical on WA lenses so second hand Pentax K mount 28mm and 35mm are good buys?


Link Posted 13/11/2004 - 22:56
One advantage of digital is the ease of removing fisheye distortion when necessary.

Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.