All Forum Comments
Comment by Lance B posted on Pentax 17-70mm first pictures at 29/06/2009 - 14:32
Very nice set of pics.
Slow shutter times, but pics sharp, not blurred. Tri/mono-pod or steady hand?
All hand held but with SR, a steady hand and patience.
Comment by Lance B posted on Photo's from Sydney's Taronga zoo at 29/06/2009 - 14:28
I absolutely like the Tiger image. Such a great look from him.
To me its a shame about his paw bein' composed out of the shot. [/quote]Yes, it was a little bit of a hurried shot as he only momentarily looked my way and so no time to compose perfectly.
Comment by Lance B posted on Photo's from Sydney's Taronga zoo at 29/06/2009 - 14:26
A quality set of pics Lance
Comment by Lance B posted on Photo's from Sydney's Taronga zoo at 29/06/2009 - 14:24
Absolutely wonderful tiger !
Overall nice set.
(do not like the background of giraffe, sry)
The reason for the background was to show off the Sydney Harbour Bridge as a backdrop. It may not have been the best backdrop, but it was one of those "iconic moments".
Comment by Lance B posted on Photo's from Sydney's Taronga zoo at 29/06/2009 - 14:24
A great set. Makes me want the 60-250 more than ever .
I love the tiger, and the red panda, but then I am just daft about red pandas .
I can definitely recommend the DA*60-250!
Comment by Lance B posted on Photo's from Sydney's Taronga zoo at 29/06/2009 - 14:22
Excellent shots Lance, Number 1 for me, awesome shot.
Comment by Lance B posted on Photo's from Sydney's Taronga zoo at 29/06/2009 - 14:21
lovely shot once again lance 1 and 2 for me, but the tiger looks awsome,
Comment by Lance B posted on Photo's from Sydney's Taronga zoo at 29/06/2009 - 14:20
Hi Lance,
Nice to see you back!
Funny that you should think about the 17-70, as you know, I keep dreaming of a DA*15-60 f4.0, but I've returned to reality and just ordered a 17-70 from Chris (SRS) yesterday.
I still have my much loved 16-45, but have increasingly found the need for a slightly longer reach. I will do some comparisons of course!
I think it would be great if Pentax did a DA*16-50 f4, too.
I hope it's as good as Matt says and that I don't miss that missing 1mm too much!
https://www.pentaxuser.com/news/Pentax-1645mm-and-1650mm-compared-169
This of course could mean that the DA16-45 is not as wide at close focus only and they may be the same at infinity, but we need another test to show that.
Richard, you need to test the DA16-45, the DA*16-50 and the DA17-70 all at near infinty and all at their shortest focal length.
Comment by Lance B posted on Pentax 17-70mm first pictures at 29/06/2009 - 08:01
Hi Lance, great set of photos, pretty sharp and colours really vibrant.
That's quite a pair isn't it? the two lenses go really together .
The DA*60-250 and the DA*300 are a perfect pair and it is quite amazing the difference between 250mm and 300mm, so it is good to have both.
Comment by Lance B posted on Photo's from Sydney's Taronga zoo at 29/06/2009 - 07:54
[quote:3496ace15f="RichardDay"]Hi Lance,
Nice to see you back!
Funny that you should think about the 17-70, as you know, I keep dreaming of a DA*15-60 f4.0, but I've returned to reality and just ordered a 17-70 from Chris (SRS) yesterday.
I still have my much loved 16-45, but have increasingly found the need for a slightly longer reach. I will do some comparisons of course!
I think it would be great if Pentax did a DA*16-50 f4, too.
I think you mean a DA*15-60 f4.0?
Well, the DA16-45 seems to not be as wide as the DA*16-50 according to the test done here at Pentax User:
https://www.pentaxuser.com/news/Pentax-1645mm-and-1650mm-compared-169
This of course could mean that the DA16-45 is not as wide at close focus only and they may be the same at infinity, but we need another test to show that.
Richard, you need to test the DA16-45, the DA*16-50 and the DA17-70 all at near infinty and all at their shortest focal length.
I don't have a DA*16-50 at hand to compare, but, from looking at my various test shots from earlier this year, at infinity the two lenses were pretty much identical at the wide end, and only a very small difference between them at the long end. For my usage, I found the performance gain : of the 16-50 insufficient to warrant changing, considering the virtually identical coverage and added size and weight.
But I will compare the 16-45 and 17-70 as I shall have to decide which lens I will keep, there is no point in having both, at least as far as I'm concerned, because I don't collect.
I hope the 17-70 is better than my 16-45 as it gives a much more convenient range without changing lenses and makes a nice companion to the 60-250. It was from using my 60-250 that I found the 60mm end really nice for portraits of the grandchildren.