Steve'sDigicams

ennacac · Nov 10, 2009, 11:23 PM

The 16-45 has the same issue the FA* 28-70 has when getting close up photos, the front of the lens sticks out so far it gets in the way of the on board flash at times.

Here is a sample photo using the DA 16-45 on the K20D!

Tom

mtngal · Nov 11, 2009, 12:01 AM

Lens looks good and I really LOVE the Jeep!

ennacac · Nov 11, 2009, 12:29 AM

Hi Harriet, it belongs to a friend who uses it as a dune buggy to run around the fire trails in Northern Wisconsin. I was over there today and took the photo just because I thought it looked kind of like a fun toy.

Tom

hinioman · Nov 18, 2009, 8:14 PM

I chose Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 as my walk-around lens replacing the kit's lens for the following reasons:

well rounded focal range that serve landscape, candid ans close up, very flexible range and speed though the vari-focal in f/2.8 to f/4.5
Close up in 1:2.3 is valuable
IQ is nice and build is good from the Sigma
price is good in the used market for about $300.00

I have used Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and in terms of speed, Tamron is a better lens but if your focus is to have a more flexible focal range and that you like close-up, the Sigma is a better overall lens for me as the extra gain in reach from 50mm to 70mm is huge for me. I don't consider the Pentax DA 17-70mm f/4.0 as I find it lacking weather sealing and price is a bit too high for me.

I wrote about Pentax 1-lens choices and it starts with the Sigma 17-70mm as a central piece.

1/3 sec, f/5.6, 53mm, iso 400, 0 Ev

1/5 sec, f/6.3, 17mm, iso 500, 0 Ev

1/40 sec, f/4.0, 40mm, iso 400, 0 Ev

Thanks,
Hin

Biro · Dec 1, 2009, 1:19 PM

I have to say I am tempted to pick up a Pentax 16-45 while they're still readily available. I have the DA* 16-50 and I haven't had any problems so far... but I must admit I am just a bit concerned about all the talk about the unreliability of the SDM motors in Pentax's DA* line. I wouldn't mind having a reliable non-SDM zoom in this range - especially if the price is reasonable - just in case.

Granted, the WR version of the 18-55 kit lens is also appealing. But the optics of the 16-45 are considered superior by most who've had a chance to work with both lenses (not that the 18-55 is a slouch).

But this brings me back to Harriet's suggestion: the Pentax DA 17-70 lens. This also has an SDM motor - which concerns me a bit - but I wonder if the set-up for this lens might be different enough make the SDM technology more reliable than in the DA* line. Also, no one has said much so far about the image quality of this lens versus the Pentax 16-45. Anyone have anything to offer?

interested_observer · Dec 2, 2009, 10:05 PM

I have had the 16-45 for about 4 years now and like it very much. My 12-24 does stay on my K20 most of the time though. I do not know anything about the 17-70 - I though about it a bit, but have stayed with the screw drive.

I will say that over at the PentaxForums.com marketplace, I have seen a number of what appears to be very well cared for 16-45s in the $200+ area, which is about half price. It appears that after upgrading to the 16-50/2.8 folks start to let the 16-45 go. Just a thought...

Nov 18, 2009, 8:14 PM	#24
hinioman Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 34	I chose Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 as my walk-around lens replacing the kit's lens for the following reasons: well rounded focal range that serve landscape, candid ans close up, very flexible range and speed though the vari-focal in f/2.8 to f/4.5 Close up in 1:2.3 is valuable IQ is nice and build is good from the Sigma price is good in the used market for about $300.00 I have used Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and in terms of speed, Tamron is a better lens but if your focus is to have a more flexible focal range and that you like close-up, the Sigma is a better overall lens for me as the extra gain in reach from 50mm to 70mm is huge for me. I don't consider the Pentax DA 17-70mm f/4.0 as I find it lacking weather sealing and price is a bit too high for me. I wrote about Pentax 1-lens choices and it starts with the Sigma 17-70mm as a central piece. 1/3 sec, f/5.6, 53mm, iso 400, 0 Ev 1/5 sec, f/6.3, 17mm, iso 500, 0 Ev 1/40 sec, f/4.0, 40mm, iso 400, 0 Ev Thanks, Hin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Nov 10, 2009, 11:23 PM	#21
ennacac Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,198	The 16-45 has the same issue the FA* 28-70 has when getting close up photos, the front of the lens sticks out so far it gets in the way of the on board flash at times. Here is a sample photo using the DA 16-45 on the K20D! Tom

Nov 11, 2009, 12:01 AM	#22
mtngal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Frazier Park, CA Posts: 16,115	Lens looks good and I really LOVE the Jeep!

Nov 11, 2009, 12:29 AM	#23
ennacac Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,198	Hi Harriet, it belongs to a friend who uses it as a dune buggy to run around the fire trails in Northern Wisconsin. I was over there today and took the photo just because I thought it looked kind of like a fun toy. Tom

Dec 1, 2009, 1:19 PM	#25
Biro Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 835	I have to say I am tempted to pick up a Pentax 16-45 while they're still readily available. I have the DA* 16-50 and I haven't had any problems so far... but I must admit I am just a bit concerned about all the talk about the unreliability of the SDM motors in Pentax's DA* line. I wouldn't mind having a reliable non-SDM zoom in this range - especially if the price is reasonable - just in case. Granted, the WR version of the 18-55 kit lens is also appealing. But the optics of the 16-45 are considered superior by most who've had a chance to work with both lenses (not that the 18-55 is a slouch). But this brings me back to Harriet's suggestion: the Pentax DA 17-70 lens. This also has an SDM motor - which concerns me a bit - but I wonder if the set-up for this lens might be different enough make the SDM technology more reliable than in the DA* line. Also, no one has said much so far about the image quality of this lens versus the Pentax 16-45. Anyone have anything to offer?

Dec 2, 2009, 10:05 PM	#26
interested_observer Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Posts: 1,381	I have had the 16-45 for about 4 years now and like it very much. My 12-24 does stay on my K20 most of the time though. I do not know anything about the 17-70 - I though about it a bit, but have stayed with the screw drive. I will say that over at the PentaxForums.com marketplace, I have seen a number of what appears to be very well cared for 16-45s in the $200+ area, which is about half price. It appears that after upgrading to the 16-50/2.8 folks start to let the 16-45 go. Just a thought...