1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

Mid range lenses

Discussion in 'Pentax Chat' started by Monobod, Jul 26, 2013.

  1. Monobod

    Monobod Phantom of the forum

    Hi, I wonder if any of you have an opinion as to whether the Pentax 17-70 F/4 DA AL IF SDM is better that the Sigma f/2,8-4.5 17-70 that I am currently using for image quality.

    It may simply be that my tired old eyes are not focussing as well as they once did, but the Sigma still seems to be ever so slightly soft compared, for instance, to my SMC Pentax FA 28-105 f/4.

    I could upgrade, but would I be right to do so?

    Sadly, the Limited prime lens (31mm F/1,8 AL) is far too expensive to be within reach and I have the SMC FA 50mm F/1.7 prime already, which is super.
  2. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    Hi David,

    SRS has a few used Pentax AF lenses (CLICK HERE)

    And, whilst it's not the FA 31/1.8, the DA 35/2.8 Macro is
    a very sharp lens and a tad less expensive ;) (CLICK HERE)

    As for your actual question, the only "mid-range" lens I've used have
    been the old "F 35-135" lens (a cracker for film), then the FA28-105 PZ and, lastly, for a wee bit the DA18-55 that came with my IST*Ds. As for the DA 17-70/4 SDM, I've only a fiddle with it so I really don't know it that well and, as for the unmentioned DA 16-50/2.8, most of the friends/customers who have purchased have loved it .... but, one fellow had a dodgy one which was returned and replaced and he was a happy camper :)


  3. Monobod

    Monobod Phantom of the forum

    I have the Sigma EX 10-20, which covers the very wide needsand is OK, but the 17-70 is such a useful range, I would like some feedback on it if possible. At £450, it is not mind bendingly expensive. I might also be able to trade the Sigma.

    The 16-50 you mention is nearly £800, so would need to be saved up for and justified to my financial controller.:eek:

    Thanks Jack for your comments.
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2013
  4. Stanovich

    Stanovich Member

    I have the Pentax 17-70, but haven't used the Sigma. All I can say is that it is certainly acceptably sharp, more so than the 18-55 kit lens and about the same as the 16-45 that I used to have. It also produces a nice smooth bokeh on short depth-of-field shots. On the downside there's a certain amount of barrel distortion above 50mm. I (just) prefer the optical qualities of the other mid-range lens I have, a Pentax FA24-90, which does seem slightly sharper on my K5IIs and gives what is to my eyes a slightly more natural colour rendition.
  5. Monobod

    Monobod Phantom of the forum

    Thank you. Perhaps I will see if I can try one out first. I have been looking much deeper into the finer points of image sharpening and I am now convinced that I can improve my images by taking even more care with post processing. I have revisited a book I bought some time ago; 'Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop CS2' by Bruce Fraser. 271 pages devoted purely to sharpening......what this guy doesn't know isn't worth knowing. Get this right and I may not need to change lenses after all. :eek:
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2013
  6. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    As long, David, as the book didn't cost as much as a lens ;) and, whilst I don't have CS2 any longer, I think this guys book may be worth having a -- to use UK slang -- butchers :)



Share This Page