Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

On 2/3/2016 1:47 PM, Ed Keeney wrote: Thanks PDML for all the responses. You've managed to muddy my waters even more than they already were. Glad we could be of service. 8-D -- Science - Questions we may never find answers for. Religion - Answers we must never question. -- PDML

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

On 2/3/2016 3:01 PM, David J Brooks wrote: On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Ed Keeney wrote: Thanks PDML for all the responses. You've managed to muddy my waters even more than they already were. Wait till you ask cats questions. Dave I thought we agreed to redirect

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

On 2/4/2016 10:29 AM, John wrote: On 2/3/2016 1:47 PM, Ed Keeney wrote: Thanks PDML for all the responses. You've managed to muddy my waters even more than they already were. Glad we could be of service. 8-D Wait, we didn't convince him to buy something. -- I don't want to achieve

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

> On 04 February 2016 at 15:31 John wrote: > > > On 2/3/2016 3:01 PM, David J Brooks wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Ed Keeney wrote: > >> Thanks PDML for all the responses. You've managed to muddy my waters > >> even more than they

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

Wait, we didn't convince him to buy something. Maybe a new Nikon or Canon ;-) Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "P.J. Alling" <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4) On 2/4/201

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "WILSON MICHAEL" <m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com> Subject: Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4) On 04 February 2016 at 15:31 John <sesso...@earthlink.net> wrote: On 2/3/2016 3

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

We're here for friendly pushes down the slippery slope and muddying the waters you're headed towards. On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Bob W-PDML wrote: > That's what we're here for... > >> On 3 Feb 2016, at 18:49, Ed Keeney wrote: >> >> Thanks PDML for

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

That's what we're here for... > On 3 Feb 2016, at 18:49, Ed Keeney wrote: > > Thanks PDML for all the responses. You've managed to muddy my waters > even more than they already were. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

Thanks PDML for all the responses. You've managed to muddy my waters even more than they already were. I'm still leaning to the 17-70 looking for the range for a walk-around lens when I don't have my bag with me (instead of having multiple primes). I'm going to look at the Sigma and Tamron

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Ed Keeney wrote: > Thanks PDML for all the responses. You've managed to muddy my waters > even more than they already were. Wait till you ask cats questions. Dave Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

Late to the party but unless you are dead keen to purchase a Pentax branded lens then you might also consider the Sigma 18-50/2.8 (which according to a few tests is a better performer than both the equivalent Tamron and Pentax lenses) or the new C series Sigma 17-70/2.8-4. I have the Sigma

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

The 16-45 I liked very much but it failed suddenly to zoom beyond around 28 and I replaced it with a Tamron 17-50/2.8 as an all-round zoom. But a few weeks ago, after about 5 years use of the Tamron lens, I felt with my bag and now the Tamron lens has a zoom problem. I didn't hesitate to buy a

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Ed Keeney wrote: > > To start, I am looking at the DA 17-70 to roughly cover the same range > as the 18-55 and luckily it's the lowest priced one. B has it > listed for $350, Amazon $300. My two colpies had serious focus issues right from

Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

Hello all! I have the following in my bag at the moment... Pentax K-50 SMC-DAL 18-55 3.5/5.6 SMC-DA 50-200 4-5.6 SMC-FA 50 1.4 I find that the image quality of the 50 is outstanding when comparing to the other 2 lenses (primarily the 18-55). Not that the kit lens is bad, but

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

Yes! Truism: Any can have problems! J - Original Message - From: "Ed Keeney" <ewkph...@gmail.com> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 8:27:11 AM Subject: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4) Hello all! I have the f

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

You should look at prices other than at Ricoh's site. B and Adorama both have deep discounts on those prices, and Amazon tends to be competitive with them. For example, I'm watching the 16-50, and it's running $693.95 at both B and Amazon. Pentaxforums keeps a regularly updated list of price

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

II failed to mention the 16-45 and was about to do so, but you covered It well, Mark. J Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 29, 2016, at 12:48 PM, Mark C wrote: > > You left out the DA 16-45 f4, which might be the sweet spot in terms of > performance and price, though it is

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

Ed, I've had a 16-45 since I bought my (now my daughter's) istD. It's a great lens--very sharp, compact, and fast enough, especiaily with the K-5. I was very tempted by the 17-70 because of its longer zoom range, but the constant reports of SDM problems (which didn't seem to taper off as the

Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

Hi Ed, Several other people have responded already. Let me just add what I think about this lens. In the past 3-5 years, it is the most used lens for me. It is usually the "default" one attached to the camera while in the bag that frequently travels with me (unless I prepared for some special

Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

Hi Folks, the DA 17-70 is a terrific lens. So is the Sigma with internet reviews as a tad better than the Pentax and faster too. OK I am a travel & street photographer and find the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 lens as the sharpest value for money . Also this lens is the smallest and the lightest. I also own

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

I recently bought a 17-70 and I use it as mt walking around lens on the K5. It gives a good range of focal lengths when I don't want to take a large camera bag full of lenses. I am not sure about the image quality at wide apertures, I like to keep it at about f6.7

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

No experience with the 17-70. I’ve had the 16-50, 60-250. Both very fine lenses, no issues. I let go of both of these when I downsized my APS-C kit. I kept the 50-135/2.8. Alone, it is a superb lens. Together with the 1.4x extender it is a very reasonable substitute for the 60-250. Two

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

Jack Davis wrote: Ed, My general recollection of PDML related experiences and my own impressions: DA 12~24 Yes! DA 16~50 No! Reported alignment and focus issues. DA 17~70 Yes! FA 24~70 (?) DA 50~135 YES!!

Re: Lens Thoughts (DA 17-70 f4)

You left out the DA 16-45 f4, which might be the sweet spot in terms of performance and price, though it is now discontinued. FWIW - I have the 17-70, the 16-45 and the first version of the 18-55. The 17-70 is a little soft wide open but sharpens up even at f 5.6. The zoom range is good for a