New lenses....

[k_kakkinen]

<p>I would really like for Pentax/Ricoh to give "us" an updated version of the road map for their upcoming lenses....because I'm really craving for something like a 16-85 WR lens......I mean, should I wait yet another year for that kind of lens or simply look at the latest version of Sigma's 17-70 ("Contemporary") F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM.... which isn't a WR lens but might still be good enough for me for now....As I understand, this latest version should be available in late february.<br>

<br />Anyone have anything to say about the "old to be" Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 lens ?????</p>

[hinman]

<p>Hi Kari, craving for a lens like 16-85 WR is quite understandable. It will be a miracle if we have it in the road-map. And if miracle does happen, the Pentax will charge you a phenomenal fee for it. But I agree having the lens available is a sweet thing to have especially for brand loyalty. I see many jumping ship to other brands for full frame and availability of more lens choices and flash to choose from. </p>

<p>We can't expect Pentax to match what other brands has offered but we can choose to appreciate what it has in the offerings and the road map. I don't pay close attention to the current road map as waiting patiently is not my virtue. I consider alternatives as in the Pentax DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 highly and I almost want to start a new thread to solicit others' opinions on the lens, both good and bad. I know both<strong> Nick and Matt</strong> with the Pentax 18-135mm zoom lens and I hope that they can share their experience when time allows.</p>

<p>I did own the older version of the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 without HSM. Though many don't like the vari-aperture, I very much like the performance on the older Sigma. The build is actually quite good. The older model has a good close up, sharpness is quit good with the Sigma zoom, and close up is better than the Tamron 28-75 zoom. Build, size, weight is slightly better in the Sigma when compared to the Tamron zoom, but that is my personal opinion. With the new HSM, the motor noise should be much improved in the newer Sigma. </p>

<p>I try to stay away from Pentax 17-70mm f/4.0 as I hear too many SDM failures and AF issues on the lens; otherwise, it should also be a good candidate to consider if weather seal is not important to you.</p>

<p> </p>

[snik75]

<p>I've never had a Sigma 17-70, but Hin is right that I do have an 18-135 DA WR and like it a lot. I replaced an 18-55 WR, a Tamron 18-250 and an FA 24-90 with that one lens, and find it performs at least as well as any of them, often better. Does produce some distortion and fringing at the very wide end, although amenable to the K5's auto correction. I haven't noticed that mine is soft at the long end, although I have heard that complaint. It is not my everyday lens (I prefer primes most of the time) but love this for travel, especially paired with a faster prime. Makes for great family snapshots and some aesthetically pleasing images IMHO. I wouldn't hold my breath on the 16-85 WR, who knows what will happen with new lenses, and the cost will be... a lot.</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>I haven't heard quite as many reports of SDM problems with the Pentax 17-70 f/4 as I've heard with the 16-50 and 50-135. Optically the 17-70 is quite good, based on the tests and real-world results I've seen. </p>

<p>Still, I wouldn't blame anyone for being hesitant to take a chance on an SDM lens, considering SDM's rather notorious history. </p>

<p>I think Pentax would do well to re-release the 17-70 in a new "DC WR" version. Seems like it would be a hot seller if they did. Admittedly I haven't been paying much attention, but I assume (open to correction!) that the DC motor in the 18-135 has been more reliable than the various SDM motors.</p>

[hinman]

<p>This recent thread in dpreview discusses the choice <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50633277">between DA 17-70 and DA 18-135</a>.</p>

<p>A quote from <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50640791">Waynes in the discussion</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>17-70 is better wide but weaker long.<br /> 18-135 is average wide and long.<br /> At 17, 18, 17-70 is sharper.<br /> At 70, 18-135 is sharper.<br /> 17 is "a lot" wider than 18..<br /> Since I have DA15 and Sigma 17-50, I kept 18-135 and sold 17-70.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Opinion do vary and it is also subject to your lens combination. A fast prime such as 40mm or 35mm will go well with the 18-135mm as two lens combo. And I personally use the 17-70 as a single lens in traveling. But it all depends on the occasions and subjects in the shooting.</p>

<p>Here are few shots from my older version of the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5. It is a versatile lens and I will imagine similar or better in the latest Sigma.</p>

<p><a href=" src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4009/4245081031_234b331183_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="425" /></a><br /> K-x and Sigma zoom, <strong>17mm</strong>, f/2.8, iso 1600, 1/40 sec, hand-held</p>

<p><a href=" src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4012/4246017609_ac8250064a_z.jpg" alt="" /></a><br /> k-x and Sigma zoom, <strong>63mm</strong>, f/4.0, iso200, 1/125sec</p>

<p><a href=" src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3355/3213054113_b549e9c08f_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="425" /></a><br /> K20D and Sigma zoom, <strong>70mm close up</strong>, f/5.6, iso 100, 1/20 sec, hand-held</p>

<p>But the range in 18-135, WR, and better focus with DC motor can be considered as well</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I have the excellent DA*50-135mm and other top quality lenses in the shorter FL range to go with it, but I still use the DA 18-135mm WR lens very often. It is fine for most general purpose use. Very versatile, well-built, quiet and fast AF, very compact for its range making it especially suitable with a compact WR body, like the K-5. Great for going from WA to tele without the need to change lenses. I am happy with what I have been able to do with this lens, its build quality and handling.<br>

</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I think the last roadmap did suggest there may be something like a DA* 16-85 -- which I would personally be all over. We don't know yet when (if!) this lens will appear, or much about the specs -- it could easily be variable aperture (kind of likely for a 5.3x zoom), and that 16-85 is only a guess, it could easily be shorter or longer. With a DA* moniker though I think we can expect premium WR build and SDM.</p>

<p>I have the 17-70/4 and find it optically decent enough but the AF is a bit hunt-prone, particularly at the longer focal lengths. In fairness, I haven't tried to get Pentax to recalibrate my lens either -- I believe some people have had some success with this. The only standard zoom I've found to be better (at 70mm in particular) is the FA24-90/3.5-4.5 but both were trounced by the DA70/2.4.</p>

[k_kakkinen]

<p>Andrew.....you hit the nail for me....and my eager and reason for wishing Pentax/Ricoh for an updated version of that roadmap. Because I think by now they should know even more about future lenses...</p>

<p>And, you are also correct about the latest roadmap.....they actually suggested as you wrote "<em>there may be something like a DA* 16-85</em>" ...but it indicated the release "<em>during 2013 or later</em>".....Personally I want it now and not later....</p>

<p>Hin.... As usual.....excellent pictures</p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>I was undecided about my 18-135 for about the first month I had it. But as I got more used to it I liked it more and more. I needed to stop down more than I was used to to get good results and it does have some fringing in high contrast scenes as well as vignetting at the wide end. On paper this may sound pretty bad but both are easy enough to correct in post if I feel it's otherwise a good shot.<br /> What I like:</p>

<ul>

<li>WR! This is why I got it.</li>

<li>Solid build with no barrel wobble when extended and damp feeling zoom action.</li>

<li>Good versatile range. If I'm using this lens I'm probably hoping to not have to change lenses due to harsh conditions!</li>

<li>Bokeh is surprisingly smooth and pleasing.</li>

<li>Focus is quick, quiet and accurate.</li>

<li>Compact and light.</li>

<li>Handles flare better than I was expecting.</li>

</ul>

<p>What could be better:</p>

<ul>

<li>Vignetting is noticeable at wide end.</li>

<li>Not as sharp as a limited.</li>

<li>Fringing.</li>

<li>Slow.</li>

<li>Distortion - not the best for architecture</li>

</ul>

<p>Overall I'm pretty happy with it. The "bad" things are all things I knew before purchase so no nasty surprises. My go-to kit for potentially harsh conditions is now a K-5, the 18-135, and DA 15. Pretty compact, versatile, and gives good results.<br /> A few recent samples:<br /> <a title="IMGP7201 by MattB.net, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8501/8331752027_fcb2272b15_c.jpg" alt="IMGP7201" width="530" height="800" /></a><br /> .<br /> <a href=" title="IMGP7141 by MattB.net, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8496/8332809846_5a9faf8f49_z.jpg" width="640" height="424" alt="IMGP7141"></a><br /> .<br /> <a title="IMGP6712 by MattB.net, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8084/8292926568_84feff483e_c.jpg" alt="IMGP6712" width="530" height="800" /></a></p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>Oops, here's that shot that didn't display after I edited it.<br>

<a title="IMGP7141 by MattB.net, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8496/8332809846_5a9faf8f49_z.jpg" alt="IMGP7141" width="640" height="424" /></a></p>

[laur1]

<p>I hope <a href="http://www.cpplus.jp/en/">CP+</a> will bring some exciting news for both Ricoh and Pentax branded cameras.</p>

[hinman]

<p>@Matt, beautiful and difficult pictures to take in all three. I am sold on the lens and I am with you that there are times changing lens is not feasible. </p>