Dynax Digital Forums

I just got one at eBay for £220. It hasn't arrived yet, so I can't write about it with any great authority! I wanted something wide-angle for landscapes, so great speed was not a consideration. And March is a good month for buying stuff (no council tax, no water charges, and no gas/electric/phone bills here either - whoopee!).

There are several reviews online, most of which agree that it suffers from significant barrel distortion at the wide end and some CA, softness and vignetting at the extremes. However, it compares very well with similar lenses from the other big players (and not too badly against the CZ16-80), and its zoom range is very useful.

Here's one such review: http://www.lenstip.com/210.1-Lens_review-Sony_DT_16-105_mm_f_3.5-5.6_Introduction.html

A search of Dynax Digital will reveal similar findings, and some users who are/were very satisfied indeed.

May I just comment that all those lenses are only for APS-C sensors. Should you decide to move to full-frame they will not be suitable. Just a thought but worth bearing in mind as I know I how much I lost on lens replacement when I bought  the a900.

My path to the 17-70 was a long one.  I really wanted to get to 16mm and did plenty of online checking for both Sony lenses.  Simply put, I couldn't afford the Zeiss and the 16-105 was hard to find.  Moving down to 17mm brought more choices.  I had owned the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 and liked everything about it but the range (many have had this same experience!).  If I were to give up that lens, adding 15mm with the 17-50 would not really ease my feeling that the range was cramped.  I didn't like falling to f/4.5 with the Sigma, but in reality it was my Tamron 17-35 reborn (since both are f/4 at 35mm, and I was OK with that before) - but then adds twice the focal length with a small light-grasp penalty and about 15g of extra weight, and rewards me with amazing close-focus capabilities.  On top of all that, it's the low-price champ of the four lenses so I could afford it sooner. 

That was enough thinking for me!  I've used it for eight months and have no regrets.  I've seen enough shots from the other lenses to be satisfied that they are all excellent... but my copy of the 17-70 is excellent too, and the close-focus fills a gap that needed filling.  I don't do bugs at point-blank range, but for flowers or other small items it's great.

The Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 was also explored, but too many gear-strip stories surfaced.  The 17-70 had one or two comments about that, but far fewer than the 70-300 and 18-50 reports.