In fact, it is also suitable for subjects when you first think of other objectives, such as for portraits. The 50-70 mm telephoto range of the DA 17-70 are ideal for this (if one pays attention to the background) the light intensity also, because if you're like me and professionally shoots portraits, one sooner or later lead to the conclusion that Aperture 1.4 to 2.8 (ie, two to four times luminous intensity with the correspondingly shallower depth of field) that look very pretty when the focus be only on eyes and lips, but to a lot of waste here is because of the focal plane is on the tip of the nose and the eyes are already blurred or at an inclined head one eye, the other is out of focus sharply what is often only later on "big screen" looks. In non-repeatable photo ops that is a no go, while you can take pictures at f1.4 as long faces of his sleeping wife / girlfriend / kids, to eyelashes and lips are sharp and the rest is blurred in picturesque blur. Speaking bokeh (blur course): He's the DA 17-70 significantly more harmonious than in most zooms, and is located on prime lenses level.
Also for Party Photography with (external) flash is fully suitable for group shots at full aperture (at 24mm) to format-filling portraits (at 70 mm). Aperture 4 ensures that even in persons who do not hold still (as sometimes it is just at parties), sufficient depth of field is present, available light (with an appropriate choice of shutter speed and ISO's) but not totgeblitzt and the main subject from the background , At f4.0, the Committee is smaller by fehlfokus than f2.8 or greater, yet the images still seem worlds plastic / three-dimensional than any image of a compact.
And of course the DA 17-70 is an ideal travel lens, if you put more emphasis on image quality, as the rarely needed Telephoto of slushy "super zoom", which can be compensated by inserting another small telephoto or telephoto zoom which (not only on) focal length end usually has a better picture quality than those known to me "super zoom" of Pentax, Tamron and Sigma.
The DA 17-70 recorded only at the shortest focal length barrel-shaped, which is rarely noticed in practice or can be easily corrected afterwards. From 35 mm to 70 mm it behaves in terms of distortion as a good prime lens: It lists not there. The vignetting at open aperture plays in practice no role and can (solid colors) are slight dimming or subsequently revised slightly in the image editing either in subjects where it strikes.
Very nice is the silent focusing and the transmitted light intensity, which allows to adjust these 1x with constant lighting conditions and manual exposure setting and then being able to take pictures without correction at all focal lengths. In subjects where the main subject always has the same light, the background brightness, however, varies, which is very helpful.
Size and weight, which are slightly higher than for example in DA 18-135, are on the one hand the continuous light intensity, due to other high optical Auskorrigiertheit that raises this lens on the class average. Those who want smaller and lighter, have to stop living with compromises and may be comforted together with the fact that the choice of photographic equiptments always a compromise is, the higher the image quality, the higher the price and weight with a simultaneous loss of flexibility and Conversely. Here everyone has to find its own balance between qualitative claim, opportunities (financially), endurance (smuggling, changing lenses). I envy the people who are happy with the results of a superzoom compact, a little. And of course I take for portraits rather the DA 2.4 / 70 or the DA 50-135 or in low light the Sigma 1.4 / 30, the FA 2.0 / 35 or the FA 1.4 / 50th In other words, I have plenty of choice. But if I do not know what will happen to me, I take the DA 17-70, because that comes out at night and Wildlife it all. Except when it is wet, so I'm also the only shortcoming of the DA 17-70 - the lack of weather resistance. As WR version (weather resistant), it would be perfect - but again expensive.
