Just curious if it is really that much better and worth spending the cash on. I've been happy with the 18-55 so far...
How much better is the 16-85 compared to the 18-55?
(22 posts) (15 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Hello golfmasterb. If your happy with the 18-55 then great, but that zoom range for many just isn't enough. Especially if they're use to using a point & shoot with a wide zoom range. So thats where the 16-85 comes in. I prefer it to the 18-55. If it's too expensive for you then consider the 18-70. It doesn't have VR but it's a very good lens and a great value for the price.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I like mine, works fine, needs to go to F 5-6 area at 16mm
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
I have both and I can say that the 16-85 is excellent. Those 2 mm at the wide angle end make a hell of a difference ! It's the lens that is permanently on my D300 for day to day photography.
Both are sharp and need bracketing a bit at wide angle. It all depends on the money yo wish to spend…Posted 3 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
If it's too expensive for you then consider the 18-70. It doesn't have VR but it's a very good lens and a great value for the price.I feel like some preacher about this lens this morning, but also consider the 18-105 which has great image quality and VR for kind of an in-between price.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I find the 16-85 a perfect all-around lens. It's just wide enough - yes those 2mm make a huge difference and long enough. It's the lens on my D90 most of the time. The very lack of a comparable lens in FX keeps me DX.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Or if you don't think you need VR, you could go for the 18-135.
Posted 3 years ago # -
jonnyapple said:
I feel like some preacher about this lens this morning, but also consider the 18-105 which has great image quality and VR for kind of an in-between price.I second that - I got one for dirt cheap awhile ago for my mom's d40x, and it's a sharp sucker! I paid $229 or something from abesofmaine.com, it was new but taken from a D90 "kit" so it was "only" in a white box, but with full warranty. . .well worth the price IMO. . .
The 16-85 is $550!! If I could get the 18-105 for that cheap, I would do it again. . .sharper than 18-55's I've seen. . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
I posted this elsewhere, but just in case people following this thread are interested, here are a couple I took with the 18-105. I'm not including any from the wider range, but it has similar performance there to the 18-70 (which I used for a long time on my D100) or the 18-55s I've tried. I put them up full size if you click on them if you'd like to pixel peep.
80mm at 1/30s
105mm lit mainly by bounce flash
Posted 3 years ago # -
18-105 is a really good lens for the price, and if you get it in a kit it is really great deal.
On the other hand 16-85 is the sharpest all-around DX zoom lens Nikon currently has to offer (17-55 is not an all-around lens), much sharper than 18-200 or any other lens mentioned here and it is built much better.Posted 3 years ago # -
Thanks for all of the comments.
I should have been a little more clearer in my origional post. I currently have a the 18-55 & 55-200 lens. Plan on getting rid of the 55-200 and picking up the 70-300. Was curious as to if the 16-85 was a huge improvement and worth spending the $650 or so for it...
Posted 3 years ago # -
I've shot a little with both and bought the 16-85, same filter as the 70-300 also. Along with the 10-24, they keep me very happy.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Instead of new thread, I'll post here. My question goes a bit deeper though and would appreciate some common sense input from the chorus.
Just bought the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D for my D90 (love it!). This coupled with other AF-D 105mm macro and 50mm 1.8 make up my "FX" lenses (all screw driven).
My AF-S DX lenses are 12-24mm, 35mm, and the 18-55/55-200 kits (these two I now keep bagged with my old D40).
I'm debating the 16-85mm DX to get 1) better optics and 2) close the zoom gap w/80-200, but I think I should save the money for the wider FX lens for eventual upgrade. I see my next logical move being an FX body and keep the D90 for the screw-driven/DX-magnification needs.
Assuming I go out with both bodies, here is how I use them today:
D40: 12-24, 18-55 or 35mm --- D90: 105mm or now the 80-200mm
D40: 55-200 --- D90: 12-24 (if I want the 12 MP resolution)
"16-85" would fit well with D40 above or could complete the set for D90 aloneIf I go FX and keep the D90, it would look something like this:
D90: 12-24, ?????, 35, 50 --- FX: 80-200
D90: 80-200 (for magnification) --- FX: ?????I have a hard time seeing the 16-85mm fit the second combo seeing there's a missing link for the FX. Considering cost of the FX body plus all the FX lens lust that will ensue (Holy Trinity or "The Joy of Six" as coined today)...one could perceive another DX (3.5-5.6) lens as a waste of money.
Although my reasoning is sound above, a $650 16-85mm can sell for $450 used pretty easily and bridge the 2 years of waiting for the rest to fall in place. Going FX is not cheap and right now, I do not enjoy my 18-55mm like I used to.
The simple solution: 18-105 from all the D7000 kits bridges the zoom gap and provides VR.
Bring on the opinions...and thanks!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Maybe get a 24-70 2.8?
You're only missing something fast in between 24-80, getting a 24-70 would fill that in quite nicely.
The only other thing missing would be a wide angle FX, and that's quite expensive, 14-24 2.8.
But the 18-105 is nice and not too pricey.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yup, 24-70 would be the likely right one to close the gap. At $1500+ though it becomes chicken and egg when thinking also of $2000+ body. Lens makes more sense, because once you buy the body you know the lens has to come right after. BTW, we're just talking...I have no plans to dive that deep in the pro glass at this very moment...just thinking ahead to the D800 and making conversation.
On the wide, I think I need to make the 14-24 a very long term objective and keep the 12-24 and DX body.
The 16-85 vs 18-105 is a toss up...if I can afford the 16-85, I would suspect the resale value to net out or at least the pictures may make a larger loss on the 16-85 worth it.
Amazing how easy it is to agonize over something so irrelevant to taking great pictures. Something to do while sitting behind a desk.
Cheers.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"Amazing how easy it is to agonize over something so irrelevant to taking great pictures."
How true. We all do it though :^}
Posted 2 years ago # -
In my opinion, the difference between the 18-55 and 16-85 is only build quality. Yes, I know optically the 16-85 is better, but I find the differences to be extremely subtle- not enough to worry about.
Personally, if I were you, I would just keep what you have- it's already lets you do just about anything. I would only change or buy a new lens when I find a specific role that I want the new lens to play that the old one cannot.
You mentioned that you "do not enjoy" your 18-55- you should look at the specific reason why that is- do you find that optically it is not good enough? In that case I'd look at primes as the other zooms are about the same (the differences are actually very subtle in real life situations). Or perhaps you'd like a wider aperture? In that case primes would be a good candidate, or if you insist on a zoom, then something like the 17-55 or 24-70. Same idea with build quality- in this case the 16-85 really is a step up, as would be any of the primes or fast zooms.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Thanks jerl. It's a psychological thing. 18-55 and 80-200 leaves that gap open, but today I leave my 18-55 at home and use 35/50 primes. So right now I still have the gap wide open and am doing fine. (And of course there's no way I'd bring the 55-200 AND the 80-200 to cover 55-80 range!! But it still eats at you :-) )
The 16-85 or 18-105 solve the bloody problem once and for all, but you are likely right about build quality being the most noticeable difference (at my level anyway).
The 18-55 is just so outperformed by the faster 35mm 1.8 and of course the 80-200 2.8. It's also not VR (older one), so I find myself struggling to find a use for it aside from the obvious outdoors day.
Another fast prime (24 or 28) could help, but like I state above changing between 3 primes to cover the low end is almost just as bad. A suite of primes is not a "walk around" solution.
I'll do some tests this week with 18-55 and 80-200 and see what I'm actually missing and/or hating about the combo.
Cheers.
Posted 2 years ago # -
17-55 would be nice if you feel like sticking with DX for a very long time.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I liked my 18-70mm untill I tried the 17-55mm.. Tack sharp and no chromatic aberrations. However I wound up opting for the Fx 17-35mm as I want to go fx soon
Posted 2 years ago # -
A little off-topic - or maybe not:
Just for kicks, I test-shot my 18-105 "plastic kit lens" against a 20mm f 2.8 AF-D - old-school, prime, fast(ish), FX compatible... expensive!
At the same aperture and focal distance, the prime was softer both at center and (most noticeably) at the edges of the picture.
Sure, f2.8 is dandy, but so is VR (apples to oranges, I know). And wide to tele with a flick of the wrist is most convenient!
But it did persuade me to stop messing around and keep shooting with the 18-105.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
