Nikon 16-85 VR, worth the extra £?

C

Chumpalot

Messages
669
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening all,

Now that I have the macro side of things sorted, it's time to complete the final part of the trilogy :). Thing is, this will be my main lens and so choosing is proving to be quite hard.

Is the Nikon 16-85 VR worth the extra money when say compared to the Tamron 17-55 or Sigma 24-70 f2.8? I've heard very good things about both of these lenses (especially the Sigma) and have owned the Tamron for a while but decided to sell due to a change of heart.

I will mostly be using the lens for portraits, pictures of cars, pets, family, everyday stuff really. I like the idea of the 16mm wide end, I realise that it won't give me ultra wide angles but it will still come in handy. Does the fact that this lens isn't 2.8 detract from it in anyway? Or am I not going to notice a difference here?

Thanks for any help or advice you can offer. Much appreciated.

Dave
 
Optically its a very good lens - IMHO its Nikon's best DX lens. but its poor value however you cut it, especially at £450.

I'd choose an f/2.8 lens like the Tamron 17-50, as it has much better bokeh, focus is just as fast, and its 1 2/3rd of a stop faster than the 16-85 VR when both are at 50mm.

I do like the 16-85 VR (a lot) but I can't see why you need VR for any of the things you've listed, and an f/2.8 lens will be nicer for portraits purely for bokeh.
 
puddleduck said:
Optically its a very good lens - IMHO its Nikon's best DX lens. but its poor value however you cut it, especially at £450.

I'd choose an f/2.8 lens like the Tamron 17-50, as it has much better bokeh, focus is just as fast, and its 1 2/3rd of a stop faster than the 16-85 VR when both are at 50mm.

I do like the 16-85 VR (a lot) but I can't see why you need VR for any of the things you've listed, and an f/2.8 lens will be nicer for portraits purely for bokeh.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice.

My main concern is going for another Tamron or perhaps a Sigma and getting a poor copy. I wasn't too impressed with the 17-50 I had, everything seemed rather soft rather than pin sharp as I expected.

Value isn't too much of a concern to be honest. I just want something that will last me a while and give me a nice sharp picture.
 
Well IMHO you were probably sold a lemon there - I didn't really like the look of your samples from the 17-50 you posted tbh.

I'm sure you'll be fine with another. Or try a Nikkor 18-70 DX because for about £100-£130 these are excellent, I used one on a D60 and I've also used a 16-85 VR on a DX, and the 18-70 DX is just as good optically.
 
I think I was too :(

I will have to live on the forums to see if another comes up :) I'll also take a look at the 18-70 too.

Thanks again.
 
I have both the 16-85mm VR & the 18-70mm which is on my D40 all the time

One advantage of the 16-85mmm VR is that you can get really good handheld shots right down to 1/10th of a second indoors, depending on how much coffee or tea you drink.

Even though the 18-70mm is brighter ie F3.5 to F4.5 i can't get close to sharp images at 1/10th sec.

Optically they both as good, I'll give the 16-85mm VR the egde on sharpness, just depends if you think paying for VR which is really good on this lens & the extra 2mm at the wide end worth it.
 
I think I could really make use of the wider angle. Though to be fair the 18-70 DX is tempting me.

Thank you both for the input. Very helpful indeed.
 
puddleduck said:
Well IMHO you were probably sold a lemon there - I didn't really like the look of your samples from the 17-50 you posted tbh.

I'm sure you'll be fine with another. Or try a Nikkor 18-70 DX because for about £100-£130 these are excellent, I used one on a D60 and I've also used a 16-85 VR on a DX, and the 18-70 DX is just as good optically.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, the 18-70 Nikkor is a steal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top