Nikon 16-85 vs 18-105

Haighy

Haighy

Messages
99
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
As the title says, will I notice too much of a difference between the two?
I want a general walk around to complement the 70-300.

The price is swaying me towards the 18-105 as it is below £200, but the better build quality of the 16-85 and the wider focal length makes my mind go crazy. :lol:
 
I recently bought a d90 and read up on every Nikon lens going to decide which I should buy.

In the end I opted for the kit lens as although the 16-85 is supposed to have better optical qualities it is no faster.

I ws really pleased with the kit lens but have just snapped up a Tamron 17-50 which in a different league to the kit lens, both in speed and sharpness.

Couldnt recommend it enough if you can live without the shorter focal length.
 
I love my 16-85; haven't used the 18-105 so can't comment on it. However I came from the kit 18-70 and can confirm that the extra 2mm at the wide end makes a big difference - I wouldn't be without it.
 
I've got the 16-85, 18-105 and the Tamon 17-50 and have spent the last three weeks comparing them.
They are all great lenses and, across the specs, they all have at least one plus point over the other. Which is best?
To be honest, I don't know - they are all good but at a given point one of them will excel over the other two. At another given point, it's all change.

If money is an issue then clearly the 18-105 wins hands down. I got a mint copy on this forum for £120. The 16-85 cost £315. The Tamron sits in the middle at £220.
If VR is required and money is an issue then the 18-105 wins again. In many ways it is the best compromise lens.

Which will I keep - no idea at this point - too much fun playing with them - however today's favourite is the Tamron (down to bokeh rather than sharpness).

Bottom line - they are all excellent lenses and the differences are minor - you will love whichever one you get.
 
New to this hobby.

I have a d5000 with 18-105 kit lens. I am happy with it but am now looking for that extra lenght hence, I am thinking of getting what you have; the 70-300.

I have seen loads of stunning landscapes in this forum. I have not had much sleep lately thinking about another kind of lens.

I am going mad. ;)
 
Jack aMMo said:
Wow, that's great to know. Cheers, Simon. And I was thinking of ditching it and my other golf clubs for an 18-200 vr.

Apologies to the OP for the TJ.
Click to expand...

ah well, I thought it was the 70-300 you were thinking of getting? If it's the 18-200 then that'll take great landscapes too (because of the wider angle compared to the 70-300), but if you're thinking of ditching your 18-105 for a 18-200 just for landscapes then I'd say there's no point. Generally (and I say generally because there are always exceptions to the rule), for great landscapes you need a wider field of view (lenses with low numbers, like 18mm or below). With a 70-300 you'd be able to take some half decent shots at 70mm, but above that you're getting closer and closer in, and it's more suited to wildlife and other stuff you want to capture from further away. Like hot women
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top