Nikon 16-85mm or 17-70mm - Some questions

M

musicalbloke

Messages
218
Name
Adrian
Edit My Images
Yes
I've recently purchased a Nikon D200 (upgrade from D50) and want to add a lens to this body as a "go to" lens. I currently have 28-105mm and 70-300mm kit lenses from a Nikon F65 package I bought ages ago which work well with the D50 but not so sure about the D200. I also have a 50mm f2.8 and Sigma 28-300mm. These are the lenses I'll be using with the D200 but want one to go sort of inbetween, if that makes sense, hence my interest in the two lenses in the thread title.

I've searched the forum and found lots of views over which one people prefer and some of the pro's and cons of the two, but I have some extra questions that I'm hoping people can help me answer.

Firstly, which would be better, an extra F stop, or an additional "mill" at the bottom end? The 16-85mm only goes down to an F3.5 stop while the other lens drops to F2.8. Does the additional 1mm of minimum focal length i.e. going down to 16mm make that much of a difference over 17mm, or are F stops more important?

Secondly, one of the comments I read made mention of the 16-85mm lens giving "blurred corners to a photo when on max zoom". Is this so and, if so, can anyone point me to a picture that displays this trait so I can see how much of a problem it really is.

Thirdly, I had thought about the 18-105mm lens but the plastic fitting puts me off that one as I can be a bit ham-fisted at times and would hate to damage it.

Finally, if anyone has any other lens suggestions that might be suitable to cover this range then I'd love to hear them. Only limitation is I'm not a millionaire so less bucks would be better and, as I'm a newbie, I can't access classifieds so can't really be directed there.

Thanks in anticipation of any forthcoming help.
 
Hello :)

I assume you mean the Sigma 17-70?

The first thing to say is that there is more to lenses than specs, the Nikon is more expensive for a reason.

That said, for me I don't really think the extra half stop at the wide end is that useful BUT the extra half stop at the long end on the Sigma is worth having.

I wouldn't be concerned about the extra 1mm at the wide end either although the extra 15mm on the long end of Nikon could be handy.

However, VR is really really useful so I would be looking at the OS version of the Sigma if I were to go that route.

The other option is the Nikon 18-70mm which aside for the lack of VR is a cracking lens and usually goes for less than £100.
 
The 16-85mm works very nicely with a D200, I took very many good pics with that combo.

The edges are a little bit worse wide open at 16mm when compared to some of Nikon's 18mm kit lenses. Just stop down to f6.3 or f8 and the edges become very good.

16/85 colour and contrast is better than Nikon's 18-xxx lenses.

VR works very well, may be very necessary in dull weather as I wouldn't use the D200 above 800 iso.

I owned the non-IS version of the Sigma 17-70mm, it was great from 30 to 7omm, but below I had one-sided softness even when stopped down - you may be luckier. Sigma QC NOT as stringent as Nikon's.

The 18-105mm is a very good value lens and you would need to be very violent with it to damage the mount - you could probably buy three used ones for the price of one 16-85!

But I must agree with Nawty if you can source an 18-70mm for less than £100 and it's up to spec than you will be very pleased with it. A really good all-round lens, slightly softer at 70 than elsewhere. BUT check carefully as some have been around for a very long time and may not be working optimally.
 
Guys,

Many thanks for your input to this, I'd not thought about the 18-70mm option at all.

One more choice thrown into the pot.

Thank you,

Adrian
 
Happy 16-85 user here and there is one in the classifieds at the moment(nothing to do with me).
 
I own a 16-85 only other lens I looked at when deciding was the 18-70 but went for the extra mm at each end with the addage of VR. Dunno how it compare to an 18-70 never used one but I find my images nice and sharp but I am not a pixel peeper so not zoomed in 100% to check every detail.

I would say if you want to get one try to pick up a used one as new I think there over priced. I don't think I am crazy for buying one either instead of saving money and getting an 18-70 where the less zoom would of bugged me after a while.
 
From 16 to 18mm you're only looking at steping back a couple of feet.

The same going forward from 70 to 85mm so I'm not convinced the extra reach is worth paying an extra £200 for.

Then you're left with VR, at this focal length I'm not sure it's 100% necessary.

Totally up to the op but at the same optical quality the 18-70mm is an absolute steal if you can live without the extras.

Tbh, if you are swaying to the 16-85mm you may as well think about the 18-200mm.

EDIT: sorry I just remembered you were concerned about aperture!
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
From 16 to 18mm you're only looking at steping back a couple of feet.

The same going forward from 70 to 85mm so I'm not convinced the extra reach is worth paying an extra £200 for.

Then you're left with VR, at this focal length I'm not sure it's 100% necessary.

Totally up to the op but at the same optical quality the 18-70mm is an absolute steal if you can live without the extras.

Tbh, if you are swaying to the 16-85mm you may as well think about the 18-200mm.

EDIT: sorry I just remembered you were concerned about aperture!
Click to expand...

My indecision was over whether the lower aperture was better than the extra mm in focal length, but you (along with a couple of others) have answered that.

r1bazza said:
Happy 16-85 user here and there is one in the classifieds at the moment(nothing to do with me).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up but I can't access the classifieds as I'm new to the forum.



So, I think I'm going to go down the 18-70mm route, if I can pick up a good example for not silly money.

Thank you to all who contributed to my first thread, and if anyone were happening to be getting rid of an 18-70mm lens then I might be persuaded to take it off your hands.

Next stop now will be flash and lighting so expect more questions when I've digested more info.

Oh, and finally, is this as addictive as buying more fishing rods?
 
Phil Young said:
Watch out folks, bold statement coming up!!

People that choose the 16-85mm over the 18-70 are crazy! :)
Click to expand...

I must be crazy then. :bonk: :lol:

As somebody who has had both, the 16-85mm was an overall improvement in every area. Well worth the money imho. I like the lens so much that I bought it a second time after the first was stolen. :)
 
Plenty of examples of Sigma 17-70mm images in my flickr, it's been my main lens for the past year. Very nice lens, especially with it's ridiculously low price tag. Plain DC lens reputed to be better controlled than the newer model.

For another £50 or so you could get a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 or a little more again would get you a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, both of which are a little sharper than the 17-70 but at the expense of reach.
 
Folks,

Thanks for all your input, I've gone and bagged myself a Nikon 18-70mm lens.

I might even post some pictures up when I've had a go or two.

Cheers,

Adrian
 
Check it out carefully, if it's a good 'un then you'll be very pleased.

PS

They tend to be dust magnets, but that doesn't seem to noticeably affect image quality.

Enjoy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top