Nikon 16-85mm, or otherwise?

K

kartracer

Messages
1,178
Edit My Images
No
I had a Nikon 18-70mm before (great sharp lens) and at the moment find myself only with a 50mm f1.8 at the short end. In fact I just bought that last week (my second one of these) and I knew it would be too long - it is.

So I'm thinking about the 16-85mm VR. Ideally, I'd like a faster lens, and thought about a 12-24mm (OK, its f4), 11-16mm (Tokina), Tamron 17-50mm, etc. thinking I could then keep the 50mm as a walkabout (with the main advantages, for me, of being fast, and light - though not really wide enough).

But I'm wondering now if the 16-85mm with VR might cover low-light/indoor needs - most of the time - and have a useful length for portraits. I just got a 70-200mm f2.8 to replace my previous lens (18-200mm) at the long end with something faster.

Or, having just got rid of a 18-200mm, maybe there would not be a huge step up in performance? I could stretch to a used 17-55mm, but then its getting heavy for a walkabout (not that the 16-85mm is a lightweight). Or should I just go with Uncle Ken's suggestion and get a 18-55mm VR? Not convinced about that. Ideally, 17-35mm f2.8 would met my needs, but that glass seems out of my price range - which is 'a few hundred', or so.

I think I've got to have f2.8 or VR.

What do you recommend (D90... probably staying with DX)?
 
Various sigma wide angle primes (20/24/30mm 1.8 / 1.4's) or Nikon 30mm 1.8?
 
I too, have had for quite a while, an AF-S 16-85mm and I am very impressed with both it's optical and physical qualities. The metal body and mount instantly give a quality feel, and having owned both I think Canon would almost label this as an L lens (It is very solid almost like the Canon EF 24-105 I had and much better than the EF-S 17-85). The 16mm end makes quite a difference on a crop sensor body. It is often quoted as being overpriced but I managed to get a US model so it wasn't too dear.

I personally think this lens would compliment the D90 very well.
 
Thanks for the comments. I do mostly indoor shooting, usually without flash. The 17-55mm is probably the best option, but even 2.8 means bumping up the ISO at times.
 
Apologies if I was not clear - I have the Nikon 35mm f1.8, which is equivalent to a 50mm lens on film/FX. And its not wide enough - I'm often very close up, with little room to move.
 
Just wondering if anyone has experience with the Tamron 17-50mm? I've seen comments that its at least as sharp as the 17-55mm. And some comments that the earlier non-VC is better? Its a constant f2.8 also.
 
I have the 16-85mm, very good lens, well built, great optics and very useful range. I used to have the Tamron 17-50mm non VC which is also I good lens, I decided to go for range rather than speed. If I do need speed I’ll switch to a primes.
 
Willo said:
I have the 16-85mm, very good lens, well built, great optics and very useful range. I used to have the Tamron 17-50mm non VC which is also I good lens, I decided to go for range rather than speed. If I do need speed I’ll switch to a primes.
Click to expand...

How quiet, or not, was the 17-50mm non-VC (which is, apparently, the sharper lens)? I could get away with 50mm, or 55mm at the long end, though the 16mm at the wide end would be nice.
 
It wasn't that quiet nor that loud, but you can hear the motor. It comes down to compromise, do you want the speed or range? Both are optically good, but as I said I use the 16-85mm most of the time but if I need speed I'll go for primes.
 
think I'd keep the 35/1.8 on the camera, but have the little 18-55 in your pocket when you need wider angle.
 
I have the 16-85 and the Tamron 17-50 and I'm afraid that for most tasks the Nikon wins, simply down to VR.

I did a test indoors the other day between my 16-85 and 50/1.4 - the former does a better job in most situations, once again down to VR. You lose a bit of DoF but that's it.
 
davek said:
I have the 16-85 and the Tamron 17-50 and I'm afraid that for most tasks the Nikon wins, simply down to VR.

I did a test indoors the other day between my 16-85 and 50/1.4 - the former does a better job in most situations, once again down to VR. You lose a bit of DoF but that's it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. From reading various reviews, I can believe what you say. The one area I wonder about though, is indoor/low-light moving targets (e.g. theatre) - as I understand it, VR works at the cost of shutter speed - which would result in motion blur. And that's where I see the 16-85mm being of limited use - at the long end, especially, its f5.6. Obviously, I'm speaking about situations where flash is not possible.

What do you think?
 
correct. for shooting moving objects, VR will not help at all. For shooting anything still, it'll be invaluable, even on relatively "slow" lenses.
 
That's the main thing keeping me from going with the 16-85mm - I had the 18-200mm and that was not able to keep up with moving targets in low light. So I think its going to have to be a constant 2.8 lens for me.
 
if you are not happy with the low light performance of the 18-200mm then the 16-85m is no different in low light. I have the 16-85mm and am very happy with the performance in good light (had the 18-200mm before this ). I just stick on my 35mm 1.8g which is probably my sharpest lens on my d7000
 
Why don't you have a Nikon's dream Team...!

Nikon 10-24mm
Nikon 35mm f 1.8 ( which you have already)
Nikon 55-200mm VR


_____________________________________________________

In addition just have one used 18-70mm or 18-55mm

If you are a pro photographer and then it is a different case.
 
10-24mm is a nice raNge but 3.5-4.5 and no VR

55-200mm is a good lens, with VR, but little better than the 16-85mm, or 18-200mm for moving targets in low light (which is why I went for the 70-200mm 2.8 over that range).

I'm trying to avoid the heavy 17-55mm Nikon, and may go for the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top