Nikon 16-85mm VR vs Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 AF

MindofMel

MindofMel

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,586
Name
Mel
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

Need some input on a choice I am making - a local retailer is selling a 35-70mm f2.8 AF for £230 and a 16-85mm VR f3.5-5.6 for £320

(i have: 18-70mm f3.5-5.6, 50mm f1.8, 28mm f2.8, 70-210mm f3.5-4.5, 135mm f2.8)

I am looking for a lens to replace my 18-70 as a walkabout lens. Which I love but I its not quite as sharp as I would want. My primary wants are better bokeh and sharper images. Does one represent better value than the other? I do alot of indoors snapping, street photography and event stuff (business conferences etc)

Both have absolutely stellar reviews. So I am stuck... I would be using either/or on a Nikon d300...
 
Last edited:
By all accounts the 35-70mm was a good lens in its day - and it's probably still a sharp lens - but it lacks the range of the 16-85, but that hasn't not got the constant (and fast) aperture of the 35-70mm.

I think the 16-85 took over from the 18-70 as the higher end, supplied 'kit' lens and it's supposed to be good. Bit more zoom, same aperture range, and it has VR.

TBH, there doesn't seem to be a raft of lenses that cover that focal length in NAF fit - well, not high-end anyway (18-70mm, 18-105mm, 18-135mm) - and if you go 3rd-party fast aperture (Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for example), you can't expect the focal length. You could go 24-120mm (etc) but then you loose the wide end, made worse because it's for DX....
 
Last edited:
MindofMel said:
Hi all,

Need some input on a choice I am making - a local retailer is selling a 35-70mm f2.8 AF for £230 and a 16-85mm VR f3.5-5.6 for £320

(i have: 18-70mm f3.5-5.6, 50mm f1.8, 28mm f2.8, 70-210mm f3.5-4.5, 135mm f2.8)

I am looking for a lens to replace my 18-70 as a walkabout lens. Which I love but I its not quite as sharp as I would want. My primary wants are better bokeh and sharper images. Does one represent better value than the other? I do alot of indoors snapping, street photography and event stuff (business conferences etc)

Both have absolutely stellar reviews. So I am stuck... I would be using either/or on a Nikon d300...
Click to expand...

I have the 35-70 f/2.8 (2 of them actually!) and the bokeh is excellent, and it produces sharp images. It's built like a tank! Make sure it comes with a hood, as shooting in bright sunlight can cause images to be less "contrasty". I bought mine for portraits on my D90.

I'm not sure the focal length is ideal as a walkabout lens - but that does depend on what you shoot. Certainly no reason why you shouldn't use it.
 
My 16-85 is a very sharp lens. The 18-70 was supposed to be as well. Have you tried the auto focus tune feature with your D300 and the 18-70? Having said that, if you still were looking for a replacement I would probably go with the 35-70 as it's a constant 2.8. I like my 16-85 but if I want to use it for indoor photography I always need a flash.
 
As posted before I had the 18-200mm prior to buying the 16-85mm . To me the sharpness of the 16-85mm was better than the 18-200mm vrII. Also there's no zoom creep and feels solidly build. At the long end you're l;ooking at around 120mm so plenty long. Vr is brilliant but wont stop fast action in poor light. For low light just buy the 35mm 1.8 and use the 16-85mm for outdoors
 
I have a 35-70 f2.8 superb lens, and a bargain to boot.

However it is not what I would call walkabout range on a crop body, the 16-85 would be my preferred range for that, as it goes wider.
 
I had a mint 35-70 2.8. Perfect example. But in all honesty I wasn't impressed with it. Build quality is excellent, but it really wasn't that sharp until f4-5.6. I shoot 99% with primes so maybe my expectations were unrealistic
 
35-70 is a legendary pro lens. 16-85 is a pretty decent consumer level lens with a bigger range.

Depends what you want really.

Looking at all you have already I doubt the 16-85 would add that much. The 35-70 would be an eye opener ;) Good price too. You could sell it in 6 months for that quite easily.
 
if you gonna replace the 18-70 then the 35-70 may be a bit too long. the other option will be the tamron 2.8 non vc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top