|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Tywyn
Posts: 105
|
![]()
I currently have a nice setup with Nikon gear. My current gear consists of
Cameras Nikon D90 Nikon F100 Nikon F90 Lenses Sigma 10-20mm Tokina 20-35mm Nikon 18-55mm VR Nikon 50mm 1.8 Nikon 85mm 1.8 Tamron 70-300mm DI Macro I have the Tokina 20-35mm purely for my film camera it's not something I would use on my D90. I'm considering selling my 18-55VR to get a 16-85VR. I'm really wondering is the 16-85VR significantly better than the 18-55VR to warrant me investing around £360. I'm probably looking for people who used both lenses in the past to really help out with the answer. I like the idea of the 16-85VR as it probably covers around 90% of my style in photography. I've been pretty happy with the results when I've used the 18-55VR and for a kit lens it does remarkably well. Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated. Howie Last edited by howiem; Jun 19, 2011 at 5:01 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
The 16-85 is a DX (APS-C) lens, so it won't work (very well) on your F100.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Tywyn
Posts: 105
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Ontario Canada
Posts: 823
|
![]()
I use the 16-85mm as my normal range lens. It's nice as a walk-around lens when playing tourist. The 16mm end gives you that extra width and the VR keeps things stable.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,144
|
![]()
I agree with Bob. The 16-85 is a very useful lens. I can't comment on the 18-55 lens but we researched well before purchasing the 16-85, which we both have.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Tywyn
Posts: 105
|
![]() Quote:
It's mainly for a walkabout that I want it and if I travel light on family days out etc. 16mm is a pretty good wide end if I want to shoot architecture or landscape and 85mm is a decent portrait length. How does sharpness shape up and is there much barrel distortion at the wide end? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Tywyn
Posts: 105
|
![]()
Thanks for getting back to me. From most people's reviews it seems a very good walkabout lens but always nice to get feedback from people on here that actually use the lens.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Ontario Canada
Posts: 823
|
![]()
I have no complaints about sharpness or distortion with this lens. The reviews are very positive about it also: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...ct/1177/cat/13
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
|
![]()
The thing that would give me pause about the lens is that it seems too dark for general-use. If you can anticipate when you would need to use your walk-about lens indoors or in deep shadow, you could plan on leaving this at home. But, for me, a walk-about lens needs to be able to get by in the unexpected conditions. I would worry that this lens might not be up to that.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Ontario Canada
Posts: 823
|
![]()
Although I try and keep the ISO to 200 I have no problem jacking it up to 1600 if required to get the shot and I know my D300 can deliver the goods. I've even resorted to 3200 or 6400 if absolutely necessary and IQ wasn't a priority. Most modern DSLRs can deliver high ISO photos with barely perceptible image degradation so we should consider ISO as a variable like white balance, not a constant.
While I agree the lens may not be suitable for indoor or night sports I also don't have to put up with the cost and weight of a faster lens the rest of the time. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|