Steve'sDigicams

howiem · Jun 19, 2011, 4:31 PM

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

TCav · Jun 19, 2011, 4:50 PM

The 16-85 is a DX (APS-C) lens, so it won't work (very well) on your F100.

howiem · Jun 19, 2011, 5:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCav

The 16-85 is a DX (APS-C) lens, so it won't work (very well) on your F100.

I should have said I'm buying it to use with my D90, won't be using it on my F100. I have the Tokina 20-35 to use with my F100.

Thanks,

Howie

Bob Nichol · Jun 19, 2011, 7:40 PM

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.

banksy · Jun 19, 2011, 11:49 PM

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.

howiem · Jun 20, 2011, 2:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Nichol

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.

Thanks Bob.

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?

howiem · Jun 20, 2011, 2:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banksy

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.

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.

Bob Nichol · Jun 20, 2011, 7:08 AM

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

tclune · Jun 20, 2011, 7:47 AM

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.

Bob Nichol · Jun 20, 2011, 2:51 PM

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.

Jun 19, 2011, 4:31 PM	#1
howiem Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Tywyn Posts: 105	Thinking of a Nikon 16-85 with D90 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.

Jun 19, 2011, 4:50 PM	#2
TCav Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland Posts: 13,812	The 16-85 is a DX (APS-C) lens, so it won't work (very well) on your F100. __________________ The lens is the thing. 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'. "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Jun 19, 2011, 7:40 PM	#4
Bob Nichol 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.

Jun 19, 2011, 11:49 PM	#5
banksy 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.

Jun 20, 2011, 7:08 AM	#8
Bob Nichol 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

Jun 20, 2011, 7:47 AM	#9
tclune 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.

Jun 20, 2011, 2:51 PM	#10
Bob Nichol 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.