Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 24, 2009, 3:19 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default 16-85 Help

well i recently got a D90 with a 18-200 lens, and was happy but started missing the extra width and especially the Quality.
came accross the 16-85 lens, and would like some input from users who own this lens, especially if you also have or had the 18-200. that can give me some comparisons, on what to expect from the 16-85

Dave
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 24, 2009, 3:55 PM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Hey Dave.

I've used the 18-200mm, but I haven't used the 16-85mm. I thought the 18-200mm was very good for a lens with it's focal range (contrast, color, flare resistance, etc.), and if I had to use only one lens with a Nikon dSLR, it would certainly be on my short list.

But, I did think it compromised a bit much for my tastes in some areas (sharpness away from center at some focal lengths and apertures, AF speed if changing distances much from closer to further away subjects, widest available apertures at longer focal lengths), depending on the subject type.

Given lens tests results I've seen, the 16-85mm should be a better bet for IQ (Image Quality) if you don't use the longer end of the 18-200mm very often, although it's still not a very bright lens on it's longer 85mm end (with f/5.6 as it's widest available aperture when zoomed in). You'd also have a a lens starting out a bit wider with the 16-85mm, which may be more desirable in some shooting conditions (and you may prefer a longer focal length for other conditions).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2009, 7:30 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post
Hey Dave.

I've used the 18-200mm, but I haven't used the 16-85mm. I thought the 18-200mm was very good for a lens with it's focal range (contrast, color, flare resistance, etc.), and if I had to use only one lens with a Nikon dSLR, it would certainly be on my short list.

But, I did think it compromised a bit much for my tastes in some areas (sharpness away from center at some focal lengths and apertures, AF speed if changing distances much from closer to further away subjects, widest available apertures at longer focal lengths), depending on the subject type.

Given lens tests results I've seen, the 16-85mm should be a better bet for IQ (Image Quality) if you don't use the longer end of the 18-200mm very often, although it's still not a very bright lens on it's longer 85mm end (with f/5.6 as it's widest available aperture when zoomed in). You'd also have a a lens starting out a bit wider with the 16-85mm, which may be more desirable in some shooting conditions (and you may prefer a longer focal length for other conditions).
Good day Jim C
i did have a lot of fun with the 18-200, but i knew way back in my mind that image quality would one dat set in.
i was impressed with photozone MTF figures on the Nikon 16-85 lens, and as usual, started looking further.
i came accross the Tamron 17-50 /2.8 sp xr di 11 vc, which also looks good.
so once again, trying to narrow it down

Dave
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2009, 12:32 PM   #4
Member
 
GSFinlay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57
Default

Looks like this is an either, or situation. I have the 16-85, but not the 18-200.

My impression of the 16-85 is that the extra width is more valuable to me than the loss of length (but I also have the 70-300 to take care of that). How and what you shoot will influence this. The 16-85 is sharp in places that the 18-200 is not from what I hear and read.

Garry
GSFinlay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2009, 2:22 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSFinlay View Post
Looks like this is an either, or situation. I have the 16-85, but not the 18-200.

My impression of the 16-85 is that the extra width is more valuable to me than the loss of length (but I also have the 70-300 to take care of that). How and what you shoot will influence this. The 16-85 is sharp in places that the 18-200 is not – from what I hear and read.

Garry

i am swaying to that 16-85/70-300 combo.

i still like the idea of getting the Tamron 17-50 /2.8 sp xr di 11 vc with Nikon 70-300 combo.

or would i be doing better off if i got the 10-24 lens to compliment the 18-200



so i am holding on a bit to see if i can get some more input
i really do not want a closet full of lenses to go with the closet full of bags

Dave

Last edited by dafiryde; Oct 31, 2009 at 2:43 AM.
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2009, 11:52 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Norfolk, England
Posts: 18
Default

I used to have a Tamron 17-50 f2,8 when I had a Canon 350D camera. I found it to be a very good lens. Quite sharp and the focusing was quite quick.
Labbegutt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2009, 12:54 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

It seems to me that you're not quite satisfied with the 18-200, you're prepared to be even less satisfied with it, yet you propose a scenario, the "10-24 lens to compliment the 18-200" that lets you keep it. Since you're talking about getting better lenses, getting a just single lens to augment the wide end so you can keep the 18-200 sounds like a mistake to me.

I've also had the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and have been very pleased with it. I'm anxiously awaiting objective test results for the VC version, since I switched from my KM5D to a D90. If it doesn't pan out, then I'll look more closely as the stabilized Sigma 18-50/2.8-4.5 which I also haven't seen any objective test results for.

If you don't need or want the stabilization, Sigma's 17-70/2.8-4.5 is also very good.
__________________
  • 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.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2009, 7:45 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
It seems to me that you're not quite satisfied with the 18-200, you're prepared to be even less satisfied with it, yet you propose a scenario, the "10-24 lens to compliment the 18-200" that lets you keep it. Since you're talking about getting better lenses, getting a just single lens to augment the wide end so you can keep the 18-200 sounds like a mistake to me.


I've also had the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and have been very pleased with it. I'm anxiously awaiting objective test results for the VC version, since I switched from my KM5D to a D90. If it doesn't pan out, then I'll look more closely as the stabilized Sigma 18-50/2.8-4.5 which I also haven't seen any objective test results for.


If you don't need or want the stabilization, Sigma's 17-70/2.8-4.5 is also very good.
the 18-200 and i did have some fun together, was looking at getting the 10-24 to go with it, for when i do need wider than 18.
the 17-50 2.8 vc i was looking at, for its results on photozone ,gave it a good report on the non vc cersion, so i would assume the vc model optically would be just as good.


my hands do need stabilization

all in all, to be honest , the 18-200 i have no complaints of, just thinking of going
1 - Nikon10-24 with Nikon 18-200 vc
2 - Tamron 17-50 vc with Nikon 70-300 vc
3 - Nikon 16-85 vc with Nikon 70-300 vc

with 1, i get more width which i prefer
with 2, i get more end, but a faster lens, on the lens that would spend most of the time on the camera
with 3, i get more width and more end, and for low light i already have the 35/1.8

so i really need some convincing help here, i am no pro but i am up to 8 bags in the last 9 months now

Dave

Last edited by dafiryde; Nov 2, 2009 at 7:48 PM.
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:42 AM.