Which of these are optically superior?

[mikoh4792]

Right now I am not concerned about focal lengths, build quality, max aperature..etc. I just want to know which of these will produce the best images.

Nikon 16-85 DX VR

Nikon 18-140 DX VR

Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0 DC

Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art

Nikon 20-120 f/4 FX (newest version)

 

[ruifo]

In what camera?
There could be some variations.

Have you checked Camera Lens Ratings by DxOMark - DxOMark ?

 

[greybeard]

here you go
Lens in-depth comparison tool - DxOMark
Welcome to Photozone!

 

[KmH]

Don't forget that image quality depends to a large degree on the skill and knowledge of the photographer too.

 

[mikoh4792]

Don't forget that image quality depends to a large degree on the skill and knowledge of the photographer too.

Sure, but if you want to take it that far, we may as well say the same for the camera body. But I recognize that some lenses are better than others, as some dslrs are better than others. I'm looking for which ones are better.

 

[mikoh4792]

In what camera?
There could be some variations.

Have you checked Camera Lens Ratings by DxOMark - DxOMark ?

Did not know about these sites. Thanks yall.

 

[Braineack]

From sharpest to softest:

Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art - 15MP
Nikon 18-140 DX VR - 11MP
Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0 DC - 11MP (softer in corners at wide open)
Nikon 24-120 f/4 FX - 9MP
Nikon 16-85 DX VR - 8MP

 

[mikoh4792]

From sharpest to softest:

Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art - 15MP
Nikon 18-140 DX VR - 11MP
Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0 DC - 11MP (softer in corners at wide open)
Nikon 24-120 f/4 FX - 9MP
Nikon 16-85 DX VR - 8MP

Interesting. I know everything you read on the internet shouldn't be taken seriously, but from my limited research people seem to say nikon's 16-85 is the "best" dx lens in the lineup. Maybe these reviews were all written before the 18-140 came out.

 

[Braineack]

does your limited research include Ken Rockwell? They sell for decent price on the used market considering how overpriced they are and everyone just dumps them.

 

[mikoh4792]

does your limited research include Ken Rockwell? They sell for decent price on the used market considering how overpriced they are and everyone just dumps them.

Yessir. Would you say most of his reviews are accurate?

 

[Alexr25]

From sharpest to softest:

Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art - 15MP
Nikon 18-140 DX VR - 11MP
Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0 DC - 11MP (softer in corners at wide open)
Nikon 24-120 f/4 FX - 9MP
Nikon 16-85 DX VR - 8MP

Interesting. I know everything you read on the internet shouldn't be taken seriously, but from my limited research people seem to say nikon's 16-85 is the "best" dx lens in the lineup. Maybe these reviews were all written before the 18-140 came out.

To my mind the 16-85mm is the best lens in line-up as far as focal length coverage, it's just not the sharpest. In fact to my mind it's a fraction softer than the 18-55mm kit lens but then I'm not a sharpness freak and I use my photos to make prints. At the print size do (A3 and smaller) you are not going to see any difference in lens sharpness unless you have a complete dud.

 

[ruifo]

does your limited research include Ken Rockwell? They sell for decent price on the used market considering how overpriced they are and everyone just dumps them.

Yessir. Would you say most of his reviews are accurate?

Faaaaar from it...
Lots of bias there...

 

[Braineack]

His goal is to upsell products. the end.

it's just not the sharpest lens out there, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it--It's just a boring lens.

It's incredibly overpriced for what it is though. You can pick up the optically superior 18-140 refurbished from Nikon for $299. the 16-85 retailing at $700 just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. it's like they are trying NOT to sell them.

 

[Braineack]

says objective measurements in a controlled/repeatable environment.

 

[raventepes]

"Optically superior" has a lot of variables.

A sharp zoom may have a problem with distortion, chromatic abrasion or fringing. Alternately, a you can have none of it, but have a fairly dull lens in terms of acuity. One thing to always remember with zooms is that they're available for convenience, and no matter how good they are, there are always trade offs. Basically, choose your battle.

Given the choices, I don't think any of the mentioned lenses have a quantifiable advantage or disadvantage, except, maybe the 16-85, which really shows its age on modern bodies.