Nikon 16-85mm VR Or 24-85mm VR for D7100

[PaulWog]

All these 17-55 DX and 18-35 Sigma is out of my budget!

The whole point of a zoom in this range is convenience. With any lens, quality is important as well. The 24-85 on a DX body does not offer a convenient range, however it offers good image quality. The 16-85mm offers a convenient range as well as good image quality. It's a no-brainer.

If you're worried about IQ and don't care for that convenient range, then pick up two or three prime lenses.

I'm not sure what you're debating at this point.

 

[timarp000]

i need choose between the 18-70 and the 16-85 VR! 24-85 VR is out of the picture

 

[PaulWog]

i need choose between the 18-70 and the 16-85 VR! 24-85 VR is out of the picture

There's trade-offs either way. The 16-85 is the more versatile lens. That extra 2mm on the wide end (which basically equates to 3mm extra on DX) makes a world of difference to some people.

*Personally*, I wish there was a 16-55mm f2.8 option. For me, I lean more toward a 17-50mm Sigma purchase (and I may very well switch from the 16-85 for that). If I want a longer shot, I'll take a longer lens. I love my 16-85 though, and it's very useful. It's going to come down to what you want out of the lens. I think the 16-85 offers a better overall lens, and I think more people would be happy with it compared to the 18-70... but that's my opinion. My deliberation would be between the 16-85 and a 17-50 f2.8 lens.

 

[PaulWog]

Here's an example of how sharp the 85mm end on the 16-85mm can be. And that's the weakest end of my 16-85mm, shot at f6.3, 85mm, iso 100, and at 1/100 of a second shutter speed with VR on. This is after a quick 60 second Adobe Lightroom edit.

(Note that this picture was candid and a bit of a joke. This is my little brother's friend in the picture who came on vacation with us.)

Full Picture (reduced to 1600x1066): http://imageshack.us/a/img29/3432/imcm.jpg
1 to 1 of part of the face: http://imageshack.us/a/img21/3641/tlut.png

Here's another shot at 85mm that I took, the full resolution is just as sharp as the reduced file I uploaded (ISO 250, 1/2000 of a second shutter speed, f5.6): http://imageshack.us/a/img19/6994/wvwk.jpg

With 85mm being the weak end, the camera still remains sharp. And it's not even stopped down really to get extra sharpness (though being around f5.6 it already feels stopped down)... this lens is awesome. The shots at 85mm turn out well.

 

[timarp000]

Here's an example of how sharp the 85mm end on the 16-85mm can be. And that's the weakest end of my 16-85mm, shot at f6.3, 85mm, iso 100, and at 1/100 of a second shutter speed with VR on. This is after a quick 60 second Adobe Lightroom edit.

(Note that this picture was candid and a bit of a joke. This is my little brother's friend in the picture who came on vacation with us.)

Full Picture (reduced to 1600x1066): http://imageshack.us/a/img29/3432/imcm.jpg
1 to 1 of part of the face: http://imageshack.us/a/img21/3641/tlut.png

Here's another shot at 85mm that I took, the full resolution is just as sharp as the reduced file I uploaded (ISO 250, 1/2000 of a second shutter speed, f5.6): http://imageshack.us/a/img19/6994/wvwk.jpg

With 85mm being the weak end, the camera still remains sharp. And it's not even stopped down really to get extra sharpness (though being around f5.6 it already feels stopped down)... this lens is awesome. The shots at 85mm turn out well.

Those images are Tack-sharp!

 

[timarp000]

The advantages with the 18-70 is that f/4.5 @ 70mm and its $60 cheaper.

I need to choose between the 16-85 and 18-70. Is the 16-85 really worth the extra $60?

 

[PaulWog]

The advantages with the 18-70 is that f/4.5 @ 70mm and its $60 cheaper.

I need to choose between the 16-85 and 18-70. Is the 16-85 really worth the extra $60?

Yes, it is worth the 60 extra. At this price point I'd say 60 dollars shouldn't be what sways you. An aperture of f4.5 at 70mm isn't much of an advantage at all. The VR, build quality, end to end sharpness, and wider and longer focal lengths are all huge bonuses of the 16-85.