Nikon 16-85VR? Worth It?

iflynething · Jan 21, 2009

I'm looking for a walk around lens to stay on my D300. I have the D80 and shot a 18-135 on that but now use the 18-135 on the D300. I don't think the 18-135 is right to have on a D300 body....

I am contemplating buying a $400 16-85VR. The only reason I'm contemplating this is becuase I wanted fast glass. I was looking at a 17-55. I only have 3x (roughly) zoom but it's a 2.8 lens. With the 16-85, I gain VR (which I rarely use) and 2mm more of a wide angle. The same guy selling the $400 16-85, has his 17-55 2.8 for $800. Expensive, but great, sharp, and fast lens and about $500-600 cheaper than buying new.

I may seem like I have already answered my question, but I don't know how good of a lens it is compared to the 18-135 as far as optics. I'm sure I would and could use the VR since it would be there.

~Michael~

Joves · Jan 21, 2009

Well here is a site where this guy rates all sorts of lenses. He gives some good short reviews of them.
Zoom Lenses For Nikon 'F' Mount. Overview The two lenses you are looking at are in the same area. He gives the 17-55 a real high rating but, the 16-85 is at a 4 out of 5.

iflynething · Jan 21, 2009

Thanks for that site. I have bookmarked it. Nice and short reviews. Straight to the point. Something I like

~Michael~

JerryPH · Jan 21, 2009

The Sigma 18-50 CD EX HSM F/2.8 Macro beat the Nikkor 17-55 in 3 out of 3 professional photography magazine shootouts.

It is a LOT cheaper than the Nikkor and tons better. It also has a free 3:1 macro and it is a fixed F/2.8 lens. Very sharp, very clear, minimal CA, flare and distortion in comparison with near ANY lens in this range on the market today.

iflynething · Jan 21, 2009

Hey Jerry. Thanks.

I REALLLLLLY want to have a 2.8 lens on it. After reading alot of other reviews, I think the Nikkor 17-55 2.8 has the flare and other issues that I don't want to have a problem with all the time.

I like to stay with Nikon lenses but keep thinking about other branded lenses. They are so much cheaper and are optically about the same.

~Michael~

kundalini · Jan 21, 2009

For my walkabout lens, the 24-70mm is mounted 90% of the time. I can usually work around with that lens, but keep a few others at hand. I can't say one way or the other about Sigma or any other third party lens. They may be fantastic.

Check out reviews on photozone.de, fredmirander, dpreview and thomhogan, just to name a few.

Of course..... and my apologies for neglecting the photographers bible of equipment reviews.... the enlightened ken russell. (for some reason, my CAPS lock seemed to malfunction in the previous sentence..... Hmmm, most curious )

iflynething · Jan 21, 2009

kundalini said:
For my walkabout lens, the 24-70mm is mounted 90% of the time. I can usually work around with that lens, but keep a few others at hand. I can't say one way or the other about Sigma or any other third party lens. They may be fantastic.

Check out reviews on photozone.de, fredmirander, dpreview and thomhogan, just to name a few.

Of course..... and my apologies for neglecting the photographers bible of equipment reviews.... the enlightened ken russell. (for some reason, my CAPS lock seemed to malfunction in the previous sentence..... Hmmm, most curious )

I might have to consider not as much a wide angle. I think what I'm really wanting is a fast lens. I don't know why exactly right now, i just not I want a good short telephoto of at least 2.8. I'm sick of zooming in on subjects and using flash and having to vary the output (I shoot manual flash) all the time. It would be nice to have a constant exposure whether I was at 17, 24 or 85 mm

~Michael~

Sw1tchFX · Jan 21, 2009

Get the 17-55, I owned it at one point in time and it was one of the best photographic purchased I ever made.

iflynething · Jan 21, 2009

Sw1tchFX said:
one of the best photographic purchased I ever made.

Would you elaborate please a little bit. Comparing to what other lenses and what did you like best about it?

~Michael~

shivaswrath · Jan 22, 2009

I'm kind of confused - how are we comparing the venerable 17-55 f/2.9 to the 16-85 f/3.5-5.6?

VR is great, but nothing overcomes how fast your lens is. . .I'd opt for the 17-55 f/2.8 or even the 17-35f/2.8 if you have an FX future in the horizon. . .

iflynething · Jan 22, 2009

Yeah. Not really comparing the two lens. Of course the 2.8 would be faster and optically probably sharper.

I just am wondering about if it would be worth. It. I'm actually loosing reach (compared to my 18-135) but they're actually the same apreture rating. Would I gain anything is what i"m wondering

~Michael~

AlexColeman · Jan 22, 2009

All depends on how much money you have to spend.

JerryPH · Jan 23, 2009

The Sigma 18-50 is a constant F/2.8 lens. I know/read/heard of at least 8 photographers off the net to date who went from the Nikkor 17-55 to the Sigma and are happy that they did. I also personally know 2 local strobists that have both, and they use the Sigma like 95% of the time. Less flare and visibly sharper on larger printed shots SOOC.

iflynething · Jan 23, 2009

That Sigma is looking better and better for me. If it's a good lens, I'd keep it under $700, even though the 17-55 is more than that.

I'm looking seriously more towards the Sigma one. Seems to be alot better than the Nikon one.

~Michael~