Nikon D300 and Lens

<p>Hi I have a Nikon D300 I shoot alot of groups any where from 12 to 50 kids and then portraits, what do you feel is a better lens?<br />18-200 DX or 16-85 DX I have a 18-70 DX lens now but is very old and feel it is time to upgrade.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>What's wrong with the 18-70 DX?</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I've had the 18-70 and for reasons moved sideways to the 16-85VR. The 16-85 is better, but marginally so and not worth the cost of upgrading. The 18-200 is not better (or much worse) either. So, frankly, unless the 18-70 will fall apart any day soon, changing it for either one of these is not really worth it. You will not gain much.<br>

For groupshots, at ~f/8, the 18-70 is perfectly fine.<br>

Instead, you could look at faster lenses for the portraits maybe. Nice ones to look at would be the 35 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8 (which are both well within the budget of one 16-85). Lenses like these give you the additional creative options of a wide aperture, and this will bring more benefit than exchanging a good lens for a lens with similar qualities.</p>

<p>I've found the Nikon AF 24-85mm f2.8~f4D Nikkor lens to work really well for the portrait end on high school football individual images. It is a FX lens but works on a D300.</p>

<p>Of the three you mentioned, the 18-70. I am beginning to regret selling mine (I kept the 24-85/3.5-4.5 instead, which turned out to be the wrong choice) - though I would not by a new one now; for about the same price, the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS HSM Macro is the better choice.</p>

I own both of those lenses. The 16-85 is sharper overall but not by a great deal. The VR 2 is also a good feature on

that lens as well as it's build. I have a great copy of the 17-80 and except for the few things I mentioned I consider

them fairly close in quality. Given the choice I would lean towards the 16-85 despite the difference in cost.

<p>Julie,<br>

I agree that is better to keep 18-70 and to add a faster lens to help in process. Apart of 35/1.8 or 85/1.8 you can go for an under rated zoom from Tamron: 28-75/2.8. It is inexpensive but shows a great IQ... offering a very convenient ranage for portraits in a crop camera.</p>

<p>I've had the 18-70 (still have it) and the 18-200 (sold it). They take nearly identical photos (I did tests and can't tell the difference at all), but the 18-70 handles much better (except for the very tightly spaced settings at the wide end between 18-24). I'd only get the 18-200 for travel, for which it's really very useful. It is soft at the long end, but for 5 x 7 and smaller it doesn't much matter.</p>

<p>I haven't used the 16-85. Another you haven't mentioned is the Tamron 17-50. That's what I might buy today in that general range.</p>

<p>I found the 18-70mm to be sharper overall than the 18-200mm, but the additional VR feature of the 18-200mm makes it a good option for many. The 16-85mm VR is my favorite of them all, having compact size, reasonable price, and VR when you need it. This lens is noticeably sharper than the 18-70mm as well in my experience. I'd get the 16-85mm if you were choosing another lens. It also has much less distortion at 18mm than the 18-70mm does.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>I have a 18-70 DX lens now but is <strong>very old</strong> ..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You must be under 25 if you think a lens that is (at maximum) 7 years young is "very old". I have t-shirts older than that. ;) :)</p>

<p>i'm not sure that replacing an average-speed lens (18-70) with an even slower lens (16-85) is anything but a lateral move, if not a waste of money. for group shots, i would think you'd want a wide angle--which you already have. the 18-70 also extends into the portrait range. and a faster lens might not be the answer, since you might need to shoot with increased depth of field for group shots. why not look into external flash, if you don't have one already? this would allow you to shoot at larger aperture numbers--6.3 or f/8--and you should be able to get sharp results from the 18-70 stopped down.</p>

<p>I bought a brand new (rare for me) D70 in 2004 and the 18-70mm kit lens that came with it for an extra $100 is the best bargain in all of Nikon land. Second best is the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D lens. Third best is the N90s I bought in LN condition with a M-26 back for $90. Fourth best was a D90 with less than 3000 shutter activations for $600. Fifth best will be an F6 if it ever goes below $1000.</p>

<p>Most (if not everyone) who claim that the 16-85 DX is worth the upgrade from a 18-70 DX probably owns one and is prompting you to do the same in order to defend and justify their own "subconscious buyers remorse". To understand this point one only has to read photo forum archives a few years back from people who agonized over paying an extra grand for the 17-55 f/2.8 only to find themselves disillusioned and broke. <br>

I'm sure few on this forum would disagree that most measurable differences in IQ between these two lenses in common shooting conditions will come down to technique, and user-generated input....not the optics. I bought a 18-70mm 5 yrs ago (brand new gold box--Ebay), when many new D80/D200 owners (back then) were dumping this "kit lens" in order to score the hot and trendy 18-200mm (which was the fashion of the day :-). I loved this 18-70mm on my D50 and love it even more on my D300 today. Stopped down to f/8 + and it produces ridiculously sharp images and saturated colors time after time. It also seems to get along quite famously with the SB-800 flash too. I agree with other poster that it might make more sense to go after a faster prime lens for the added DOF artistry. I rarely, if ever, had a moment where I thought I could have "gotten the shot" if only I had VR. </p>

<p>I have been using the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 for about 3 years. It has served me well on the D50, D80, and I use it for my paid services on the D300. They have updated the lense so it now has HSM. Just another option.</p>

<p>I would tell you to keep the 18-70 lens. It´s sharp and useful for group portraits. At F5,6 and F8 the pictures are very sharp and true color. I bought my first dog, the 18-200 VR and I can tell you the 18-70 is sharper in every sense.<br>

I have a Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 that I use mostly for weddings and a Tamron 17-50 F2.8 (non VR) in my other d300. The image quality is more or less the same and Nikon is better built....., but the Tamron costs a third of Nikon price. The luminosity is an advantage in most situations.</p>

<p>I'd like to see how sharp the 16-85 is compared to the 18-70, because my old (before I dropped and killed it) 18-70 took some pretty sharp pics on a D200. Anyways, though it's a little shorter, would the 17-55Dx be the real "upgrade" to what you are currently using? As Eric says, I think the 16-85 is a lateral move.</p>

<p>You current lens has shallow enough depth of field for group portraits. I'm not sure a lens change will give you anything you don't already have. You are shooting portraits? What lighting are you using for that? Portraits are all about controlled creative use of lights. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To understand this point one only has to read photo forum archives a few years back from people who agonized over paying an extra grand for the 17-55 f/2.8 only to find themselves disillusioned and broke.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I've had both the 18-70mm "kit" lens that I bought with my D70s and the 17-55mm f/2.8. There is no comparison between these two lenses and the 17-55 has been worth every penny spent. It's true that once you stop down to f/8 the sharpness difference isn't discernible, but for all intensive purposes it's a far superior lens at any stop below f/8.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the people that found themselves disillusioned were those that thought, (and possibly still think), that thousands of dollars worth of gear will make them a better photographer. Personally, I love these people because it gives me the chance to purchase lightly used equipment for a fraction of retail.</p>

<p>The people that found themselves broke are similar to the people that were disillusioned, but without the budget to actually afford the lens. </p>

<p>However, under the OP's circumstances, I think the 18-70mm is good enough for what she is using it for. Unless she is suffering from a severe case of NAS, (which is incurable), I think her current equipment, with the possible addition of a speedlight, is sufficient.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p>Craig, it is not necessary to assume that ex-owners of the 18-70 who now defend the 16-85VR say so to mascarade buyers remorse. It's not that simple. And from your reply, it seems you did not use the 16-85VR. So how can you really judge it's not better than the 18-70? Those of us who own(ed) both, and used both, can form some judgement.<br/>

And, for what it's worth, I recommend against moving from 18-70 to 16-85, it is a lateral move and the 16-85VR is not sufficiently better to warrant its price. Anyway, the buying behaviour of others does not mean their judgement is off.<p>

<p> <br>

Barry, if I'd still have the 18-70, I would make a few shots. In words, though, my findings: it could have been my copy, but my 18-70 was not very good below f/5-f/5.6. My 16-85 is fine wide open, except around 70 to 85mm. At f/5.6 or f/8, you won't spot the difference, below that, to me, there is a difference. Not earth shattering, but it's welcome. The main thing that has made me happy with the 16-85, though, is the 16mm wide end and VR. It's those things that make it a bit more useful lens than 18-70mm (to me). But sure the 18-70 was and is great value for money. No argument there.<br>

 <br>

 

Back on-topic, to the OP, in addition to my earlier though on a couple of primes, a lens like a Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 could also fit the bill very well. Given the intended uses, those lenses bring much more than either 16-85 or 18-200.<br/>For the portrait work, something fast than the 18-70, in my view, is useful. Though investing in flash, as Eric suggests also makes loads of sense.</p>

<p>Julie: 'very old' is not a reason to 'upgrade'. Upgrades should be done when your present equipment is not doing what you want it to. </p>

<p>I bought a brand new (rare for me) D70 in 2004 and the 18-70mm kit lens that came with it for an extra $100 is the best bargain in all of Nikon land. Second best is the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D lens. Third best is the N90s I bought in LN condition with a M-26 back for $90. Fourth best was a D90 with less than 3000 shutter activations for $600. Fifth best will be an F6 if it ever goes below $1000.</p>

<p>Eric, the 16-85mm is a higher quality lens than the 18-70mm in terms of sharpness and distortion. It also offers a 16mm wide end instead of 18mm. It also offers VR. Going down one stop at the telephoto end isn't much of a disadvantage when you consider the plusses the 16-85mm has. It is very much an upgrade from the 18-70mm kit lens.</p>

<p>I echo some of the comments made earlier. Your 18-70 unless damaged is a winner and there is no need to replace it. </p>

<p>I was very happy with mine which was a perfect companion to my D200 and then D300 for the last 4 years. It got fungus and I ended up having to replace it with a brand new 18-200 II. Which at first look was a great lens, especially when you zoom from 18-200. But when I saw the photos I was horrified at the softness especially at the longer end.</p>

<p>Additionally the lens had some weird characteristics. Groups of people were sharp on the left and out of focus (very slightly) on the right. I found that I had to add sharpening to all photos from this lens which had never been the case with the 18-70. It may have been that I had a bad piece,but I went back the to store and tested a couple of others and had similar sort of results. </p>

<p>Unfortunately the 18-70 is no longer available new, so I replaced the 18-200 with a 16-85. </p>

<p>This is a much much better lens. There is minor distortion, but not significant at the short end. The photos that I have taken are all better in sharpness than my old 18-70 and the left/right out of focus issue that the 18-200 had is not there. </p>

<p>My only issue is that it is 5.6 at the long end, the 18-70 was 4.5. Actually I wish that Nikon had made this a constant F4 lens (ala 24-120) but it would proably be too expensive for normal people then.</p>

<p>Overall I am very happy with the lens and recommend it to replace a 18-70 BUT ONLY IF YOU HAVE TO!!! </p>