18-70 AFS ED DX or 16-85 AFS ED VR DX?

<p>Hi All<br>

I am awaiting delivery of a D90. I decided against the 18-105 VR kit lens , and instead am looking at either the 18-70 or 16-85, probably second hand. I can't decide and would appreciate some advice.FYI - I dont have any DX lenses as yet, but have a 50mm 1.8 AFD, Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX Macro, and 28-100& 70-300 AFG kit lensed I got with my old F75. The 28-100 will probably go when I get rid of the camera, so its this that Im looking for a higher quality replacement.<br>

Thanks in advance</p>

<p>I would go for the lens with VR. Easy choice for me.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Never understood why Nikon didn't make that a 16-70/4 VR - anyway, get the 16-85.</p>

<p>If you can afford the 16-85, it's the more useful tool. That 18-70 is, as non-VR kit lenses go, a very nice one for the price. But if you're going to get general-purpose, somewhat slower (aperture-wise) walk-around lens, then you might as well enjoy the considerable benefits of the VR. Also, that extra 2mm on the wide end is a <em>lot</em> more of a difference than you might expect.</p>

<p>I always feel that the 16-85 is very overpriced, since it is a fairly slow f5.6 lens on the long (85mm) end. You do have the advantage of VR and the extra 2mm on the wide end is non-trivial.</p>

<p>The 18-70 DX is just a little more than half the price for the 16-85 and remains as a bargain. The distortion on the 18mm end is fairly serious but is largely a non-issue unless you have straight lines near the edge of the frame.</p>

<p> If money is no object between the two, my vote goes to the 16-85. If it is, the 18-70 is a fine lens, specially for the price. There is a steep incline to diminishing returns in lens design (as with most things), so the improvements you get for the extra money are never proportionate.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I used to own a 18-70, now own a 16-85VR. The 16-85 is a better lens in nearly all aspects: better built, sharper allround, the 16mm is a huge advantage and it is especially much sharper wide open. But it is worse in 2 quite serious aspects: it's slow on the long end, and quite expensive for what it is. So what Shun said, in short.<br>

Does any of this make the 18-70 a bad lens? Far from it. It's great bang for the bucks. But to me, the real sweet deal is the lens you dismissed: 18-105VR is very sharp and a lot of performance for relatively little money. I'd seriously reconsider that one.</p>

<p>The problem with the 18-105 VR is construction quality. Like all other Nikon lenses with a plastic mount, the overall build is rather poor although the mount itself is not necessarily the problem. However, if you want to save money, you have to make some compromises.</p>

<p>I'd get the plastic 18-105. 16-85 is buggy and 18-70 has no VR. And both are shorter.</p>

<p>honestly? i'd get a tamron 17-50. IMO constant 2.8 is a bigger boon than VR at that focal length, especially when you consider the two stops you save at 5.6 get you to the equivalent of 2.8, with a brighter VF.</p>

<p>i have to agree with shun on the 16-85--the reviews and sample images look nice, but it's just too slow. nikon probably didnt want to cut into 17-55 sales but by not making it at least a f/4, the 3rd party alternatives become attractive.</p>

<p>i have the 18-70 and while it's not a wowsers! lens, it's decent for what it is--a compact, plastic zoom with AF-S and ok IQ if you stop it down. the fact that it has dust gaskets and is f/4.5 on the long end makes it a good travel lens. as long as you dont have unrealistic expectations from it, it can deliver good results.</p>

<p>if i could only choose between the 18-70 and 16-85, i'd probably get the 16-85 which has less distortion, VR, and a longer overall range. some of it depends on the application-- for landscapes and daytime walkarounds, 16-85 would be the best choice; for available-light candids, that slow aperture on the long end would be bothersome. if i had to get a 35/1.8 too just for low-light stuff, might as well just get a 2.8 from jump.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've owned the 16-85 VR since it was introduced and it is noticeably better than the 18-70 in terms of sharpness and distortion. It has VR which I find I use often when shooting at 1/30 or below. I've owned three different 18-70 lenses and all were equally as good, a true bargain kit lens. But the 16-85 for me has a much more useful wide angle and VR is worth having as well. A true one-lens solution for travel. Overpriced? I don't think so considering the zoom range. Frankly I rarely shoot at 85mm but when I do the quality is still outstanding even at f5.6.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>16-85 is buggy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What does that mean?</p>

<p>What a shame you opted out for the 18-105! I had the 16-85 and the 18-70, but I prefer the 18-105. It's very sharp and just about as good as the 16-85; I can't tell the difference after having used both for 6 + months. The 18-70 is over rated and out dated.</p>

<p>The 16-18mm range is way more useful than the 70-85, to me. But if you aren't a super-wide angle guy you might not notice.</p>

<p>I'd get the 16-85 if it were me.</p>

<p>It's buggy? What the heck does that mean? I haven't heard that.</p>

>> I prefer the 18-105. It's very sharp and just about as good as the 16-85; I can't tell the difference <<

 

Yes I can.

 

I did an informal experiment before I sold my 18-105. On a D90, I took 2 pictures of the same object at infinity (object was

about 1 km away) using 18-105 at 105mm f/11 and using 16-85 at 85 f/11. Two stops down should give the best resolution,

heuristically. I then cropped the latter image to match the field of view of the former. I found the latter to have more visible

details than the former.

<p>Hi Nigel.<br>

In this order:<br>

Nikkor 17-55/2.8<br>

Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC<br>

Nikkor 16-85 VR<br>

Nikkor 18-70<br>

Nikkor 18-105 VR</p>

<p>Good luck!<br>

Personaly I experiment all this lenses. But I prefer something else for Dx zone.<br>

Tokina 12-24/4 and Nikkor 50/1.4 (or 50/1.8) ... or Nikkor 17-55/2.8.</p>

<p>The 2 biggies against the 16-85 are it's long end speed and price. Aside from that, it is a wonderful lens.</p>

<p>The VR functions allows shooting stills at 1/15 and and it even does light duty as a close-up lens. You can get casual flower shots with 1:4 mag and I have no qualms with it's sharpness.</p>

<p>For packing small, the 16mm allows me to leave the ultra-wide at home. It is an almost perfect walk-around lens on my D5000.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses. Tending towards the 16-85, If I can afford it. </p>

<p>It depends more on your needs then mine. I had a 18-70mm with my old D200. It delivered good results for travel. I prefer speed over range and now use a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 with my D700 when not using primes. Its bigger than I prefer but not to heavy. If I where using DX I would look closely at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. I have not used VR yet so I can not comment. IMHO an 85mm f5.6 has little value accept for landscape.</p>

<p>Lenses outdated? Provided the price is right, lenses don't get outdated, at least not as badly as DSLRs. Some of my most-used lenses are more than 25 years old and these give better results than any modern Nikon zoom in their respective focal length.</p>

<p>But, the 18-70. It was, and still is, a fine lens for what it is. I used to have one, but I hate zooms so I sold off mine. Optically there is little to fault, except the distortion and vignetting at its wide end. Build is not so good; the lens mount has a rubber seal to prevent dust and moisture ingress but due to the significant extension when zooming in, the 18-70 pumps quite a bit of air which sooner or later will lead to problems with dust. That's true for all consumer zooms though.</p>