Jump to content

18-70 vs 16-85VR - Is VR really necessary at this length?


woolly1

Recommended Posts

<p>I've been looking at 'upgrading' my 18-70 DX to a 16-85VR but apart from a slightly larger range the main point is all about the VR. I've already discarded the 18-200 from the formula due to the 11x range, with so much ground to cover the 18-200 isn't going to satisfy me in terms of distortion. I don't want to do all those corrections post shooting. I'm not a fan of plastic mounts so the 18-105mm is out too. I'm not an anti 18-200, if I was offered one free I would take it...<br /><br />My question is whether VR is really required on such a short lens (85mm max). I have no more VR experience than the furthest corners of the local photo dealer, and then only the 18-200 ..... 16-85 is out of stock. So I've seen it working at 200mm and it is impressive but I don't often shoot that long.<br /><br />My present body is D200. After much fretting have settled on getting the D300 (or the soon to be announced successor) and not the D700. All my dozen lenses are chosen to fit the DX focal range (they are mostly DX at the short end ) and moving to FX will leave a big gap at the short end.<br /><br />I take anything from landscapes through macro, product and candid.</p>

<p>I think it's a valid question, sometimes lenses have more features than necessary to help sell them..... I have a Sigma 8mm fisheye which makes me laugh when I hear the AF working ..... AF on a fisheye?????</p>

<p>Any hands-on users please lend me your ears.<br />Thanks</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>The blurring due to camera shake/motion increase as either or both the lens' focal length or the shutter speed selected increase (get longer). So VR in a normal zoom would allow you to shoot at slower shutter speeds without excessive blurring than what's otherwise possible. In practice, its a really nice feature to have. </p>

<p>Also, I think the 16-85 is a better lens than the 18-70. The 18-70 has really questionable distortion patterns and vignetting at 18mm. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I own both lenses and like both of them a great deal. The VR feature with the 16-85 is very helpful, I wish I had it on my 17-55 2.8. I also think the 16-85 is a sharper lens at all focal lengths. The contrast and color clarity are very similar.<br>

-Owen</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you have to ask or doubt the usefulness of VR on a midrange zoom, you probably don't need it.</p>

<p>For those of us with occasionally shaky mitts, yup, it helps. I've been missing that 24-120 VR since I sold it awhile back. While I don't often attempt one handed shooting with the D2H, especially with the SB-800 mounted, a VR midrange zoom would have been very helpful last weekend when I was trying to photograph the antics of my friend's border collie. I was tossing a tennis ball with my left hand while trying to snag the pup's mid-air leaping catching. Out of nearly 200 photos only about 20 were free of camera-shake induced motion blur. Since I was using flash it wasn't feasible to use a shutter speed faster than 1/250th, even tho' the D2H and SB-800 can manage faster synch - it doesn't work all that well beyond very close range.</p>

<p>Ideally, I'd like a two-ring version of the 18-200 VR to eliminate the creep problem.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've used the 16-85mm VR since it was released in 2008, and I've found the VR feature very handy in many situations. When shooting inside the White Tower at the Tower of London last fall, I could hand hold down to 1/15 sec, thanks to VR, zoomed out to 35mm in this photo:<br /> <img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/383329290_Zn7TB-L.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon D300, ISO 3200, 1/15sec at f5.6 Nikon 16-85mm VR zoom</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You can obviously replace the VR by a tripod. So one might argue, that it is not necessary at all. Moreover, it won't help to stop motion blur, of course. But for a travelling amateur like me, it is invaluable.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>VR doesn't replace a tripod if you don't have one with you or can't carry one to a specific place. IMHO, VR is useful at any length. I use it from 18 out to 200 on my lens.</p>

<p>All of the lenses you mentioned, the 18-70, the 16-85, and the 18-200 have similar distortion "issues". There are some extreme spots, but I suspect unless you are shooting architecture you might almost never notice it in "real" photos. The 16-85, according to reviewers, has perhaps more easily correctable distortion, so I'd go there (among other reasons). Also, the difference between 85 and 200 is "crop-able" unless you are printing really huge. I love my 18-200, but today I'd get the 16-85, no question.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The more salient question for me is: "Is VR cost effective at this length, given that it's such a <em><strong>slow </strong> </em> lens?" I think $700 is quite a bit to ask. <br>

I overcame my fear of plastic and happily shoot with my 18-105VR. Save your money for fast lenses. <strong>They</strong> are really worth it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Personally I think that if I were to use a lens that ends with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 I would most definitely want VR as the shutter speeds would tend to be quite low in all but the brightest light. There are situations where a short lens with VR is useful; i.e. interior photography in situations where you're a traveler instead of a commissioned photographer. In many public and private buildings that the general public has access to, tripod use is forbidden. The use of wide apertures results in less than ideal depth of field for architectural work and so one solution is to use a lens with VR. The 16-85 gets very high marks in reviews (e.g. see photozone.de) and it would be my choice for this kind of work. Also, not just interiors but narrow streets in the shade ... you probably can take advantage of the VR in such situations. The only issue is that people, if present in the pictures, are probably not going to be quite sharp if they move about. However, the same movement blur is present in pictures taken on tripods at similar speeds. I imagine that the 16-85 is close to an ideal lens for travel photography when people are on the main subjects. A prime or primes like the 35/1.8, 60/2.8, 105/2.8 to take portraits and close-ups with would complement the zoom nicely. I don't think the 16-85 is particularly suitable for candids - you need something faster for that.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't have any objection to considering a 3rd party lens if it has the similar range, ability and better aperture. Sigma has HSM for example ...<br />As mentioned above the main reservation I have with the 16-85 is the poor aperture, f3.5 @ 16mm very quickly gives way to the the smaller end of it's 'f' range. I have assumed Nikon see VR as a way to cut costs by replacing large expensive lens elements with it. This to me is a big hurdle to overcome in my considering an 'upgrade'.<br />One other concern is longevity. My 135/2.8 ais is still going flawlessly after 30 years ... can the same be expected of a lens with so much non-glass action going on inside?<br />16-85 isn't exactly a cheap lens but I'd happily pay more for a pro lens that didn't look like a flowerpot on the front of the body .... by comparison with todays lenses that 135/2.8 is TINY.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 17-55/2.8G AF-S DX is an excellent alternative to the 16-85, with narrower FL range but more robust build (non-extending front as you focus or zoom) and faster maximum aperture. The 16-85 is a lens for a different purpose. Personally I think f/2.8 rank at the top of the pile for versatility and I was always very fond of the 17-55 while I used DX.</p>

<p>I don't think all modern lenses last as well as the fixed focal length manual focus lenses simply because there is so much more mechanical and electrical functionality built in. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. If you want the functionality (zoom, VR, AF-S, compact lens considering the range) you have to accept the possibly shorter life as a trade-off. Or you can continue to use manual focus primes. I use a bit of both.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Think of VR as a tripod substitute or those times you don't bring your tripod. As such I've found the VR great even at 18mm. An alternative is a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro, or Tokina 16-50 f/2.8. All are excellent lenses. The Tamron, which I have, and the Sigma are much less expensive than the 16-85 VR and the Tokina is about the same as the 16-85 VR. If you can get over your fear of plastic lens mounts you could get both the Nikon 18-105 VR and Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX for a little less than the 16-85 VR alone.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I own this lens (16-85) for about a month and a half and I say it's a brilliant lens.<br>

Sharp for its range, distortion easily fixed with PS or any other program, sits perfect on my D90.<br>

As for VR I say it's worth the extra money.<br>

Even when you shoot at 16mm or there about in a night club and without a flash, then you'll say thanks for having it:-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>VR is really amazing. I had the 18-200 and although I didn't like the image quality, the VR was incredible. Hand held shooting still subjects it will amaze you how slow of a shutter speed will still get a blurr free photo.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To Clive, since you alaready have the 18-70mm AF-S, do you often shoot hand held at 1/30 to 1/60 sec indoors? If so, do you lose a lot of images due to camera shake? That should tell you whether VR will help.</p>

<p>As Lex points out, if you are unaware of this being an issue, the chance is that you don't need VR.</p>

<p>In my case, the only lens I need VR is the 70-200mm/f2.8 zoom. VR is very helpful hand holding a tele. Otherwise, I rarely feel that I need VR on my 28-70mm/f2.8 or 17-55mm/f2.8 DX.</p>

<p>Essentially, VR is most helpful to:</p>

<ul>

<li>Long teles</li>

<li>Consumers who use mid-range zooms (such as 16-85) without proper support, including shaky hands, poor hand holding technique</li>

</ul>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It is worth noting that many tourist sites will not allow tripods or monopods to be used on the premesis. This is where the 16-85mm VR comes in handy. At the Tower of London, you're generally in a long line of people following an arrow course, and you would stop the entire line if you went to set up a tripod. I had just enough time to stop and take a photo without blocking too many people. I agree that a tripod is always the best way to get good slow exposures, but while traveling this is not always possible.</p>

<p>I had the Nikon 18-70mm a few years ago and it was a great travel lens, lightweight, good zoom range, and sharp enough. But I had times when I wanted to zoom out to 70mm and shoot in dim light, say at 1/30 second, and I didn't have much time because the person I was walking with didn't want to stop every minute for a photo. So I was shooting rather quickly and the results showed some camera shake. VR would solve that problem for me. Note I am *not* a pro photographer so a heavy f2.8 zoom lens is not in my budget or something I would want to lug around. The D300 is heavy enough for me.<br /> <br /> <img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/113271390_mpTdf-XL.jpg" alt="" width="514" height="768" /> <br /> <br /> This photo was taken at 1/40th sec at f5.6 at 65mm (Nikon D80 at ISO 1600 JPG Basic straight from camera (I have the RAW files but don't have them posted online for forums) with the 18-70mm. It looks good to me but it was pointed out by someone on the forum at the time that it is not sharp. So everyone has different standards. This was a quick grab shot I took while walking. If I had had more time I could have slowed down and taken this more carefully. The 12x18 inch print I made at Costco from this image looks very good to me.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dave brings up a great point.</p>

<p>Another solution for all you folks is that you can buy a walking stick (which they generally will allow in many of those places) with a secret threaded monopod head on top. I think Leki makes them.</p>

<p>After getting my VR lens, I gave my monopod away though. I absolutely didn't need it with the VR.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...