Nikon 18-70mm or the 16-85mm VR

<p>Hello all,</p>

<p>I use a D90 and just purchased the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. I already have an 18-200mmVR, but I've found the images to be a little soft (even compared to the 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR kit lenses I had with the D60 I sold some time ago). The 18-200mm also has zoom creep between 35mm and 135mm, which really isn't so bothersome now, but when I bought the lens the cams were tight and the lens had no creep. I feel the creep will eventually get out to the 18mm end, which would be a pain. So I'm thinking about ditching it and going with a higher IQ mid-range lens.</p>

<p>Some people have suggested that the 16-85mm VR is the best variable f-stop DX lens made by Nikon, period. But I've heard the 18-70mm is just a hair behind in terms image and build quality. Something like a 17-55mm f/2.8 is out of the question...I'm against dropping $1300 on a DX lens especially since I just bought the 70-200...one day I may want to move to FX. The 17-55mm is also kind of big, heavy, and intimidating as a "walk-around" lens.</p>

<p>I shoot a variety of things (portraits, sports, nature landscapes, candid photos). My other lenses are the 35mm f/1.8 (for a general low-light and night-time walk-around lens) and the 85mm f/1.8 (a remarkable piece of glass that I use for portraits and concerts). With the 70-200, a really good quality mid-range that's also a good walk-around lens would make my lens family complete (for now at least!).</p>

<p>Any suggestions out there? The 18-70mm is half the price of the 16-85mm, but the latter has VR and has a bit more range.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>The 18-70mm is also a little faster at the long end (f/4.5 versus f/5.6), but I don't know what the 16-85mm VR max aperture is at 70mm.</p>

<p>Kenneth.... The 16-85VR is f/5.6 at 70mm.</p>

<p>Hello Joe...thanks! How do you like the 16-85mm?</p>

<p>The 16-85 is a very good lens, and the 16mm at the short end is more useful for me than 18mm. It's slow, yes, but the VR is very effective which makes up a bit for the slowness. The IQ is great - I have noticed a very slight amount of barrel distortion but only if you have a strong horizon line somewhere in the photo. I've never used the 18-70 but most reports say it is very good. So is the 16-85 worth twice the price of the 18-70? It really depends on how much you value VR and the extra 2mm on the wide end. The difference on the long end between 70 and 85 is negligible. </p>

<p>I had and liked the 18-70mm a few years back. I have not used the 16-85mm but the range is nice but its a slow lens. I would make the decision based on your needs of range and speed. Size and weight are very important for me but I think the best compromise is a 17-5xmm f2.8 zoom. Tamron makes one that gets a good read and I have a 28-75mm f2.8 Tamron that works very well on a D700. I know its a different lens but I find the range and speed good for my use.</p>

<p>When I shot film, I explored progressivly wider from 35, 28, 24 and 20mm. When I finally had my choice of primes, my favorite was the 24.</p>

<p>The 18-70 is a really good lens. It can be had for an attractive price in the used market. However, at 18mm, I still wanted to go wider.</p>

<p>I recently purchased the 16-85 from a fellow photo.net member. (Thanks Brosh.) IQ is as good or better than the 18-70. The biggest factor is the slow f/5.6 at the long end. With VR, I have managed to get good stuff at 1/15, hand held and the FOV of a 24 allows me to leave the ultrawide at home.</p>

<p>There is a lot of discussion here about the 16-85. What it really comes down to is the type of photography that you enjoy concerning the slower aperture of the lens.</p>

<p>I hope this helps.</p>

<p>I too owned an 18-70, and I always liked the lens. Still would, if I'd still have it. It's a very versatile range, and it just works well.<br />But I sold the 18-70 (more to enable the sales of a body- I was not anxious to get rid of the lens!), after which I settled on an 16-85VR as replacement. I expected it to be a solid replacement for the 18-70, but I find it to be more than that. It is better in all respects, and exceeds my expectations regularly.</p>

<p>1. The build of my 16-85 is better than the 18-70. The 18-70 had some play in the front tube, which caused no issues but "it felt bad". Zooming on the 16-85 is more precise and more "torqued", and the focusring has stops at the ends (close/infinity), which the 18-70 didn't have.</p>

<p>2. The 16-85 is sharper. The 18-70 was not great wide open, and I regarded it more a "constant f/5.6" lens to get the best out of it. The 16-85 can be used wide open already. So while it's commonplace to call the 16-85 slow (which it is), the 18-70 is not faster if you want to get results on par with the 16-85.</p>

<p>3. The VR is a bonus, it enables me to do more night photography. But for normal daytime photos, it's not really needed.</p>

<p>4. Last but not least, the range of the 16-85 is better. The 2mm at the wide end do make a serious difference. The 70-85 difference is neglible, though. 16-70VR would also have been OK.</p>

<p>When I bought it, I did find the 16-85 a bit overpriced (and prices gone up since), and yes, it is expensive. But it is also seriously good for what it is. The 18-70 still is a very good offer, price/performance it delivers plenty. But, for even less money than the 18-70, to me the 18-105VR is as good as the 18-70, except for the mount (plastic versus metal), although in normal use that should not make a big difference either.<br />So, money no objection: 16-85VR. On a tighter budget: 18-105VR. That would be my shortlist.</p>

<p>Hi Kenneth,<br>

I have both, first the 18-70 that came with the D70 and more recently the 16-85 to use on a D300. Without question the 16-85 is a better choice ... it is sharper, has better contrast/colour rendition and as a daytime multi use lens walks all over the older 18-70.</p>

<p>In it's time the 18-70 was a great lens ... for the money, and it's still good now but the 16- is simply more useful and gives better results. Sure, the aperture is slightly slower than the 18- but VR MORE than makes up for it. If you really have a light problem then neither is the one you should be using and you still have the auto-iso in your armoury.</p>

<p>Forget the money - nobody ever said "I wish I had bought the lower quality lens" :)<br>

You can spread the extra $300 over 5 year's warrantied lifespan and not be sorry you got the better lens.</p>

<p>Hope you find this encouraging - <em>signed The Devil's Advocate</em></p>

I bought a used 16-85 and still have the 18-105 from my D90 kit. Pixel peeping, the 16-85 at 85mm has more resolution

than the 18-105 at 105. With the 16-85, zooming-by-cropping (or is it "digital zoom"?) works for me.

 

I also have a Sigma 10-20 which I don't find useful for people pictures. It seems 16mm is the widest you can go before people's faces get distorted. That makes the 16-85 a great walkabout lens.

<p>I have the 16-85 for my D300 and had it and the 24mm f/2.8 as my only lenses in Barcelona for 11 days this summer. The zoom is great and the VR helps keep things steady. Probably 2/3 of the images came from the zoom lens and I don't find it tiring at all to use. I don't think you can go wrong with it.</p>

<p>I got to spend some quality time with a 16-85 this weekend and found it to be a good lens, but not a $630 lens. Compared to my 18-105, it's got more metal but still a lot of plastic, it feels stiffer (but to me it wasn't necessarily in a good way) and my shots are a bit sharper but not by much - I've really got to look for it when pixel peeping. It's still a slow consumer grade lens.</p>

<p>i love my 18-70mm. i have compared it with the 16-85mm when i planned on buying it. maybe i just don't have the money but to it wasn't worth the price.</p>

<p>these two will be short zooms but way better than the 16-85mm ---- tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. they are both fast and bright, but short in range. both excellent street lens. you can mount either one of them with the 35mm f/1.8 in your pocket..... nothing beats a fast and bright lens for street.</p>

<p>if you don't really need wide and planning on going full frame very soon, look at the sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 or its little brother the 24-60mm f/2.8, the latter getting better reviews than its big brother.</p>

<p>I have the 18-70mm & this is my second copy. I traded my first copy in when I got the 70-200VR. I've been using it for my IR (InfraRed) photography, but soon realized I felt very limited by the 18-70mm range. I finally decided to buy the 10-24 & I love having that lens. Works so well for me for IR photography.<br>

If I had it to do over, I would probably have bought the 16-85 for the IR camera & I'm still contemplating doing so. To me the 18-70mm has always been an awkward fit for my photography.<br>

JMHO</p>

<p>I have used the 18-70 for a while now and find it very good. Most of the time I use very small apertures for landscapes and I think that this helps regarding quality. The 18 end is not so good and I tend to switch to a prime of 20 or 24mm. As a general purpose lens the 18-70 is a good choice.</p>

<p>The 18-70mm is a decent kit lens, but the 16-85mm VR is an outstanding zoom lens. The differences are clear when you hold them up against each other in a test. I have owned three copies of the 18-70mm and am on my second 16-85mm and would never switch back to the 18-70mm. But for the price, a second hand 18-70mm can be had regularly for less than $200, it's a steal.</p>

<p>I use the 18-70 on the d300. Its fast and sharp, without the weight of the more expensive models. Really happy with it.</p>

<p>Hi Kenneth-I also have the D90and recently replaced my 18-70 with the 16-85. I liked my old lens but the 16-85 is,at least for me, better in all respects. I really like having 24mm back at the wide end and the VR is quite useful. The lens is a tad expensive but I'm glad I got it! regards, cb :-)</p>

<p>The 16-85VR is a tad expensive imo (Australian$900.00 here) but for me it has been a very worthwhile purchase. It covers 95% of the range I generally shoot in, the extra width (from 18mm) comes in very handy and the extra length (from 55mm) means much less lens changing. I wish it was a bit faster for the same $ but I guess we can't have everything on limited budgets.</p>

<p>Used both on my d200<br>

The 16-85 is much better in IQ. It is more expensive but worth it.<br>

Is the AF zoom-nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-4D IF the equivalent lens--to the 16-85-- for the Fx format?</p>

<p>Thanks everyone...it looks like the 16-85mm VR is the way to go! Once I unload this 18-200mm VR on eBay or something, I'm going to take the proceeds and get the new lens. I think that will round out my lens arsenal quite well until I move to FX.</p>

<p>Someone told me he shot a wedding with that 16-85mm (along with an 85mm f/1.4 and a 70-200mm VR on a couple of D300 bodies)...I didn't believe him for a second until I saw his pictures...WOW! I think I'd buy an f/2.8 if I want/need to shoot a wedding, but just to know I can get that quality from this lens is reassuring...especially after seeing what I've been getting from the 18-200mm. That lens is a bit of a disappointment (in terms of IQ) versus that old 18-55mm kit lens I had.</p>

<p>Thanks again!</p>

<p>Kenneth --<br>

If you have not found it, I strongly recommend Bjørn Rørslett's site at www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html. Links are in the left hand panel; click on the link to lenses. Many folks have come to view Bjørn's work as the reference work on Nikon lenses. I certainly have relied on his evaluations in my purchase of Nikon glass. <br>

A second source that I find valuable is www.photozone.de with quite useful test data of many of Nikon's lenses and some third party lenses. Good luck with your choice. <br /> <br /> Frank<br /> <br /> Edge Light Images: Light, Land and Ocean of Northern California, http://www.edgelightimages.com</p>

<p>i dont think there's any question as to whether the 16-85 is a better lens. as to how much better than the 18-70, that's quite subjective. i personally did not like the 18-70 and have rarely used it since getting the tamron 28-75. for me, i just need 2.8. i like the range, reviews, and features of the 16-85, but i dont think i'd consider a variable-aperture lens at that price. i'm happy with the tammy 17-50 for walkarounds/events and the 28-75 for concerts/portraits. personally, the ability to have sharp focus at 2.8 or f/4 with narrow DoF is better than an extra 1mm of reach, VR, and an extra 30mm on the long end. YMMV.</p><div></div>

<p>Like Ramon, I would consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro. They are sharp, fast, and affordable. I have the Tamron and it is a very good lens. Tamron just announced a 17-50 f/2.8 VC (VC is their VR). Adorama has it for $649.</p>

<p>I would hold on to the 18-200 VR unless you really need the money for the new lens. I have the 18-200 VR and I use it a lot. I have sharper zooms, but I use the 18-200 VR when I want to travel light and/or want to be able to go from w/a to fairly long tele w/o having to take the time to change lenses. It's also a great travel lens and a great street lens. </p>

<p>I wonder why you don't even consider AFS 18-105 DX VR. To me, this is the best mid range zoom kit Nikon ever made. The only thing I complain is the built quality. Other than that...it's the best walk-around zoom.</p>