What is the best couple?

[justin_ngo]

After trying a Nikon 16-85 at my local photo store, I would think Nikon 16-85 VR and 70-200 VR is the best pair

to cover the range up to 200mm. I'm so impressive about the 16-85 but have not decided to replace my 18-200 yet.

How's about your best pair?

[tim_knight]

I am very pleased with the quality of pictures taken with my Nikon 70-300VR zoom. My combo consist of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (replaced my 18-70) and the 70-300VR. I just got back from the airport with pictures of racing plains that will be taking off tomorrow flying from Mitchell, SD to Juneau, Wisconsin. I got some great pictures on the ground and in the air.

[carl_becker2]

IMHO for landscape the 16-85 is a great range. For event shooting a 17-50 f2.8 would be better. For low light or DoF isolation a couple of fast primes win. I use two and one half ;-) zooms, 11-16, 18-70 and older 70-210. I prefer using primes and the 1/2 zoom though.

[warrenlewis]

I have the d300 and generally travel with the 16-85 and 70-300VR. It is a great all around pair. I'm not sure what body you are using. We are at Colonial Williamsburg for the day and shot from iso200 to 3200. The quality of the exposures were fine. <P> Yes, there are times for faster lenses or prime lenses. You'd have to put all the variables into the equation to come up with an answer as to the "best". As an all around pair, they are excellent.

[shuo_zhao]

My best pair for travelling is the 16-85 VR and 55-200 VR. Usually I would also carry a 50 1.8 for low-light and as a back-up lens.

 

The 16-85 VR is quite a good lens, although it's a bit overpriced and not sharp as the 24-70 2.8. I only use the 24-70 2.8 as a dedicated event/photojournalism/portrait lens. It's too heavy and not wide enough for casual travel photography.

[lightsmith1]

With a DX camera my choice is the 17-55mm f2.8 and the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 tele. The Sigma provides the DX FOV of a 70-200 on a FX camera and weighs half as much and is half as long. Easy to have either lens on the camera and put it into any of my camera bags. Often though I leave the 17-55mm behind and take the 14-24mm f2.8 lens so I can either go wide or moderate tele, leaving "normal" behind.

[hugh_look]

What for? It's hard to say without knowing what you want to do.

 

Can't comment on the 70-200 as I've never used it, but I have the 55-200 VR & the 70-300 VR - very different beasts. Combined with the 16-85, the 55-200 makes a very light kit: it's small enough to go in a belt pouch, which means you can change lenses quickly without all that tedious mucking about with camera bags (I /hate/ camera bags, especially backpacks). But it's not that sturdy - the 70-300 is better. I usually take the smaller lens if I'm walking or on my daily (train) commute. If I'm travelling by car, I usually take the bigger one as it is a bit better in IQ. The VR is also better by a stop.

 

I think with long lenses handling can be as important as absolute IQ - one often gets better results with something that is comfortable, that "fits", rather than a theoretically better lens that is a pig to use. As much as anything, the weight & size of the 70-200 put me off.

[dan_brown4]

16-85VR + Sigma 50-150/2.8.

[alex_lofquist]

Brad and Angelina?

[bmm]

In recent travels I have been taking what I consider a high quality and very versatile 'couple', which is also pretty lightweight.

 

35mm f/2.0 and 85mm f/1.4 - used on a D80 (so crop factor is in play)

 

I've found this pair of primes very rewarding to use.

[zishaan]

35mm 2.0 and 85mm 1.8