Tough decision (18-70, 18-105 or 16-85). Can you recommend one lens over another?

[maurycy]

<p>I am going to buy D60 (body only) and would like to get walk-around lens for it. I have narrowed down my choices to three lenses (all Nikon):</p>

<p>18-70mm - Like the f-range on this lens (3.5-4.5). The only problem is that it is not a VR lens.</p>

<p>18-105mm - I think I can live with the plastic mount as this lens will rarely leave camera. Plus it is VR lens.</p>

<p>16-85mm - This would probably is the best lens out the the three but keep in mind that's about twice the cost of 18-105. Plus while the zoom range is very nice, the f/5.6 at the tele end is nothing special (at least in my opinion).</p>

<p>There is also 18-135 but that's non-VR lens and I really do not need anything longer than 100mm. I currently have another digital system with Sigma 17-70mm and this focal length is perfect for my needs. The kit lens (18-55) was just too short.</p>

<p>I know I should go for the best lens I could afford (and I can afford $550 for the 16-85mm lens) but I will use the camera for some casual family shots plus some landscapes, vacation snapshots, etc so I do not want to spend more than necessary.</p>

<p>So what's your recommendation?</p>

[jorgen_udvang]

<p>There are reasons why the 16-85 are more expensive. If you can afford it, buy it. If you need more reach, 105mm probably isn't enough anyway. The 70-300 is an excellent companion for the 16-85. Add the 50/1.4 AF-S, and you have enough to travel the world.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>16-85VR is a really great standard DX lens.</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p><em>"I will use the camera for some casual family shots plus some landscapes, vacation snapshots...."</em></p>

<p>Every lens will work well in good daylight and each of those lenses are slower as the focal length increases. Having been there, I would opt for at least one of the lenses with VR. Since you don't want anything longer than about 100mm, that narrows it down to only two lenses.</p>

<p>If I were chosing between the 16-85 and 18-105, I would go with the first one. Yes it is more expensive but yes, there is a reason for it. The 16-85 may well go down as one of the finest consumer grade lenses Nikon has made and it fits perfectly with the range you are trying to achieve.</p>

<p>You are right, it is slow at the long end but such is the case with all the 18-xx lenses. To make up for that, consider either something like the Sigma 30mm (for a 'normal' range), a Nikon/Sigma 50mm (short tele) that will autofocus on the D60, or even one of the Nikkor 85mm lenses. Budget will help you decide.</p>

 

[kayak203]

<p>The 16-85mm seems like a good choice.</p>

<p>Are you settled on the D6o? I know 2 people that just bought the D8o new for less money than the D60, and it will work with less expensive prime lenses, like the 50mm, when you get to that. Sure the D80 is discontinued, but it is certainly worth considering.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>is your other digital system nikon? why duplicate the 17-70 range? isn't that hsm? if you want both systems to have a walk-around lens, i'd get the 18-70mm. it's shorter, affordable and a little bit faster than the 105mm. i think that still defeats the latter's vr. but why not just bring the 17-70mm and complement that with an affordable longer zoom. sometimes vacation snapshots call for a longer zoom.............but one camera, one lens among your short list? i'd get the 105mm. it's sad the d60 limits your lens options.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I shoot gallery work and just got a 16-85 to compliment my my 17-55 2.8 and I love it. You can't go wrong with this glass. It is a bit heavy but the VR works very well And it is so sharp you can shave with it.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>The 16-85 VR is really good for what it is. It essentially has the best built quality of any non f/2.8 nikkor zooms: it has no zoom creep, it features a metal mount, and AF-S with full time MF with a distance scale. The VR works very well (I can get usable shots at 1/2s and 16mm). If you enjoy shooting landscape, the 16mm wide coverage (2mm wider than the other lenses) would be very useful. It also has relatively moderate distortion patterns.</p>

<p>The 18-70 is not bad overall. Its biggest problem is its severe vignetting and unnatural distortion pattern at 18mm.</p>

<p>The 18-105 VR is probably the best value of the three. Aside from the extra reach it provides, it can almost do everything the 16-85 can do. By going with it, you can save almost $300: that can be spent on other useful lenses, perhaps a 50 f/1.8 and a 55-200 VR.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"I know I should go for the best lens I could afford (and I can afford $550 for the 16-85mm lens)"<br>

i think you answered your own question. i would also consider a d80 so you can add the 50/1.8 for $120. d60 doesn't really give you anything the d80 doesnt have, but d80 gives you some things d60 doesnt have (2 control wheels, more AF pts, internal motor).</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>16-85 - though Nikon goofed badly on that f/5.6 at the longer end.</p>

[seanbreadsell]

"16-85 - though Nikon goofed badly on that f/5.6 at the longer end."

 

agreed there Dieter, its a shame it wasn't soemthing like a 2.8-4 then it would be an awesome lense and they would sell twice as many

[carl_becker2]

<p>IMHO you should reconsider the D60. A D80 will allow you to use AF or AF-D lenses with auto focus. With a D200 you can meter with older manual focus lenses. I had a 18-70mm zoom and thought well of it except it is slow. I prefer faster glass and recommend a 17-50 f2.8 type zoom or a couple of fast primes. I want the ability to isolate subjects with a narrow DoF. You might consider purchasing used glass at a good savings. I have one new lens out of the seven primes I own.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Sean writes ["16-85 - though Nikon goofed badly on that f/5.6 at the longer end." agreed there Dieter, its a shame it wasn't soemthing like a 2.8-4 then it would be an awesome lense and they would sell twice as many] Not at four times the price!</p>

<p>The 16-85 is the one to get here, if you can afford it. If I were you, I'd get a D80 (not 60, I gotta have the ability to focus old AF lenses), 16-85 VR, and SB600. then get a 50mm f1.8 for the occasional fun low light or portrait stuff. Get an ultrawide later if you decide if you want/need one. Get a tele zoom later if you decide you want or need it.</p>

[maurycy]

<p>Thanks for all the replies. To answer couple of your questions:</p>

<p>1. I am switching from Pentax to Nikon so my Sigma 17-70mm has to go. I guess I could get Nikon mount version of Sigma as I have liked this lens a lot.</p>

<p>2. I do not need D80 and its backwards lens compatibility. Currently, I have set of four lenses and three of them are just collecting dust. That's why I will get good walk-around lens and stick with it.</p>

<p>3. I decided on D60 because it is nice and compact and I really do not need all the extra functionality that D80 provides.</p>

<p>How is the 16-85mm when it comes to AF speed? I have read that it is considerably slower than other lenses.</p>

[tim_knight]

<p>When I purchased my D50 I shopped around until I found it in a kit package with the 18-70 and was very happy with it. If I was you I would get the 16-85 since it is considered the better build with excellent reviews for picture quality. Some of the cheaper kits also have great reviews for picture quality but are throw away lens that are going to fail on you when you need it the most. I have since found I needed faster glass for what I shoot and now have the Tamron 17-50/2.8. </p>

[nsfbr]

<p>I see that you rejected the advice of avoiding the non-motorized bodies like the plague from Carl. This is of course your decision, but I would wholeheartedly second his point. I believe that anyone who is at all serious about photography does themselves a great disservice by buying one of the motor challenged bodies that Nikon is selling by the shipload. If I can change your mind it would be a good thing. I will try it thusly:<br>

50mm f/1.8D - best $100 ever spent on a lens. <br>

85mm f/1.8D - best $400 ever spent on a lens.<br>

The list goes on. You will not be able to touch these things and never be able to put a prime lens on the camera without spending through the nose. If you are set on a small body, hunt down a D50, which IMHO was a great little thing that was killed off before its time.</p>

[maurycy]

<p>I am not rejecting D80 just because it supports the older lenses and have more functionality. I rejected the idea because I currently have 50mm lens (both macro and standard) plus some other zoom lenses and still I use only my Sigma 17-70mm. So I need decent zoom lens because I know that I am not that type that will go crazy changing lenses. Of course primes are better, but my main reason for switching is to get faster AF. This idea would be lost if I were to run with bag full of primes :-)</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Sounds like like you should just get another Sigma 17-70mm HSM if you know the lens and are happy with it. I don't know the Pentax format so there may be a field of view difference.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>>> "How is the 16-85mm when it comes to AF speed? I have read that it is considerably slower than other lenses."</p>

<p>It's not fast for a AF-S lens. But it should be faster than all micro-AF-S lenses and large/heavy screw driver AF lenses.</p>

[jay_moynihan]

<p>I cannot comment on all three kenses from experience, but here is my 2 cents :)<br>

1. Check the reviews on <a href="http://www.photozone.de purchased">www.photozone.de </a> It has reviews of the 18-70 and 16-85.<br>

2. I purchased a D60 as my "walkaround" camera. It came with the latest version of the 18-55, the VR one. That lense has surprisingly good IQ, and the VR is handy if you are shooting handheld.<br>

The lense I use most on it though is a 35mm f/2 AF (equiv. of 52mm in 35mm terms). No AF, but full metering. Makes for a small, high IQ package.<br>

3. The 18-70 lives on one of my D200's, the one i use mostly for landscape type stuff. Used on a tripod alot, so no VR concerns, at least for me. Very sharp, it plays far above its price point. Very low CA also. Negative is distortion at wide end if aperture is set wide open. I normally use it though at f/8 - f/13, so have never experienced that, myself. </p>

[borgis_karl_johan]

<p>I can second any postings praising the general optical quality of the 16-85mm lens- it has been my preferred walkaround lens since July when I got my sample.<br>

This lens is so good and practical that -strange though it might seem- it could even delay me getting into the FX format (with the D700 or its inevitable higher MP successor) for the time being. I by the way still own the older full-format 24-120mm lens whose performance to me was only marginally acceptable. To judge by most postings the new VR lens covering the FX format is still comparatively inferior to the 16-85 mm DX lens. <br>

Cordially<br>

Karl Johan</p>

[maurycy]

<p>Thanks to all who replied. Your comments were very helpful.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I haven't used the other two you mentioned, so I can't make a fair opinion, but, I really liked the 18-70 and didn't feel I was hurt by lack of VR...It's a very nice street lens in terms of range. I wrecked mine, but am thinking of getting another.</p>

[patrice_strong]

<p>I own the Nikon D50 along with the 18-70mm lens...as soon as the 16-85mm came out, I purchased it from Amazon. I took it for a spin at the local Botanical Garden. It was not sharper than my 18-70. I could not tell the difference in the photos. I immediately sent it back. If anything happens to my 18-70, I'll buy another one...it is just that good.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>For what you're intending to do, VR will be tremendously useful. It will let you shoot in relative dark hand-held, will let you use a polarizing filter in modest light without a tripod, and will let you use wider apertures than you otherwise could to get better depth of field in landscape shots. It seems to me that you want the capability to get high quality photos without messing with a lot of complicated gear, and I suspect you will not be wanting to carry around a large tripod to allow all of the above without VR.</p>

<p>Of the two lenses that leaves, the 16-85 is my pick. However, the only IMPORTANT advantage the 16-85 has over the 18-105 is that extra 2mm at the wide end. The rest: better VR, better build, metal mount, better distortion and perhaps marginally better sharpness characteristics - are not going to make a big, noticeable difference to your photos. That 2mm at the wide end can make a big difference, though - almost the same as the difference between 24mm and 28mm on a film camera. 16mm is a true wide angle and I use it all the time.</p>

<p>It doesn't hurt that the 16-85 has everything else going for it as well, though.</p>