35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D vs 16-85mm VR

[glenn_c1]

<p>Hello all,</p>

<p>I'm going to attempt a very simple little comparison between these lenses. I've noticed quite a bit of talk about the general excellence of the 35-70, bought one, and was slightly disappointed. Naturally, it's an f/2.8 lens, so if that's a needed feature, the comparison is moot. However, I decided that while I still own both lenses it might be helpful to those deciding between such lenses at some time in the future to post some comparison images between them. This will be my first such comparison posted on this site, or anywhere on the internet, although in the past I've voiced opinions here and there between lenses, including these two.</p>

<p>I'm going to start with a single image, at 50mm and f/5, which is the 16-85's widest aperture at that FL. I'll post the guide image first, then 100% crops from each lens.</p>

<p>The photos were taken within a few minutes of each other. Focus was carefully evaluated. I took several shots with each lens in order to choose the sharpest image, but the images from each lens were indistinguishable from one another. I used a tripod and good tripod technique. Images were processed exactly the same way. No wierd camera settings were used, exposures were as similar as possible. The 35-70 image was under sunlight; a cloud blocked the sun during the 16-85 image.</p>

<p>Let's see if I can get this to work...</p>

<p>Guide image</p>

<div></div>

[glenn_c1]

<p>Image from 35-70mm, f/5, 50mm</p><div></div>

[glenn_c1]

<p>16-85mm VR, f/5, 50mm</p><div></div>

[glenn_c1]

<p>What I am trying to convey is my impression that the 16-85 has a good deal more snap than the 35-70, which is a bit soft by comparison and, more important for my use, gives rather muted colors. The 16-85 is very similar to my 80-200 f/2.8 and my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 with its sharp, color-saturated output, while I find the 35-70 similar to my 35mm f/2 AF-D and 85mm f/1.8 AF-D (both gone), with their less saturated, gentler color renditions. I know the color comparison is not completely valid here because of the lighting change but will attempt to post another comparison with more attention to color differences later.</p>

<p>Hope this is helpful to some.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Results like this confirm my impression that affordable zooms are better than ever. Many of them really do rival the top pro lenses of previous decades. Particularly in terms of flare resistance, with benefits to contrast and saturation, thanks to better multi-coatings and computers making it more cost effective to crank out top notch glass economically.</p>

<p>In side by side comparisons between the 35-70/2.8D AF and 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX Nikkors the 35-70 is usually better, but not always by a significant enough amount to be noticeable without pixel peeping or a large print. (Also, the 35-70 remains closer to a true 70mm focal length at minimum focus, while the 18-70 becomes a 50-55mm at minimum focus - not a huge obstacle but sometimes a problem.)</p>

<p>What it does offer is very little distortion and feeds my need for speed. I could not get by with just slowpoke variable aperture zooms for my documentary and candid photography. Sometimes that little edge in speed and perhaps in construction quality are the only significant differences between a fast pro grade zoom and more affordable but slower zooms. And with the current crop of dSLRs able to handle high ISOs with low noise, the variable aperture zooms in the f/3.5-5.6 range won't be a hindrance to everyone.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>nice test, thanks for posting. the 16-85 definitely seems contrastier. i suspect that while in the old days, much importance was placed on construction, newer, cheaper, mass-produced designs are able to do things with computer-aided algorithms that older lenses just couldn't do. if i was primarily shooting landscapes at 5.6-11, i would absolutely have the 16-85 at the top of the list. but, like lex said, for candids, street/doc, and PJ-type stuff, sometimes you need that 2.8. and the 35-70 certainly earned its rep as a PJ lens in its day. sometimes it's just about being able to get the image in the first place.</p>

[roman_thorn1]

<p>Everyone is alway's so concerned about speed. 2.8 is hardly fast. 18 - 105vr + a good 50 prime and you're set....money saved.</p>

[anthony_bez]

<blockquote>

<p>Everyone is alway's so concerned about speed. 2.8 is hardly fast. 18 - 105vr + a good 50 prime and you're set....money saved.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you will find f2.8 is considerably faster than f5.6?</p>

<p>And f1.4 primes are my favorite lenses, because there is no substitute for speed.</p>

[tony_defilippo1]

<p>Glenn, this is very helpful to me and just along the lines of what I've been going back and forth on. Well timed!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Not everyone needs f/2.8 or faster lenses. We may desire them, but don't necessarily need them. In the bad old days slowpoke variable aperture zooms were often seriously compromised optically. That's no longer the case. I hadn't intended to actually like the 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX but after four years it's grown on me... like a tick. And I'm among the few people who actually liked the 24-120 VR, despite the sluggish f/5.6 maximum aperture at 120mm.</p>

<p>But when you need that speed, there is no substitute. Autofocus works better in dim lighting with faster lenses. It's easier to compose in the dark. They're essential to photojournalists, documentary and travel photographers, sports photogs and paparazzi, serious street photographers and wedding and events pros. But nowadays nobody should feel they're settling for less with a variable aperture zoom. Most of 'em I've tried have been very good, some of 'em exceptional.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>How does a lens alter the color that much ? I would expect Nikon to try to pass as much of the spectrum of light frequencies as possible and render "true" colors. If the base image was with the 50mm , then the 35-70mm seems to render the colors the same, where as the 16-85mm adds more of an orange hue. Would it do this to faces in portraits as well ? No doubt it looks sharper at that focal length. I have seem some really sharp photos from the 35-70mm posted here in the past too.</p>

<p> </p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>Glenn, what shutter speed? I see some motion blur with the image from your 35 to 70mm. The 16-85 mm is VR so the image is a lot more crispy. Did you hand held the shots?</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Which lens did you use for the Guide Image?</p>

<p>To my eye, and on my monitor, the color of the 35-70 images most closely matches the roof color in the guide image.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You wrote "The 35-70 image was under sunlight; a cloud blocked the sun during the 16-85 image."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The Guide Image was definitely taken under sunlight. The difference in lighting conditions could be a better explanation of the image differences than the difference in lenses. Or not.</p>

<p> </p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>Thanks for the feedback everybody.</p>

<p>I haven't really intended this to be any sort of comprehensive test, more a quick example, but I'll try to answer some of the questions.</p>

<p>The guide image is the image from which the 35-70 crop was taken. There is no motion blur, just a bit of softness. The shutter speeds were 1/1000 for the 35-70, which was in sunlight, and 1/640 for the 16-85. I had VR turned off on the 16-85 and as I said I used a tripod and all the good tricks to help it do its thing well. I took several shots with each lens and as far as I could tell they were identical, so I don't think there are any one-time sorts of flaws represented in either crop. I think it's a fair comparison.</p>

<p>I'd like to do a bit more with this, since I've done this much, and maybe post some other comparisons tomorrow. I'm curious too now about the differences in color rendition. It's a hard thing to compare, because you'll never get two identical exposures with two different lenses, and exposure makes a big difference in color. I don't think the difference is a warmer/cooler thing though, to my eyes the 16-85 is more saturated in general - bluer skies, greener greens, etc.</p>

<p>I think Lex might have something with the notion that newer coatings and computer design are partly responsible for the performance of the newer lenses. My understanding is that coatings are critical to contrast. Why? Coatings control reflections. Every time light passes through an air/glass interface, part of the light is transmitted and part reflected. That reflected part bounces around inside the lens rather randomly and some of it makes its way to the sensor/film, where it literally dilutes the light that has been transmitted to the sensor/film in the intended manner. By controlling (reducing) these reflections, colors are transmitted with higher fidelity and contrast is not lost.</p>

<p>I would never argue with anybody who wants a fast lens. The problem I have is that there is no fast equivalent to the 16-85, and those that are closest are 2-3 times the cost and lack VR. The range and the VR are tremendously useful to me and I wouldn't want to give up either in my main do-almost-everything lens. It's a definite disadvantage that it's slow.</p>

<p>Interestingly, at least to me, Thom Hogan has just put up a page comparing the consumer DX zooms, check it out:</p>

<p>http://bythom.com/nikon-dx-lens-summary.htm</p>

<p>He spends a line or two near the bottom comparing these DX zooms to the pro 17-55/2.8, another comparison that has interested me, and concludes that the 17-55 doesn't have any advantage except speed. You give up the VR, the extra range, the lighter weight, the extra thousand bucks, and you get f/2.8, better build, and that's about it. Worth it if you need it maybe but not exactly a no-brainer.</p>

<p>The 16-85 has one other disadvantage, as far as I'm concerned - mediocre bokeh. Often harsh if you have hard-edged items slightly out of focus in the frame. This bothers me sometimes. I'm sure the 35-70 is better.</p>

<p>Hope this clears up some of the questions and clarifies a thing or two. I'll see if I can post a couple more of these before too long.</p>

[james_hudspeth]

<p>How does a lens alter the color that much ?<br>

Hi John, I shot a hotel with my 24-120VR at 35mm and f4. I then did the same thing with my 35mm F1.4 set to F4. The colors are more vivid with the 35 F1.4 than with the 24-120. typically in the red area.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>" 18 - 105vr + a good 50 prime and you're set....money saved."</p>

<p>set for what? Hawaiian Shirt Day at Disneyland?</p>

[Two23]

<p>I agree with Lex. The newer coatings on the modern lenses do give an advantage. Not only in color/contrast, but also in CA reduction.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[Two23]

<p>I agree with Lex. The newer coatings on the modern lenses do give an advantage. Not only in color/contrast, but also in CA reduction.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>Okay guys, I have another batch to post, this time at 70mm. Same scene, since it's convenient to me, but this time the light is consistent between all three. Technique same as yesterday. Since I was at 70mm I threw in my humble 55-200 VR to see how it would compare. I shot first with the 35-70 at full telephoto, then matched the frame for the other two lenses - their EXIF both wound up reading 68mm. I'll post all three guide images this time, then all three crops. Shutter was 1/1600 on all three; aperture f/5.6, which is wide open for the 16-85 I believe.</p>

<p>First image, 35-70 f/2.8 @70mm</p><div></div>

[glenn_c1]

<p>16-85mm VR @68mm</p><div></div>

[glenn_c1]

<p>55-200 VR @68mm</p><div></div>

[glenn_c1]

<p>35-70mm f/2.8 Crop</p><div></div>

[glenn_c1]

<p>16-85mm VR Crop</p><div></div>

[glenn_c1]

<p>55-200mm VR Crop</p><div></div>

[glenn_c1]

<p>Looks to me like the 35-70 is just a bit soft compared to the 16-85, as before, but what a surprise to see a definite edge in sharpness for the 55-200 over the 16-85 VR. It's slight, but look closely and sure enough, there is just a little bit more crispness to the detail from the 55-200, at least the way I see it.</p>

<p>In terms of colors the 16-85 looks both warmer and more saturated than the 35-70. The blue bucket, the yellow trim and brick on the house, and the car are all more saturated, but the sky is a little lighter in color. It didn't change between these exposures, so I think you are seeing a cooler color rendition from the 35-70 that helps bring out today's somewhat washed-out sky. Looking at the scene, the 16-85 looks to me a little more accurate. The yellows on the juniper are there in real life; the 35-70 mellows them and makes the plant cooler in tone. Same with the roof shingles and the trim. Still, splitting hairs here, the 16-85 might be a hair on the warm side of perfect. The 55-200 seems to me between the other lenses, generally, maybe closer to one on some things and the other on other things.</p>

<p>Again, hope this is helpful.</p>