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

[dan_brown4]

<p>I'm not a bit surprised Glenn. The 16-85 is a remarkably good lens. Of course, there are times when there is no substitute for fast aperture.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>Absolutely, Dan. There have been times I've been tempted to get the 17-55/2.8, myself. Besides the fact that I'm probably too cheap to actually do that, there is the reality that if I had the 17-55, I'd <em>still</em> want some faster primes, at least a 30/35mm and 85mm, and having those does sort of compensate for the disadvantage of picking a slow standard zoom. There's no doubt there are advantages to going either way. For me, I like the range, especially at the wide end, and the VR that I get with the 16-85.</p>

<p>My motivation in this particular thread is just to provide a bit of objective documentation, not to convince anybody to make their own decision one way or another.</p>

[ray_l]

<p>Glenn,<br>

Thanks for posting the images and for the interesting points. <br>

With regards to the comment "... that the 17-55 doesn't have any advantage except speed" I do have one thing to add to the advantage that the 2.8 aperture brings that I have not seen mentioned here and that is the increased selective focus ability that I am unable to achieve with a 5.6 lens. I find that with the improved digital performance at higher ISO that I use the wider apertures more for selective focus than for speed. Although with PS I can mimic that to some degree I find it much more preferable to do it in camera than with PS.<br>

Take care,<br>

Ray</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>Well, the one thing that can be a factor is the copy you have. My 35-70mm was a dog when I got it, but I sent it into Nikon (and got my camera calibrated at the same time) and now it's my favorite lens. The focus went from being about 2 cm back to tack on. It is also remarkably sharp, and it's goofy "macro" mode is actually incredibly useful and comparably sharp to my prime macro 60mm.</p>

<p>So, these are older lenses, so it may need some adjustment. Also we're not comparing distortion etc. here.</p>

<p>Anyway, I don't doubt the the 16-85mm is a great lens. My 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is also remarkably crisp and sharp as well.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Hi Glenn,</p>

<p>Thank you for rerunning the test. The 16-85 appears to be sharper with better contrast on your camera body. Which camera were you using?</p>

<p>I shoot the 35-70 on an F100 - a film body. Here is a scan of a cropped 8x10 print made from a negative taken with the 35-70 set at 70 mm. You can count every hair on the young man's head, every freckle on his face (if you have the patience <grin>), or even eyelashes. This is on a flatbed scan of a traditional darkroom print with no post-scan enhancements. The aperture was set to f/5 and the shutter to 1/100; the shooting data was recorded by the F100 and downloaded to my computer.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3712092">http://www.photo.net/photo/3712092</a></p>

<p> </p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>LOL, good stuff Glenn. Lex is right, there has to be some good to come out of the research and development in new lenses. I am sure the computer design, the newer coating and the DX format specifically for digital has a lot to do with what you see. <br>

Your post made me browse around for the 16 to 85 VR at B & H and I don't hardly use zoom lens.;-) I do have a 35 to 70 and it works fine with my D700 and I have not done any tests on it yet. </p>

[penwaggener]

<p>Glenn, perhaps I missed it, but did you mention what exactly in the scene you focussed on?</p>

[brians.]

<p>I have owned the 16-85mm since November and find it's focal range and VRII to be indispensably for what I do (hand-held enthusiast). That said, with my version, shooting at f/5.6 primarily:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >At 16mm, I find the sharpness to be barely adequate, with high loss in dynamic range (requiring dynamic D-lighting most of the time).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >At 50mm, much better, but my 50mm f/1.8 is sharper.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >At 85mm, very nice sharpness, very usable lens, but not as sharp as my 70-300mm VR @ 70mm.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have read reports that show the 16-85 to be nearly as sharp as the 17-55, and other reports that show it's barely better than the 18-105 kit lens. I sent mine to Nikon for a check-out and it was within specs. Since some people find the 16-85 to be a very sharp lens I can only conclude that there is a wide variation in versions of the lens. </p>

 

[glenn_c1]

<p>Ray: I agree, of course. The 16-85 is not a very good lens for subject isolation. The bokeh and max aperture both tend to work against it. That said, I do have some very nice shots with it where the subject is nicely and subtly isolated, but it's hit-and-miss depending on what happens to be in the background.</p>

<p>Matt: I was wondering when somebody would bring that up. True, of course, I only have one sample of each lens. Nevertheless it's a data point, which is how I tend to look at lens tests and reviews anyway. When the majority of tests seem to point in the same direction, I give them more credibility. I would say my sample of the 35-70 appears very sharp until you look very closely. Sharpness, to me, is only one variable anyway. The thing that I actually see when I look at my photos, without magnification, is the overall image quality, and I feel that a large part of that "snap," which the 16-85 seems to have, comes more from contrast/color rendition than sharpness.</p>

<p>Brooks: Nice shot there. Looks sharp. I think part of the equation with the sharpness of these new DX lenses are that they are designed for DX in the first place. To have equal sharpness on film/FX format a lens needs only 2/3 the resolving power, so it makes sense that the DX lenses seem to be designed for, and achieve, linear resolutions that rival and often exceed very good lenses from the film era. Use any lens on a film body and it automatically becomes 1.5x as sharp as on DX. Grinding smaller glass to a high degree of precision is also no doubt more easily achievable at a given cost level, another reason it shouldn't surprise anybody that slow DX lenses tend to be quite sharp. These shots are all taken with my D90.</p>

<p>Hansen: The 35-70 is probably sharper on FX than DX. And let me repeat, I'm not trying to make an argument that the 35-70 isn't sharp. It's sharp. My perception from using them is that the 16-85 is a bit sharper most of the time and gives me colors that I like better - that "snap" that I keep talking about. I don't know how well that comes across in these samples. I just find myself constantly impressed by the vibrancy of pictures taken with it. I have similar feelings with some other lenses, but I've used the 16-85 the most and overall the "wow" factor is highest with it.</p>

<p>Pen: I tried to center the focus a couple of feet back from the intersection of the roof trim with the gutter shown in the crop. The idea was to make sure that the very sharpest focus area for each lens was within the area I intended to crop, and to allow for slight focus error and still be able to compare the crops fairly. You can see that the shingles right behind the trim, in all three shots, show maximum sharpness, and farther back towards the roof peak you begin to see some focus blur.</p>

<p>Brian: All tests I've seen show the 18-105 kit lens to be very sharp, essentially just as sharp as the 16-85 and also the 17-55. It sounds like you've seen some different results. If you don't mind posting links I'd be interested to see them. These three lenses should all have very high, fairly equivelent sharpness levels with the differences between them coming down to differences in center/edge sharpenss and differences in behavior across aperture settings, as far as I can tell. The photozone tests show center sharpness to be outstanding at 16mm and corner sharpness very good with the 16-85. That matches my general perceptions with my sample. Sorry to hear yours does not seem to be giving equivalent results.</p>

<p>Thanks again everybody for the feedback. I want to take a final crack at this at 35mm, maybe with a different scene - something a bit more interesting and colorful. Maybe sometime over the weekend. I'd really like to throw in my 35/1.8G and I'm toying with the idea of putting up some crops at wider apertures, as well, for the lenses that go there. Check back here, I'll keep it all in the same thread.</p>

[brians.]

<p>Glenn, The Photozone review you refered to was the most favorable review I found: <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr</a></p>

<p>but the CameraLabs review, which I like because they are usually more critical, was more in line with my experience. <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr</a></p>

<p>However, this is a go-to lense for me... I use it all the time because of it's focal range and great VRII.</p>

[brians.]

<p>Well, I just reread the CameraLabs review and it's not that bad a review. So what can I say... those are my opinions. Thanks for posting the tread Glenn.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Hi Glenn,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Use any lens on a film body and it automatically becomes 1.5x as sharp as on DX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure about your assertion. From various articles I have read over the years, FX lenses perform better on DX sensors because only the center of the lens, the "sweet spot", is used by the smaller sensor.</p>

<p>Sensor size is a different matter. A larger sensor with more pixels will usually out resolve a smaller sensor with fewer pixels e.g. the D3X will out resolve the D3.</p>

<p>One advantage the newer, digital specific lenses have when used on digital cameras is there is an anti-reflection coating the the element closest to the sensor to reduce reflection of light from the sensor itself. The older films specific lenses did not need or have this coating.</p>

<p>All said and done, Glenn, thank you very much for an interesting, thought provoking experiment that was well executed.</p>

[steve_mareno]

<p>Could be a sample variation. The 35 70 2.8 should do better than it's doing. Looking at the last shot Glenn posted, the focus seems to be all over the place. The tree in the right foreground seems sharp, but just in places. The blue plastic recycle bin and little fence on the left seem very sharp, but the house itself looks soft, especially the green tree. Older zooms have a tendency to get knocked out of alignment over the years. When I shot Nikons the 35 70 2.8 was one of my sharpest lenses. It was an awkward lens to use and really heavy, but I put up w/ that for the shots it produced.</p>

[jbm]

<p>The 16-85 is tack, tack sharp, especially stopped down a bit. If you are not a speed demon, it is an incredible value. I use it as a walk around lens but also have shot some press kits with it for sports teams in NYC where it is indistinguishable from a good middle length prime stopped down a bit.<br>

My only advice, do not drop it on concrete from 8 feet up. It is less sharp after that maneuver.<br>

Jay </p>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>My 16-85 mm is tack sharp too and versatile as an only walkaround lens on DX.<br>

I have used a loaner 35-70mm 2,8 lens on slide film in the late 90s taking shots of erupting geysirs in Iceland. Sharpness and contrast of those slides I recollect as being very high. So both are excellent lenses in their own right.</p>