Considering 16-85 for traveling

[shoshana]

<p>I did Google, several times.</p>

<p>Currently I have a D80, 18-35, 28-105, 70-300ED, 80-200 2.8 ED (the last one before the AF-S ones).</p>

<p>We have started taking quick vacations where I need to pack light. On our last 2 vacations (Buenas Aires, Rome) I used the 18-35 95% of the time. For Rome, I didn't even take the 2 longer lenses and barely used the 28-105 mostly because as soon as I put the 28-105 on, it seems like I'm switching it for the wider zoom. I could have used the 28-105 later in the trip but I left it in the room since I hadn't been using it.</p>

<p>What I have is nice, so I'm torn. The 16-85 is a great range for what I'm using my current lenses for. I'm concerned about it because it's a DX lens, not a pseudo macro like the 28-105 and is a little slower than the 28-105. Oh, and it's expensive. I know it does have VR and AFS which none of my lenses have, but I honestly haven't ad a problem using non VR AFS lenses...</p>

<p>What I'm wondering about is the PQ compared to the 28-105 and the 18-35. All 3 lenses are on the slow side, but I think the 16-85 is a little slower than what I have already.</p>

<p>Has anyone used all 3 lenses and what do you think?</p>

<p>I don't need a 18-200. And from what I have read, this lens is better than the 18-105, 18-135, 18-200...</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>'shana</p>

[bob_trabucco]

<p>I have the 16-85 and have to say it's on my camera the vast majority of the time. Hard to beat all around good lens. Travels well. Good build & image quality. Nothing but praises.</p>

[bsd230]

<p>I think the 16-85 would be a great travel lens. The VR will make up for the very slight loss in speed at least with still shots. VR is really amazing. You will be able to shoot at shutter speeds you would have never considered before. I agree about the 18-200, even though many will say your better off getting it because they are so close in price. I owned it and loved the versatility. Yes, it was great for travel but I would rather have the 16-85 for the better image quality.</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>I was torn between the 18-200 and the 16-85 which had just come out. Got the 18-200 but have discovered I seldom goe about 85mm. Now I wish I had bought the 16-85.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>I use my 16-85VR enough that I almost have to make excuses to take it off my camera in favor of something else. Yes, it is not fast, but it has advantages over your other lenses that I think you will find very useful:</p>

<p>- 16mm wide end. This is handy. It is a "normal wide" angle rather than an "ultra wide" angle, but it is usefully wider than 18mm and great when you want a true wide shot but don't want an overly odd-looking perspective. It is fairly infrequent that I find a need to switch to my Tokina 11-16, even though that is also an excellent lens.</p>

<p>- VR. I know you said you don't mind not having it, but consider the possibility that the reason for that is that it's never occurred to you to shoot hand-held in conditions where VR might allow you to do so. For example, you can do genuine night photography without a tripod and all the deliberate slowness that using one requires. VR will not stop subject motion, but where that isn't a critical factor it adds tremendously to a lens' versatility. Not only does the 16-85 have VR, it has Nikon's improved "VRII," noticeably better than "VR." I can hand-hold this lens successfully at 1/4 second with some care.</p>

<p>- High-contrast color output. You might notice, if you compare, a slight improvement in color rendition between the 16-85 and your older lenses. I haven't used the 18-35 or 28-105, but other Nikkors of this vintage that I have used give noticeably less contrasty colors than the newer lenses, including the 16-85. I put this down to improvements in lens coatings, and frankly all the newer lenses seem about equally good in this regard. The only "old" Nikkor I've used that is in this league is my two-ring 80-200/2.8.</p>

<p>- Very good technical performance. I put this last, because pixel sharpness and distortion/vignetting and other technical factors really don't make all that much of a day-to-day difference to me. However, the 16-85 is generally considered to be the best of the DX zooms in terms of technical performance. Thom Hogan has a very useful review of this lens that's worth looking at, and photozone.de has its usual useful technical review. Bottom line, the 16-85 is sharp across its range and has less distortion than its obvious competition. (If you need a distortion-free shot, just shoot it at 24mm. Above 24mm, slight pincushion is not noticeable except in critical shots. Only very near 16mm will distortion be obvious on straight lines.)</p>

<p>It's a very versatile lens and I think you'll be happy with it unless you need f/2.8-type speed.</p>

 

[photo5]

<p>The 16-85 VR is certainly a star. I've enjoyed using it immensely and will bring it on a trip to Japan this December. It did very well in London, and I barely needed my 10-20mm Sigma at all, and probably wouldn't bring it on a trip again.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>That is what I would use with DX for a trip unless I needed a fast lenses then I would just take a couple of primes. I have a 28-105mm for use with a D700 in daytime.</p>

[shoshana]

<p>Thanks! That helps a lot :)<br>

Now to talk to He Who Pays The Bills (lol) and Makes the Reservations!</p>

[borgis_karl_johan]

<p>So at last Nikon seems to have produced a modern legend in this range- oh yes I am extremely pleased with mine on a D200.</p>

[photo5]

<p>When I bought a D700 I sold my 16-85mm VR, and looked at buying the 24-120mm VR, but it had such poor reviews, and it was so large as well. Needless to say, this is one big advantage of the DX format, we can enjoy the 16-85 VR lens, a true gem, I really missed it with the D700 and the Tamron 17-35mm wasn't a good replacement, as I had to mount the 50mm and the 105mm 2.5 if I wanted to get beyond 35mm...</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I love my 18-200. I'd rather have the 16-85, though.</p>

[laseng_lasengo]

<p>I had an opportunity to test the 16-85 vr and a 17-55 2.8 side by side mainly for travel and general purpose use. There are numerous posts regarding 16-85 vs 18-200 vs 17-55 for travel and one can always make the case for either one. I liked the IQ, vr, focal range of the 16-85 but I was ultimately swayed by the 17-55's slight edge in IQ (based on my non-scientific side by side testing; both lenses mounted on a d300). In addition, the 17-55's tougher build quality and low-light performance are pluses. On the downside, the 17-55 is heavier, and shorter on the long end but satisfies the focal range you use most of the time. Even if you don't consider the 17-55, I think the 16-85 will still make an excellent travel lens. If possible, try out the camera store's demo lenses on your d80, shoot a whole bunch of pictures in or around the store so you can better gauge performance.</p>

[munim]

After breaking the plastic mount on my 18-105 VR, I've been comtemplating of upgrading to a metal mount lens with the most similar zoom range. My conclusions so far (the cons shortlist):

 

(1) 18-55 no VR, plastic mount but I'm keeping this toy lens for backup. Bought it used for $50.

(2) 18-70 v. good IQ but no VR

(3) 18-135 plastic mount, no VR

(4) 18-200 worse distortion than 18-105, lens creep

(5) Tammy 17-50 even less range than 18-55. Low light advantage somewhat countered by 16-85 VRII.

 

After reading your posts above, I think I'll get the 16-85, sell the 18-105 and forget about getting a Tokina 11-16. One of

most informative threads so far!

[shawn_mcfarlane]

<p>If you are happy with the 18-35 and use it 95% of the time I'd be more tempted to buy a prime to go with it and take those 2 travelling. You don't have a nice fast prime in your bag at the moment. Looking at the focal length you use most on the 28-105 would probably give you a good idea. Maybe a 50mm or maybe one of the 60mm macros if you feel you'd like a macro lens.</p>

<p>Personally I have the 17-55, its a bit of a lump for lightweight travelling but I love it too much to leave it at home :)</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>I've used all three of these lenses - 18-35, 28-105, and the new 16-85. In fact the 18-35 and the 28-105 used to be my carry around kit until I got the 16-85. While neither of the first two are dogs (I still have both of them), the newer 16-85 is better in every way and now stays on my camera almost all the time.</p>