18-70 vs 16-85VR - Is VR really necessary at this length?

[pete_su]

<p>I had this lens for a year and found that I did not like the range of apertures. 5.6 on the long end does not seem that much worse than 4.5 on the long end, but in practice it felt like this lens was always at around 5.6 wide open except at 16mm.<br>

I ended up selling it and going back to my 18-70.</p>

 

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>I have a few VR lenses - do I consider VR necessary for me - No, but then I have rather stable hands.<br>

I have the 18-70DX which I use on my IR (Infrared) converted camera, but there are times I feel it's not wide enough nor long enough. So I am debating picking up a 16-85 to use with that camera. But - do I want to or not...... I can't decide.<br>

As for the necessity of VR....<br>

I am here going to offer a shot taken with the 24-70mm f/2.8 handheld at 1/25s at a f/8. I have hand held shots at even longer exposures hand held. But - only you know if you need it or not.<br>

<img src="http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p931483272-4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[photo5]

<p>Peter, the walking stick idea is a very good one. I will look into this! I shot with a monopod most of the time when I was shooting with a Rolleiflex. It was a great way to get good exposures and felt really natural. I used an old Bolex monopod that my uncle had and it worked great. I still have it. But VR is the ultimate solution. It's yet to fail me. At 16mm I reckon I can hand hold down to 1/4 of a second.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>Here it is at REI.</p>

<p>http://www.rei.com/product/767063</p>

[photo5]

<p>Wow, it's expensive! I'll have to wait for the half-price sale :-)<br>

Thanks for the link.</p>

[woolly1]

<p>To Shun ...<br>

I almost never shoot indoors other than macro/product subjects. When I do I use the SB-800 off camera. Generally I haven't found the need for anything to replace the 18-70 for blur avoidance, only sharpness. My 35-70/2.8afd wee's all over it for sharpness! Just look at the 135mm photo above.<br>

The 16-85 gives a better range and/but comes with VR which is what I'm questioning. Have I been missing something all these years? Essentially I am trying to find a wider focal range without sacrificing sharpness and additional unnecessary cost/complication. I have shyed away from plastic mounts as a matter of course (as opposed to any anecdotal bad reports) and if the 18-105 was steel I would take a closer look at it. The 18-200 may suit KR down to the ground but I wouldn't be happy with the distortion ... apparently he is.<br>

I live at present in Houston ..... definately no lack of light. In fact I recently extended my range of ND filters on that basis.</p>

<p>The holy grail is the 10-150/2.8 AFS FX which is as sharp as my 50/1.8, is distortion free, auto-shifts to VR past 75mm and is no bigger than the micro 60 .... all for $500.<br>

Anyway, back from LaLa-land....</p>

<p>"<strong>Essentially, VR is most helpful to:...."</strong> You echo my feelings precisely. I don't see why VR is added to lenses of this (short) length except for people who can't hold steadily anymore.</p>

<p>To Dave ...<br>

I also would say the steps shot was a little soft. On the other hand looking at your numbers it was a fantastic result if handheld. Admirable exposure too ... just right, even down to the lights. Was that the D300?</p>

<p>To Lex ...<br>

So long as the 16-85 is sharp VR is something I can live without. If only it was available without VR. If you switch it off does it have a detrimental effect on the image?<br>

Ahh, if only that 24-120 had been wider.... and sharp</p>

<p>To Peter ...<br>

I like the observation that the difference between 200mm and 85mm is something to be obtained by cropping. Good point to remember for resisting the urge to stretch the zoom range in your lens of desire. I guess with VR at that FL end the image sharpness will handle it.</p>

<p>Just a general question beyond my original post - do you have to wait for VR to 'lock in' before pulling the trigger?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Clive,</p>

<p>You don't have to wait long at all with VR II. Turning it off does not degrade your image at all. I find VR useful at short ranges, not because I'm unsteady, but because I have, as Dave Lee mentions, gotten hand-held images I can use at REALLY low shutter speeds, like 1/8 and 1/4, which would be impossible with no VR.</p>

<p>Your observations are pretty good. EXCEPT, that I defy you to see a problem with the distortion in the 18-200 in real world photography (other than architectural photography of course, for which it is totally unsuitable).</p>

<p>I've had to correct that distortion in no images that I recall that I've shot with my lens in 3 years (although I can see it if I shoot really boring square test shots). The 16-85 has distortion, too. You'll probably not have to correct that hardly ever as well.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>VR is not necessary at 85 mm, but f5.6 is pretty darn slow at that focal length.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Clive, thank you for your comments, the stairs image was taken with the D80, which could handle low contrast scenes like this one with aplomb. In high contrast scenes, however, it wasn't so great (tended to blow out highlights).</p>

[woolly1]

<p>To Peter ...<br>

That sounds like good news to me. I suppose I'll have to stop snapping that brick wall now</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If you look at the MTF data at <a href="http://photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr?start=1">http://photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr?start=1</a> and <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/235-nikkor-af-s-18-70mm-f35-45-g-if-ed-dx-review--test-report?start=1">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/235-nikkor-af-s-18-70mm-f35-45-g-if-ed-dx-review--test-report?start=1</a> it is clear that the 16-85 is superior to the 18-70 for detail. In fact the 16-85 appears to have superior MTF (at the edges in the long end) to the 17-55 while roughly matching it in other settings at equal apertures. Distortion appears to be between the two.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Ilkka, when I first tested my new 16-85mm VR, I could immediately see the improvements over the 18-70mm, which I also liked very much. I sold the 18-70mm and haven't missed it since. While I am sure I would like the 17-55mm f2.8, I would miss the VR, and the extra zoom range the 16-85mm VR offers. I'll take VR and a slower aperture for hand held use. For pro use, the f2.8 constant aperture is a must, however.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>In my opinion, is the extra money worth it just for JUST VR? NO. At least not for me. I would use the money for a D 300. Its ability to shoot at higher ISOs w/o much noticable noise vs the D 200 is remarkable. I own both bodies and I still use the 18-70 (non VR) lens on both of them. The only VR lens I own is the 70-200 f 2.8 and given its weight, VR does come in handy when shooting hand held.<br>

Joe Smith</p>

[steven_p]

<p>I would probably like the 16-85 just as Dave stated. I would also like the extra 2mm on the wide. However it is 3X the cost of the 18-70 and it is never discounted much for a used copy.</p>

<p>Used 18-70's can be had for well under $200. I also agree with Joseph, that the extra stop gained with the D300's iso, negates the need for VR (at times.)</p>

<p>This also makes me wonder.... How slow can everyone hand hold? I can still do 1/15 on the long end of the 18-70, on a good day.</p>

<p>(I don't always have good days ; )</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Another lens in this focal range is the Tamron 17-50 2.8. It has a build quality similar to Nikon's consumer lenses but image quality not far off from the 17-55. My D90 is superb at ISO 400 and being able to open up to 2.8 really makes VR not all that important. BTW although it's not AFS the Tamron focuses very quick. A bit off topic I know But the image quality never fails to impress me.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>Just to add - ACTIVE mode VR is also something I've found useful in the past (shooting from a moving/vibrating platform).</p>

[greg_m4]

<p>Remember the old inverse-of-focal-length rule? That rule, combined with knowledge of how human subjects move, can help you calculate the circumstances where VR is or isn't useful.</p>

<p>You have to figure in the crop factor with the inverse-of-focal-length rule. So, 16-85 becomes 24-127 equivalent, calling for shutter speeds of 1/25 to 1/125 without VR. Allowing 3 stops for the VR yields 1/3 to 1/15.</p>

<p>Experience tells us that human subjects require at least 1/30 to 1/60 (much higher for sports). So, the slowest VR-enabled speeds of 1/3 to 1/15 are too slow to stop human motion. VR would help a little at 85mm, allowing the use of 1/60 instead of 1/125. For the most part, VR on a lens like that is for inanimate subjects. But, it can work wonders on them!</p>

[k c]

<p>I think most of the replies are about VR, while Clive seems to be more concerned about 16-85's sharpness, distortion and the focal range (although he questions about VR's usefulness).<br /> <br /> Clive, probably you can make your choice easier if you narrow down the features you want. As a travel photographer (and lazy enough to not switch between lenses), I'd definitely go for a 16-85 VR if I'm in your situation. But if you need a faster, sharp lens and don't mind switching between lenses, you'd be better off with a faster standard zoom with a rather shorter focal range. Sigma's 18-50 f2.8 (approx $420) and Tamron's 17-50 f2.8 (approx $500) can be good alternatives for a much pricier Nikkor 17-55 AFS f2.8. Having a more dedicated wider zoom (10 ~ 35mm range) as an addition to your 35-70mm could be a solution too.<br /> <br /> I would rather see the VR feature in 16-85mm as a really good bonus to a slow and very sharp lens with a good focal range (although VR pushes up the lens price a bit).</p>

[woolly1]

<p>To Kay...<br />Thanks for reading the OP. To give a fuller overview of my options I have ...</p>

<p>8mm/3.5 hsm ($300 of peculiar fun. For that money how couldn't you?)<br />12-24mm/4 atx (doubles as a hammer)<br />18-70mm afs (subject of mail - came with D70 kit)<br />35mm/2 afd (didn't have any oil = collectors item :)<br />50mm/1.8 afd (too cheap, too sharp not to have)<br />50mm/1.2 ais (shear joy of ownership)<br />35-70mm/2.8 afd (super sharp, engineered quality)<br />70-210mm/4-5.6 afd (was going to sell but after reading the reviews changed my mind)<br />85mm/1.8 afd (bought it before the other 85mm. Sharp)<br />85mm/1.4 ais (I stand this next to the 50mm/1.2 with the caps off - that's better than US tv)<br />90mm/2.8 sp (better than the 105/micro plus EXCELLENT bokeh)<br />105mm/2.8 afd (it was calling me from the shelf couldn't resist it)<br />135mm/2.8 ai (small, cheap and sharp enough to put on bellows for fun. Quality build & finish)<br />& longer lenses not relevant to this thread.</p>

<p>As you can see I have no gaps in my FLs (unless my next body is D700 .... which it won't be) and my OP is about whether the 16-85 is sharper than the 18-70, whether the VR is useful at this range.<br />I, like many people, would like to carry less baggage if at all possible but not at the cost of image quality - eg for me, using a 18-200. With the greatest respect to those who love it I am a bit picky about these things and will always be subconsciously looking for the flaws. Just like the scratch on your new car that is unobtrusive .... YOU know it's there. For me, taking a photo with substandard equipment is worse than leaving the camera at home.</p>

<p>Ok, the 16-85 is slow but I have enough primes to substitute if I specifically want tighter DOF at the longer end. DOF at the shorter end is a non-issue. Lens speed looks like it will be offset of by VR (I am assured by most responders here) and the next body will sort out shutter speed using higher ISO settings. That just leaves sharpness and cost. Cost is something I always take a multi year view on when it comes to lenses .... an extra two or three hundred devided by say 120 months becomes a non-issue again, whereas a lens will never get sharper even if I keep it for life. As mine has cruelly shown me, bodies come and go!</p>

<p>I think I'll be getting this one for two reasons. Longer range and a first foray into the brave world of VR. Hell, I can always sell it again........</p>

<p>Thanks all.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Clive:</p>

<p>You will not regret the decission.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

[photo5]

<p>Clive, it's an impressive lens. I've tested it against some Nikon primes, and it is tough to tell the difference. Enjoy it!</p>

[jbm]

<p>16-85 VR is an astoundingly good performer even if the apertures are not fast. I did a commercial shoot with it for a cycling team and the results were almost as sharp as my 50mm prime when I pixel peeped.<br>

Then I dropped it...once...and it has not been the same despite numerous trips back to Nikon.<br>

I also have that 135/2.8 which is really great. But it's fixed and can't AF, so it's a deal breaker for a lot of things.</p>

<p>Jay</p>

[woolly1]

<p>To Jay...<br>

The 135/2.8 is such a sweet lens ... it's small, sharp, fast and simple. Will still be going long after I'm in the ground. Unless I drop it !!<br>

It's almost better because it has almost NO monetary value. Like every shot is a free gift.</p>

<p>Has to be used in a calm environment though.</p>

[trevans]

<blockquote>

<p>As mine has cruelly shown me, bodies come and go!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If that ain't the truth. :) Thanks for the laugh, need it today.</p>

[k c]

<p>Whoa~ now I wonder why you need another lens to your massive collection. Just kidding. :D Show us how it works for you later.</p>