16-85 vr alternatives

[cristian_a]

<p>Ok so i decided to buy a Nikon D90, and i'm still not decided what lens should i get, so i read that the nikon 16-85 vr is one of the best dx lenses and since fx are kinda twice to 5 times the price i think i'll stay with a dx.</p>

<p>My question is what other alternatives do i have for a good optic quality in thise range of wide to medium zooms. I read good things about the 17-50 tamron and 18-50 sigma so are these 2 better or almost the same as the 16-85?</p>

<p>I know that those other are 2.8 all over and the nikon lacks that but i was wondering if the quality of the pics are as good or if there are other better lense but somewhere within the 16-85 price range or preferably lower.<br>

Thx.</p>

[photo5]

<p>If you want VR there is no other lens that can compete with the Nikon 16-85. The Nikon 18-105 VR is a good lens, though it has a plastic mount if I am not mistaken. I prefer VR over a constant f2.8 aperture, so I'd look at the Nikon 18-105 VR if you can't quite afford the 16-85 VR zoom.</p>

[cristian_a]

<p>well i can afford it but at the edge so i was wondering about other options, i mean i don't really want to blow all my money on this if i can get something as good with less money... that's my problem :)</p>

[dave_l.]

<p>I think this depends a lot on what sort of photographs you take. If you take photos of people/action in low light, you will want an f2.8 lens in order to freeze motion. The 16-85 obviously has a wider range of focal lengths to use. I, personally, find the 16-85 to be a great "all-around" lens and I use the entire focal range. VR is also more valuable to me than f2.8, but again that's based on what I like to shoot. <br>

If you don't know what you want to shoot, I would suggest not spending the money on either lens. Buy an 18-55 VR lens for $150-$200, take loads of photos with it, and then decide what you are missing. That's a cheap, safe way to go and the image quality from the 18-55 is apparently pretty good. I've never used one though.</p>

[xp153dragon]

<p>I have the 16-85 and use it with the D80, I am very happy with it. The only other lens that is better is the 17-55 which does not have VR and costs twice as much. I only use Nikon lenses and will not even consider anything else.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>16-85 will be great with that camera. Unless you know you need f2.8 zooms, you almost certainly don't.</p>

<p>There is no competing lens that comes close to that lens feature-wise. The 2mm on the long end is way more useful than, say, the extra 20mm on the long end of the 18-105.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The thing is that the 16-85 is a compact lens with a reasonably wide range, unlike any f/2.8 zoom. These two categories don't do the same functions. If you need to stop movement in low light, get an f/2.8 or faster lens. If you're looking for compactness and people aren't your main subjects then the 16-85 may be a better choice as it is lighter to carry and allows shooting static subjects hand-held at slow speeds. I think the 16-85 is ideal for e.g. taking interior photos where a tripod is not allowed etc. But as soon as you start having moving people in your images or if you want to work with shallow depth of field, Nikon's 17-55/2.8 or one of the third party options gives you more options and likely better results. If people photos in low light are among your subjects, consider getting a Nikon 35/1.8 AF-S DX to complement the standard zoom for lower light.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I read good things about the 17-50 tamron and 18-50 sigma so are these 2 better or almost the same as the 16-85?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>better is a subjective term. the 16-85 is probably a better lens <strong>if </strong> you are primarily shooting landscapes or still-life interiors, since it has very little distortion and excellent corner performance. howver, its achilles heel is the slow aperture--5.6 on the long end, which makes it not that great for available-light pics of anything moving. as Ilkka pointed out, this is where you need a 2.8 or faster lens. for me, the 17-50 is a reliable performer, and the IQ is very good.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>The better lense is the one that suits your needs. As mentioned above decide if you need to stop action or do event photography, if so go with a f2.8 zoom or faster prime. As a general travel lense I like the range of the 16-85mm, weight and size. Either is capable of delivering great results. Your specific use needs to be qualified.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>As others have mentioned, the higher zoom ratio, slower, variale aperture zooms are quite different from their lower zoom ratio, constant f/2.8 counterparts. The first is better suited for travel/landscape and shooting stationary subjects, often with the paerture stopped down in relatively good light (or stationary objects in poor lighting with the help of VR); while the latter is better suited for candids/portraits/PJ works/sports, which can make good use for the faster aperture's ability to gather more light to freeze action, allows faster AF, diffuse the out of focus background with more developed bokeh. </p>

<p>If you don't need the 16-85's relatively high zoom ratio/FL range or don't want to spend that much, the 18-55 VR is actually a good alternative. If you need f/2.8 constant aperture, than one of the third party 1x-50 zooms could be what you're looking for. </p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>The Nikon 18-105 VR is a good lens that is less expensive than the 16-85 VR. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro are excellent lenses. Obviously they're faster than the 16-85 VR, but they are shorter at the long end and don't have VR.</p>

[holger]

<p>"if you are looking for compactness..." - well, this does not narrow the choice in any way, since at least the Tamron, but to some degree also the Sigma, both are as compact as the 16-85.</p>

<p>Personally, I would get the 16-85 as a great travel-zoom, one of the 2.8 for people, street etc. I don't know the Sigma, but I own the Tamron as well as Nikons 17-55mm f/1.8 and 18-200 AF-S VR.</p>

<p>I use the 18-200 for anything where the long side is needed or I don't know what to expect. The 17-55 is my choice for events in dark places, say churches or townhalls without flash, portraits and family pictures (iq is unbeatable), and the Tamron is my perfect light travel lens for people, events and so on.</p>

<p>I would get the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S anyway, for me it's a no-brainer, combined with the 16-85 you will have a good starting combo. The 16-85 can alway be sold for good money if one day you decide that 2.8 is the way to go. Or keep it as travel lens and get Nikons 17-55 tank. It all depends on your personal needs.</p>

<p>Personally, I prefer 2.8 to VR. In the focal lenght range up to 55 mm, VR would be nice to have, but it's no must. 2.8 comes in handy to cut shutter speed, but I also love bokeh and background falling away with this aperture. It's more a question of personal choice than technical advantages...</p>

[Two23]

<p>Tell us what the three most common types of shots you are planning to take are. Family snapshots? Photos inside caves? The idea is to match the gear to what your use is. For general family shots I just bought a Nikon 18-55mm VR ($110, e bay) and a 55-200m VR ($140, e bay.) These are actually pretty good optically. The 16-85mm VR is a great lens, but myself if I were spending that much I'd go for the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. I do a fair amount of low light photography and would benefit from the f2.8. Really, that's what you need to figure out. Do you need the low light capability of f2.8 or not?<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[cristian_a]

<p>Well i was thinking of a walkaround lens, for landscape, street and other<br>

@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=39504">Kent Staubus</a> caves are not on my photo list for now i don't have any around and i don't think i'll make a trip to some soon :)</p>

<p>My idea was that i will add to this lens a 35mm 1.8 or a 50mm 1.8 later but now that everyone seems to agree that the constant 2.8 is better i'm more unsure than before. <br>

So if i am to chose from the sigma and tamron which do you think would be better?</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I think you misunderstood what most of us are saying. There are advantages to both the 16-85 VR and to the 17-50 f/2.8. The 16-85 VR gives you significantly more reach which is important if you're not bringing a longer lens. The VR gives as much low light capability as the f/2.8 except for shooting moving subjects. The VR will let you use 2-4 lower shutter speeds than you normally could handhold. The problem comes in with moving subjects because they will still blur if the shutter speed is too low. The f/2.8 will allow higher shutter speeds than the slower 16-85 VR and therefore it may allow you to shoot moving subjects that would blur with the 16-85 VR.</p>

<p>Others have said what's more important to them, but you have to decide what's more important to you. A compromise solution could be to get the very good Nikon 18-105 VR and use the money saved (from the 16-85 VR) to get a Nikon 35mm f/1.8. Then you get the best of both worlds, VR and f/1.8.</p>

<p>I think that I just talked myself into a 35mm f/1.8.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>i was thinking of a walkaround lens, for landscape, street and other</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>ok, right here we have a decision to make. the 16-85 is better for landscape, the tamron/sigma better for street. you can use the 2.8 zooms for landscape--the tamron is excruciatingly sharp at f/9--but you'll miss the long end and VR. my feeling is, if you want to shoot people and things that move at all, go for the 2.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So if i am to chose from the sigma and tamron which do you think would be better?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the tamron, which i own, tends to get high marks for IQ. the sigma is pretty good but may be a bit softer wide open yet faster-focusing if you have the HSM model. it's a bit of a toss-up. complicating matters even more is that the older version of the tamron with screw-drive is faster to AF and has less issues than the newer BiM version. if you can try both out in a store and test at 2.8 throughout the focal range, that would be the best bet. i'd probably go with the tamron but the sigma isnt bad.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I don't think a constant f2.8 is worth more than VR. I can hand hold down to 1/4 second with VR, I can't do that with a constant f2.8 without a tripod. So if you're using a tripod, by all means get the f2.8. If you're hand holding, get VR. Everyone who bought the 16-85 VR raves about it, it's a superb lens.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Dave--<br>

It still comes down to what you photo and where as to whether or not f2.8 is more useful than VR. For me, a night photographer, the answer is obvious. However, for what the OP is wanting the VR might be more important. I'm assuming his "street photos" are made in the daytime. I'll take your word for it that you can handhold down to 1/4 sec. My own limit is about 1/30. Even at that though, what happens if your subject is moving and you are shooting at 1/4 second? I have come to think the ideal two lens combo just might be the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 & Nikon 70-300mm VR. My own family snapshot/compact camera system is my semi-retired D80 plus 18-50mm VR & 55-200mm VR. Image quality is actually pretty good. I did miss some shots at a recent Disney trip because I didn't have f2.8, but all in all the system worked out pretty well.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[cristian_a]

<p>@ <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5227004">Mark Drutz</a> I understood what everyone was saying, that the 16-85 because of it's 3.5-5.6 range is not so good for things that need a fast shutter in low light and that the fixed 2.8 would be better for that.</p>

<p>I also noticed that i always wanted my photos to be wider but also i don't make too many night shots either, i think in average daylight even the 16-85 could freeze motion at around f8, wouldn't it?</p>

<p>My main concern is the quality of the image delivered, i'm considering giving a try to stock photography and why not starting doing serious things after i master the things better. I also know that for serious things i would need serious equipment but for now i think this is ok for my needs.<br>

So if you have other alternatives on the market in the 16-85 price range, this was my main question.</p>

 

[mark_drutz]

<p>I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and it's a very good lens, but I find 50mm too limiting for a general purpose lens. I only use it for shooting moving subjects in low light and as a portrait lens. My recommendation between the two is unless you plan to shoot moving subjects in low light go for the 16-85 VR for its greater range and VR.</p>

<p>My first choice however would be a Nikon 18-105 VR and a Nikon 35 or 50mm f/1.8. The 18-105 VR gets very good reviews and you can get it and the 35 or 50 for less than the 16-85 VR alone. This gives you the best of both worlds. The main advantage of the 16-85 VR over the 18-105 VR is build quality which is only an issue if you give it very heavy or very rough use. The 2mm at the wide end is barely noticeable.</p>

[kivis]

<p>I agree with Mark D. I went the 18-55 VR route, only to find that I felt hemmed in. So I think for the money the 18-105 VR and the 35/1.8 is a great solution.</p>