18-55 vr or 16-85vr ?

[cristian_a]

<p>I was about to order a D90 with a 16-85 vr lens and i saw at ken rockwell and other sites that the optic capabilities of the 18-55 is pretty much the same, the only drawback that every review keeps this lens down is the built quality.<br>

<br><br>

So i am here asking you what other differences except the built quality and the rotating lens is there?<br>

I mean i'm not going to use the lens to break rocks, i never dropped a camera before and i hope it stays that way, and i don't think i'll use other filters than an UV for protection.<br>

<br><br>

I ask you this because i like more the wide shots and i was thinking that with the money saved and a few extra in a month or so i could buy a 12-24 tokina or something.<br>

i don't really want to get the 18-105 vr or the 18-200 vr because i inted to buy somewhere in the near future the 70-300vr and i don't want to overlap too much.<br>

<br><br>

So basicaly i'm set on getting a wide lens 10/12- something and the 70-300, but now i need something for normal day to day use a <i>normal</i> range which i will probably use most of the time at first till i get the other 2 lenses. Is the 16-85 vr worth the extra bucks just for built quality and a little better performance in extreme situations?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Don't have either lens so can't offer help in that regard. Since you mention that you are going to add a 12-24 and 70-300, one option would be to skip the 18-55/16-85 altogether and go for the 35/1.8 and/or 50/1.8 - or possibly the 60/2.8 macro.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> In spite of some similarities, they're apples and oranges. The 16-85 is three times more expensive, but you get not only the build quality, but the extended focal length range. 24mm (35mm effective)is noticeably wider than 28, as is 128mm compared to 82.5mm. Is it worth it?</p>

<p>Yes, <em>if</em> it fits your way of working.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you can live with the 18-55's focal length range, low build quality (my wife has dragged hers on many long trips, and used it often for years and it works fine), you'd have $430 to spend...</p>

<p>Add $140, and you can buy that 70-300 G VR.</p>

<p>Or...enough left over to nab one of those great Sigma 30/1.4's, or... a Nikkor 35/1.8, + 50/1.8, and enough left for a few filters (or a nice dinner).</p>

<p>Or.... a Nikkor 35/1.8 and Nikkor 55-200 VR (if you throw in $50 or so.)</p>

<p> It all depends on what and how you photograph.</p>

 

[jeannean_.]

<p>I bought the new 35mm/1.8. It's a great lens and inexpensive for what you get. I can use this lens just about everywhere and most times, don't even need a flash. However, I don't have experience with any of the other lenses you mentioned. I hear the 50mm/1.8 is also a nice lens. The only problem with the 35mm/1.8 is finding one. I got mine from amazon.com after about a month's wait. ($199 shipped) Very nice for what I need.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>why don't you get the 18-70mm used at about $160.00 for now. i use it on both my D40 and D90 when anyone of them is with for everyday-carry. the savings can go to the purchase of the 70-300mm VR. the 18-70mm has far better optics and built, thus better image quality, than the 18-55mm. and it will complement well with the 70-300mm.</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>Cristian-I am also thinking of getting the 16-85 for my D90; I want to replace my 5 year old 18-70 with it as I like the wider range and the VR feature. Here is a link to Popular Photography's lens review. You'll love your D90-it's a great little camera. Happy shooting! cb :-)</p>

<p>http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Lenses/Nikon-16-85mm-f-3.5-5.6G-ED-VR-DX-AF-S-Nikkor-Lens-Test</p>

[gogu]

<p>I have the 16-85 and <strong><em>*had*</em></strong> the 18-55.<br>

Ken can write whatever he wants but IQ of the two lenses is not comparable.<br>

Let alone the 2 extra mm on the wide end which are invaluable.<br>

If money is not a problem, go for the 16-85 and later add the 70-300 VR to your arsenal.</p>

<p>rgrds</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I have owned both lenses and there is no question in my mind that the 16-85 is superior both in build and IQ. Other than speed, it compares favorably with my 17-55 2.8. It is a superb walk around lens and the VR works beautifully. You will love this lens if it fits what you need in terms of speed and focal length.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>Owen-good to know about the 16-85's image quality; I was looking at the 17-55 but am put off by its price and weight so I think that the 16-85 will do me just fine. Thanks for the info. cb :-)</p>

[tim_knight]

<p>If you are looking for a kit lens may I recommend the Tamron 17-50/2.8 zoom. You can put this zoom on and you are ready for any kit lens shots plus evening indoors and outdoors. It is a semi professional zoom for less than the 16-85.</p>

[brians.]

<p>The 16-85 VR is not a great lens, but it is a very good one, in my opinion. 16mm is a good wide angle capture and 85mm is long enough for most people-situations. I did not find (my version) of the 16-85 VR to be as sharp as reviewed. However, I love the second generation (VRII) for hand-held shots, and find the focal range to be the most useful in my kit. The price is a little high, but the VR makes it worth the money. </p>

[johnny_anderson]

<p>Like gogu, I have had both lenses and he is correct about the build and IQ. Build and IQ are definitely better on the 16-85VR. It's a great walk about lens and the VRII works great. The extra 2mm on the wide end DOES make a difference. I also have the 70-300VR and it's also a great lens for the money. You can't get a better 300mm lens with out spending several thousand dollars!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>if you're really interested in going wide as you say than you don't need the 16-85. bottom line.</p>

<p>if you could have only one lens 16-85 isnt bad, or if you mainly do landscape and wont be bothered by the slow aperture at the long end. besides 2mm, the 16-85 has less distortion at the wide end than the 18-55 but that may not be a big deal if you get an ultrawide. i wouldnt worry about build quality too much at this point, you have a warranty.</p>

<p>actually, i'd question whether you even need VR on such a short lens. its a bell and whistle but the price differential between the non VR 18-55 and the VR version is almost enough to buy a low-light lens like the 50/1.8. you can essentially look at kit lenses as disposable yet solid performers which tide you over until you get serious about glass.</p>

<p>FWIW, i have the tokina 12-24, the tamron 17-50, and the 18-70. the 18-70 is ok but not as contrasty as either lens. if you have your sights set on the tokina i'd just get that ASAP.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The question isn't which is better - the 16-85 is clearly better - the question is whether it's worth it to spend $630 on a consumer grade lens. (It's well built, has good VR and better optics than the lowest grade lenses, but at f/3.5-5.6 it is a consumer lens.) The 18-55 is $445 less. $445 buys you a lot - a 50/1.8, a flash and a tripod maybe. Or a used 70-300 VR on a good day.</p>

<p>I often use an 18-55VR on a D90 and it's not the One Lens To Rule Them All that Ken seems to say it is but it's really quite good.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>If you want something better than the 18-55 VR and less expensive than the 16-85 VR, consider the 18-105 VR. Don't worry about the overlap in focal lengths. I don't like the 18-55 VR because it is too short on the long end and as a result it causes a lot of lens changing. This can be a problem depending on what you shoot. I shoot a lot on the street and in the parks and being able to go from wide angle to telephoto w/o changing lenses has saved a lot of good shots for me. If you are shooting landscapes, this isn't a problem.</p>

<p>If your main reservation about the 18-55 VR is build quality, I wouldn't worry unless you are very hard on your gear. It should last a long time under normal amateur use.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Check what Bjorn has to say also: <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html</a> . IMHO the kit lens is light which is good for walking and travel. The 16-85 has a much greater useful range, 2mm at the wide end makes a big difference. If you are doing event shooting then I would look at a 17-55mm f2.8 type zoom. You might consider just getting the body and a wide zoom if that meets your needs better. Spend some time deciding what is the most important type of shot yoiu want and get the lens that fits the bill.</p>

[joe_a2]

<p>Cristian.... I would take a look at the 18-70mm as Ramon suggested. Nice build quality and fairly compact. A great basic lens, and optically it's right there with the better consumer zooms.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>>> "I would take a look at the 18-70mm as Ramon suggested."</p>

<p>The 18-70 is respectably sharp, especially for a zoom lens with its price tag. But it has two serious shortcomings: unnatural distortion patterns at 18 mm and vignetting at 18 mm (especially wide open).</p>

<p>The 16-85 is better built, has more coverage, and is sharper than the 18-55. But the 18-55 is sharp enough, and it's seemingly the sharpest kit zoom I've ever used. It has a plastic mount, a primitive AF mechanism, no distance window or full time MF or even a real MF ring, and it's slow (though the 16-85 is not much faster for any given FL). But it's sharp enough, its VR system works well, and it doesn't have any serious optical flaws. Its distortion patterns are simple and easy to correct, and it lacks much vignetting. It's cheap enough to be almost disposible in case of damage or theft; and it's also very light, which's nice if you like to travel light and want to take your camera along the way. </p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>For the suggestions of the 18-70, I had one and loved it. But sold it off together with my D80 (right price, and made it a better sales package). After that I got the 16-85 as replacement...</p>

<p>The 16-85 is clearly better. Much sharper, mine has less vignetting, build quality is higher and VR is useful, I can get handheld nice shots down to 1/5sec. Yes, the 16-85 is rather expensive and it may be "consumer" because it has variable aperture, but it's a very serieus performer in all respects.<br>

The 16mm is extremely useful, even if you have/get a 12-24. On many occassions (in cities mainly), 16mm fits the bill, and it means no switching to that 12-24. It will not replace the wide angle, in the end, but it's an easy complimentary range.<br>

My second choice would be the 18-105VR. Pictures I've seen show that it's a very nice lens for little money, and it sure feels and handles better than the 18-55.</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>Used the 18-55VR and still own the 16-85. The build quality of the 18-55 is not as good as the 16-85 but I don't see how one can break it in normal usage. I think the key advantages of the 16-85 are the increased focal length capabilities - the 2mm wide works very well for me. IQ wise, I think the 16-85 has a very slight edge if pixel peeping, but if I see my own images side by side I can't pick one from the other. If you are going for an ultrawide and tele zoom in the near future, the 18-55 may make more sense. Just know what you shoot - I had an ultra wide and sold it - underused. The 16-85 works for me most of the time, though there are a few times I wish I had a 10mm lens, those are far and few between.<br>

Alvin</p>

[kemalriza]

<p>Absolutely 16-85 VR.<br>

It is a superior lens in all aspects than the other</p>

[gatorpan]

<p>I have been using this lens for about 2 years now. I like it because the zoom ratio closely matches my SB-800 flash. (BTW: I don't use the Lens hood with the flash becasue it gets in the way. And I have never had problem glare etc.) So it is great for wedding and other parties. I use a D300 and shoot High Res. So I can also crop if I need to get in closer. The VR has 2 modes. regular and active. I have done lots of touring and found the lens to be great when sitting in a moving vehicle ... Active VR and Continious Focus a great combo in some fast moving situations!<br>

I love prime lenses, they really shine in available light situations and when I need the utmost in sharpness. I have prime telephotos as well for longer shots. But this 16-85 really fills just does most of the heavy lifting. I only wish it was F2.8!<br>

The only down side is the sharpness is not perfect but frankly, I'm the only one that noticed! Bottom line, this has become my everyday 'normal' lens. Buy it and be happy, the convenience and capabilities will trump the extra cost.<br>

Good luck, Rafi</p>

[rwreich]

<p>I have the Nikon 18-55 3.5-5.6 VR lens and my experience with this product would not justify buying it again. The main problem that I have with this lens is that the max aperture is already up to f/5 before you're zooming past 35mm. So, unless everything you want to shoot is outside playing in really nice light, this lens will disappoint.<br>

The VR, as many know, doesn't increase shutter speed, it only keeps hand shake under controll. I can only speak for myself when I say that I'd be pretty sad if I couldn't keep the camera still enough to take a shot at 18-55mm.<br>

My entire concept of photography (though relatively young) changed when I bought the newish 35mm f/1.8. If I compare the kit zoom that you're asking about to this prime, you're talking about several stops more capability with the prime.<br>

My verdict? If I had to do it all over again, I'd go with the 17-35mm 2.8, the 50mm 1.4G, and then think about a 70-Xmm zoom.<br>

I doubt that I'd miss the focal ranges in the middle (moving my feet fits my budget more than changing glass).</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Mind if I rephrase the question?</p>

<p>Making certain assumptions about the budget, which of these is the best kit:<br>

1: D90 with 16-85VR<br>

2: D90 with 18-55VR, 50/1.8D, a basic tripod and a flash<br>

3: D90 with 18-55VR and a used 70-300VR</p>

[tobycline]

<p>If you must, go with the kit 18-55 and save for a flash, 70-300 VR, or whatever. But ultimately, use the 12-24/10-24 for wides, the 70-300 for tele, and the <strong>35/1.8 for the middle.</strong></p>