Nikon 16-85mm vs Tokina 11-16mm + Tamron 28-75mm

[rob_shooter]

<p>Here's the deal - I currently use a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 with a D90 for walkaround + kids etc. Great lens and very happy with it. But I want something a lot wider to go back to shooting landscapes etc.<br /><br />My question is should I opt for a Tokina 11-16mm to accompany the 28-75mm or replace the 28-75mm with a Nikon 16-85mm?<br /><br /><br />If I go for the Tokina I lose the 16-28 range but have fast glass, if I go for the 16-85mm I have the convenience of a 1 lens solution and the whole range covered to 85mm missing 11-16mm, but it is slower.<br />Landscapes, kids and travel is what I want to cover. My head says go with the Tokina 11-16mm, but wondered how the 16-85mm stacks up in terms of image quality etc. Am not an ultra wide shooter and think 16mm is plenty wide for the type of landscapes I shoot and at F8 upwards so 2.8 doesn't seem essential. Fast glass is useful when kids are running around, however the high ISO I can get with the D90 sort of deals with this.<br /><br /><br />Any comments welcome.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Easy, I'd do the 16-85. You don't need wider than that for "walk-around" photography, generally. I have a 11-16 and love it, but it's not a people/walkaround lens, it's for special photography.</p>

<p>Switching lenses between 28mm needs and 16 or wider needs will get old in about four seconds.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If f/2.8 does not matter, then it's the 16-85. And even if you get the 11-16, you're stuck with a rather nasty hole, I think, the 16-28 mm range on DX is "normal wide angle" and therefore very useful focal length.<br>

So rather than the 11-16, you may want to consider the Tokina 12-24 f/4 instead. Nowadays, the 11-16 gets all the praise, but the 12-24 is also a very fine lens, with a more useful range, and it will leave you with a gap that's far less limiting (in fact, I think you'll find that gap a non-issue).</p>

<p>When it comes to image quality, the 16-85 is one of the best DX lenses, it's very sharp, even wide open. Yes it is slow at the long end and not a portrait lens by any means, but it's terribly convenient.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>If f2.8 doesn't matter I think you might be better off with a 12-24 zoom leaving a smaller hole in the range. I had a 11-16 Tokina and liked it as well as some other borrowed wide zooms. A different compromise for a one lens setup might be a 17-50 f2.8 type zoom. If 16mm is wide enough and you don't need speed then I really like the 16-85mm range for one lens but I do like to go just a bit wider often.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>It appears that you need/want the fast aperture of your 28-75 - then you won't be happy with the 16-85. The 11-16 is special, I consider it a "prime with wiggle room" - but personally the two lens solution you are proposing would leave me badly wanting in the 16-28mm range. I am currently changing my setup from the 12-24/24-85 to the 11-16/17-55 for two main reasons: speed and I found the break at 24mm very inconvenient. I expect that now I will be using 17-55 most of the time and the 11-16 when wide is called for - whether I'd be missing the longer range remains to be seen. It appears that a 10-24 or 12-24 would suit your needs better, though you'd loose the fast f/2.8 (which I thought I could do without but recently learned otherwise). </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i would actually agree with wouter, i have the tokina 12-24 and tamron 28-75 myself and it makes an effective 2-lens combo. i'm not sure the 11-16 makes sense unless you get that <em>and</em> either the 16-85 or something like the tamron 17-50. i personally would not want to be without fast glass, and the tamron is pretty good stopped down. the problem with the 16-85 is, despite the useful range, it's just too slow. also a bit overpriced, especially considering the 12-24 version I is just $400 now. also, you say you think 16mm is wide enough, but with an ultrawide, you have the option of going wider--and there will be times you definitely will want to go wider.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I'm sure that a combo that necessitates lens changes whenever you need to go from wider than 24 to longer than 28 makes sense for a lot of things, but not for kid photography for sure! Very bad idea for that.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>The 12-24 sounds like a good idea to go with the 28-75. I find the 28-75 great for photographing kids and people in general its fast enough for some background blur at 2.8 an 2.8 is ok for portraits on a DX body at least mine is. As I don't have much interest in going wider I just bought a cheap sigma 18-50 3.5-5.6 just in case I need a something wider from time to time.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm sure that a combo that necessitates lens changes whenever you need to go from wider than 24 to longer than 28 makes sense for a lot of things, but not for kid photography for sure! Very bad idea for that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>how so? the OP is talking about getting a wide angle for landscape. he's set for kid photography with his current 28-75, which he said he was "very happy with." why would you do kid photography with an ultrawide anyway? you want your kids to look cartoonish, with big, bulbous heads and tiny bodies?</p>

<p>the 16-85 would be a great landscape lens, and a so-so people lens. if you think about it rationally, moving from constant 2.8 to 3.5-5.6 is a downgrade in many ways which devalues the benefit of one lens with a wide to tele range. i just dont see the virtue of getting rid of the 28-75 which is a great and versatile lens with one weakness: it's a bit long on DX. so you address that weakness by adding strength (an ultrawide like the 12-24) instead of substituting another weakness (the <em>sloooooowwwwwww</em> 16-85). did i mention the 16-85 was slow? if you get that, you'll need a fast prime for low-light kid photography, which, besides being an additional expense, sort of makes the 16-85 pointless to purchase in the first place, except for dedicated landscape/outdoors use.</p>

<p>like i said earlier, i have both the 12-24 and the 28-75. i've used this combo for precisely the stated applications the OP mentions--12-24 for landscape and wide group shots, and 28-75 for action and portraits. i would not trade my 28-75 for a 16-85 at this point. i dont think i can make that any clearer.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Eric, Most of my photos I take these days are kids photos. I'm wider than 28 on DX all the time. I can't count the great shots I would have missed if I had to change lenses to go to 24mm or 20mm.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>ok, but even in that scenario, the 16-85 isnt a great choice--the tokina 16-50, tamron 17-50, sigma 18-50 or nikon 17-55 would be better. and getting back to the OP's original post, he said he likes the 28-75 for his kid stuff and wants something wider for landscapes. i didnt see where he said he's missing a lot of kid shots because of the 28mm wide end.</p>

<p>btw, i can change lenses on the fly in about 5 seconds, or just move back a bit if i need to in many situations so i dont see the problem with a two-lens kit which trades all-in-one convenience for specific-purpose-flexibility. with kids, you'll "miss shots" anyway unless you train a video camera on their every moment, which could get a little tiresome.</p>

<p>my point comes down to this: substituting a slow variable aperture lens for a constant aperture 2.8 zoom is a very bad idea, one which could lead to buyer's remorse and a lifetime of regret which begins the first time he tries to take an available-light shot indoors.</p>

<p>in general, i'm not a fan of downgrading from semi-pro glass to consumer glass, or replacing perfectly good lenses with ones which are arguably worse-suited for the task at hand. convenience is overrated; all-in-one lenses, whether its the 18-200 or 16-85, always have serious caveats. if you want an all-in-one solution, just get a P&S superzoom; the whole point of a DSLR is that it can take interchangable lenses. horses for courses, as the saying goes.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I have to agree with Eric. It is rare that I use anything other than my 28-75 when photographing people especially my kids. I would not want to use a slower lens for that kind of photography. I could use and have used the 50 1.8 for photographing kids but the 28-75 is easier. I have used the 50mm 1.8 for wedding portraits but the 28-75 does that just as well and avoids a lot of backing up for a wider shot. If I was more into landscapes I could use a better wide than my cheap 18-50 3.5-5.6 sigma but I just don't really do the landscape or wide angle thing that much so I would rather not spend the money. Even on a family holiday I just used the 28-75 and got some great shots I took a small Canon Ixus digital because it was more ideal to put in a shirt pocket and use for evening snaps.</p>

<p>When I shot film even though I had a 28-70 2.8 and an 80-200 2.8 I never used them as much as I would have liked to for photographing people because I did not like having to switch lenses that often and the Tokina ATX pro II lenses I had back then were heavey. I used them on two film bodies EOS1 and EOS100 when I needed to for wedding ceremonies and funerals but very often would use a 35-135 if I could because that lens covered what I needed however it was slow and that was anoying and a 28-75 gives me just about what I need without the lens switching. A 24-70 2.8 would just be perfect but I can't justify the cost at this moment.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>how about a tokina 12-24mm to complement your 28-75mm? i think this is the best choice.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>a combo that necessitates lens changes whenever you need to go from wider than 24 to longer than 28 makes sense for a lot of things, but not for kid photography for sure!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree; you don't have time to change lenses. They are sometimes far away, in a split second, they are right in your face. I took my one yr old to a play room in a children museum with my D-80. I bought my 24/2.8 and Sigma 50/1.4. I thought the Sigma will do fine by itself until I found that its working distance was too long when my kid was close as he liked to run toward me when I came after him with the camera. By the time I switched over to the 24/2.8, he already ran away. I wish I had the Nikon 17-55 because it has just the right focal length, and is fast (f stop and AF) for this type of photography. I ended up using the 24/2.8 for most of my shots and just zoomed with my feet to get closer. It was wonderful to find new use for such an old but light and small lens.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>CC Chang you may find the 28-75 or 24-70 ideal for kids I know I do. The 55mm end of the 17-55 will often come up just too short for small kids when they run away and the 17-24 end may be too wide to be of much use most of the time. The 28-75 just kind if fits for me thay can be quite close at the 28mm end an the 75 mm means I don't have to go running so often.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>if the 16-85 was f/3.5 or even /4 all the way through it would be a much better people lens IMO. i think this is part of Nikon's strategy; they give you a mid-tier lens with some attractive, unique features--16mm and VR in a 5x zoom--tweak the corner performance so its better than the other kit lenses, but stop short of the knockout blow, thus necessitating a purchase of a 17-55, 24-70 or 70-200 just to get a constant aperture. of course with 2.8 you get 2.8 in the VF even if you stop down.<br>

this is where the 3rd party 2.8 zooms come in; the 28-75 as Stuart mentions is a great lens for action--i've used it mainly for concert and snowboarding shots. when i shot this boarding competition, i had a d80 at the time, which is only 3fps. sure, i missed a few shots i would have gotten with a d300, battery-gripped up. but the 28-75 performed admirably in challenging conditions: standing on a section of snowborder half-pipe, with the riders coming straight at you, hitting a trick in mid-air, then disappearing quickly. the FL proved about perfect; a 17-55 or 80-200 would have been too long. if a 28-75 can do that well, i think it can handle some kid pics.</p><div></div>

[rob_shooter]

<p>Wow - so many replies so quickly with so many views - isn't this site just great!<br>

You guys have convinced me what I already knew I suppose - keep the 28-75mm for kids and deal with the wider end as a separate lens for landscape/travel etc.<br>

Appreciate the views re: not swapping lenses, but thinking about it there aren't many times when I go out on a shoot that is both kids AND landscapes/travel.<br>

Nikon 10-24 variable, or other w/a zooms, that's where the choice now lies....10-24 vs 12-24 seems where my thoughts need to go now...<br>

Which one though? Fixed aperture doesn't seems so important for landscapes where f/8, 11 or 13 or more is fine for me</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>this is where the 3rd party 2.8 zooms come in; the 28-75 as Stuart mentions is a great lens for action</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sigh! never ending quest for more lenses ... I have thought about a lens like that and almost bought a used Nikon 35-70/2.8. Between the Nikon 35-70 and the Tamaron 28-75, which would you buy?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>CC, there's really no reason to get the 35-70 over the 28-75. the 35-70 is push-pull, right? that's a little weird. sure optics are great, but it's not optically superior to the tamron. that extra 7mm seals the deal.if i got a good deal used i might pull the trigger.</p>

[heartyfisher]

<p>@ Rob : I have nikkor 12-24.. for landscape its really great. the best part is its solid and very well built. It does not change size/volume when zooming or focusing and its sealed so for outdoors landscape its just about perfect(No chance of sucking dust into the camera or lens.) at 24mm outdoors you can even uses it to chase kids ! or other beasts!</p>

<p>@ CC Chang : I have the 35-70.. Lovely lens for dedicated portrait work. I have been considering the 28-75 as an "upgrade" to my 35-70.. but there is new kid on the block. I would seriously consider the 24-70 HSM Sigma as well. I have also been considering the 24-85 F2.8-F4 nikkor... Too bad no one makes a 28-105 f2.8.. well not a good one anyway..</p>

[2Oceans]

<p>Rob, Both of these lenses resolution wise look very good and they both have their own issues with chromatic aberration at the borders. The Tokina will allow for the closest minimum distance for foreground elements for close focus wide angle landscape shots when you are shooting landscapes. The hyperfocal distance for 11mm at say f11 or f16 is much closer than for 16mm. On the other hand the 16-28 mm range that you would loose with the Tok is a very useful range and would allow you to isolate foreground elements better. The Nikon 16-85 is certainly a better one size fits all lens and in many circumstances will suit you better for landscapes. The speed of the Tok for landscapes will only be realized when looking through a brighter view finder and since you will probably not use this lens for action or sports because it is too wide the potentially faster autofocus from having more light cast on the AF sensor would probably not be appreciated plus the Tok is not a S lens so even from the autofocus stand point the Nikon may have advantages in many situations. Remember you can shoot all day long at ISO 800 on your d90 and with that camera’s stellar sensor see little to no degradation due to noise compared with the D2X I use so a faster wide angle lens that is less so at the extreme wide angles is less of an advantage than it use to be. A Nikon, Sigma or Tokina 12-24mm lens is probably worth considering to cover the range needed for landscape. If I were going to add a second lens I would not get the Tok 11-16 but would opt for a 12-24. I think Tze and others have mention the advantages of this better than I. If I were going to carry only one lens for obvious reasons it would be the Nikon 16-85. I hope this does not obfuscate things for you. Good hunting. Andy</p>

[j_dc]

<p>Rightly or wrongly, I own only Nikkor optics and own both the 12-24 and 16-85. I overlap all my lenses so don't have gaps which seem appear to bother some people. With primes I have lots and lots of gaps but do have wide apertures/bright viewfinder. I've been very pleased with my 16-85. I sits on my D300 most of the time as my everyday lens. I use the 12-24 fairly frequently (it's always in my bag) but if I could only own one lens I'd pick the 16-85.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I have nikkor 12-24.. for landscape its really great. the best part is its solid and very well built.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>the tokina 12-24 has an even better build than its nikkor counterpart. it's also an IF lens. it's actually remarkably similar to the nikon, except for the part about being half the price and more solid, build-wise. otherwise, everything tze says about a 12-24 is true--the 18-24 is a good 'people range'. however, AF-S isnt critical to have on an ultrawide, either. unless you're in middle-earth, trees dont move.</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>j DC-does your 16-85 suffer from lens creep? I have had mine for a week now and I really like it but it does suffer from lens creep. Nikon said to return it to them and they would look at it; I'll wait for the winter before I do. cb</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>I use the 17-55 as the walkaround lens on my D300,and at either ends if have the Tokina 11-16 and the 70-210 F4. I've yet to shoot the Tokina wide open. This inexpensive combo gives me 16 to 330...more than enough.<br>

What do I use the most as a walkaround? The 17-55. It is a great lens.</p>