corey_brooker Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 <p>Hi guys,<br> I need some help here. I currently have a D90 and carry a nikon 50mm 1.8, simga 10-20mm, and nikor 70-300mm (Non-VR). I recently have come into some money and plan on buying a new walk-around lens. I want to buy a quality one, but I'm having a hard time deciding. I rarely use my 70-300mm because its lack of VR and me not having a tripod it gets annoying to use. For this reason I was conisidering the sigma 18-250. I have heard though that the 16-85 Nikkor is a very high quality walk-around lens.<br> Most photography I do is landscape/portrait by the way.</p> <p>Any input would be appreciated.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 <p>I would stay away from any lens whose maximum aperture is below f5.6. AF will be very iffy.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corey_brooker Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 <p>I thought that both of the lenses I was considering had a max aperture of f5.6 - no?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramon_v__california_ Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 <p>i think the 16-85mm will fill in your gap and needs. and yes it is a very good lens. i don't own it but have tried it. my 18-70mm serves me well in that range. it's faster and lighter. plus i don't have the extra money to spare for the 16-85mm. but it has VR so in some ways and situations, it can be faster than the 18-70mm.</p> <p>and i'm in the same boat as shun ------ i try to stay away from lenses that go to f/6.3, even with OS, VR or VC. i think the sigma has f/6.3. but then again, each one has his standards and preferences.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesBecker-Toronto Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 <p>Corey-I also have a D90 and recently replaced my 18-70 with the 16-85 and have to say that I am very happy with it. It's a great walk around lens and I love having 24mm back at the wide end as that was my wide angle lens in my film days (Nikon FE2) plus the VR comes in handy when the lens is fully extended. Happy shooting! cb :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogu Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 <p>I bought my D90 with the 16-85mm.<br> It's a great walk around lens but you have to be a little careful to the flare at 16mm.</p> <p>rgrds</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 <p> basically the choice here comes down to range/convenience vs. IQ. if you dont mind a slowish variable aperture lens, i'd go with the 16-85. you can always add the 55-200 VR later if you need more reach.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pictureted Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 <p>I'm extremely happy with the 16-85 on my D90. It's much better than I expected, and I had high hopes. I like the overlap with the 10-24 on one end and the 70-200 or 70-300 on the other. The size, weight and ergonomics are excellent. It's too early to tell whether it has the longevity of lenses like the now legendary 24-70/2.8, but it's a lot easier to buy and carry.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shuo_zhao Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 <p>Although the superzoom would be convenient to use. It probably has the worse overall optical quality among all lenses of its price range, if not all lenses in general. (Cheaper but less ambitious optical designs are often capable of better results) As others have mentioned, the Sigma 18-250 is also an unacceptably slow f/6.3 lens in its telephoto end. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 <p>16-85!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munim Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 16-85. Cropped at 85mm, the 16-85 is sharper than the D90 18-105 kit lens at 105mm. And get 70-300 VR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 <p>16-85VR, no doubt. One of the best DX consumer zooms, very sharp and the difference between 16 and 18 mm is far more considerable than people think. It continues to exceed my expectations (and the 18-70 I owned before was already a very nice lens).<br> Megazooms typically aren't very good at anything, they are convenient and easy, but that's it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alvinyap Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 <p>/me another vote for the 16-85vr.<br> 70-300 non VR should be fine in reasonable light without a tripod - just bump up the iso and ensure the 1/(focal length * crop factor) rule is followed. If you want to switch though, either the 55-200VR or 70-300VR are good choices, I've owned both, still own the 70-300VR, they work great within their limits.<br> <br /> Alvin</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owen_omeara Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 <p>Count one more vote for the 16-85. It is an outstanding lens with great build. and the VR works beautifully. My 17-55 is not a lot better in terms of IQ. You will not be let down by this lens. By the way, it focuses rapidly and is very quiet.</p> <p>-Owen</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now