Nikon 18-70mm or the 16-85mm VR

[kenneth_cortland]

<p>Hi Mark,</p>

<p>I was thinking about keeping the 18-200mm VR for vacation, coupling that with the 35mm f/1.8 and my SB-600 to keep things simple. The last time I went on vacation (earlier this year) I had a D60 with the 18-55 VR and the 55-200 VR and was completely frustrated with the prospect of changing lenses. When I got home and looked at my photos, I was more impressed with the composition of the shots taken with the short lens. Photos from both lens were really sharp...the only problem was the distortion of the 18-55mm at the wide end. I thought I would get similar sharpness from the 18-200mm VR, but after several occasions of walking around here in the DC area, the photos were just not as good.</p>

<p>If I go on vacation again, I want photos at least as good as those I took on that vacation, which has drawn me to the 16-85mm VR and the 18-70mm based on research. Since I kind of "made do" with the 18-55mm most of the time, I'm figuring I don't need the long end. But I was backpacking in Brazil and often didn't need it. If I'm in Paris or Prague and want shots of the architecture, then I might want something a little longer. I never thought about an f/2.8 Tamron or Sigma. I'm going to head out to the photo store today and give these a spin.</p>

<p>Edward's suggestion of the 18-105mm VR is great and I might consider that since it gives me a little more on the longer end, but my concern is the build quality. In the second-hand market, this lens is about $225 just like the 18-70mm.</p>

[kenneth_cortland]

<p>Hi Eric,</p>

<p>Thanks for posting the example!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Kenneth, I would not have too much concerns about the 18-105's build quality. It is better made than the 18-55, and that seems to hold up nicely for you.<br>

Edward is right that the 18-105VR is one of Nikon's best bargains. Nice allrounder, sweet pricetag.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The build quality on an 18-105 isn't all that different from a 16-85. I know, this is where everybody says something about metal mount rings, but really, people don't break the plastic ones very often, and both lenses have a lot of plastic in them and long extensions when zooming and neither would survive much of a drop anyway. If you can drop the 16-85 6 more inches than the 18-105, is that actually a big deal?</p>

<p>Yes, the 16-85 is a good lens. It might even be a $630 lens if it weren't for the other options available. But it's silly that it costs twice as much as the 18-105 while being maybe 10% better - if you were going to spend that kind of money you should save up a bit more and get out of the consumer class lenses.</p>

[jbm]

<p>16-85 is slow, exceptionally good, and slightly overpriced for its pedigree. At this level of lens, just get what works and focus on taking a lot of photos. For me, the16-85 was great. It provided professional results for some press kits when I lived in NYC and I love the wide end. However, I dropped mine once from 10 feet onto concrete and it and my D300 have never been the same since. Here are ssome pre drop shots that show how great it is, RAW capture, single pass sharpening. It is much better than the 18-70, but different strokes for different folks.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/7824623&size=lg<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/7824644<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/7943052&size=lg<br /> Good luck!</p>

[JeffBryce]

<p>When I bought the 17-55 I had planned to pass my 18-70 to my wife. However, the lens had become wobbly and it crept, so we sold it and bought her the 16-85. She likes the 16-85’s VR, light weight, solid feel, build quality, and range, and she uses it as her primary lens. Prior to purchase we tested several filters & holders on it and were surprised to discover that the 16-85 was less susceptible to vignetting than the 18-70 had been. Go for the 16-85 over the 18-70.<br>

</p>

[sergio maretz]

<p>I traded my zeiss 2.8/25 (or 2.5/28, can't remember) against a 16-85, because the quality is not far behind and it is autofocus (my eyes are no longer what they used to be..). Very happy with the new lens. Will not trade it back..</p>

[kenneth_cortland]

<p>All...thanks for the additional information on the 18-105mm VR! I'm seriously thinking about going this route after going to a camera store and checking out each of the following:</p>

<p><strong>Nikon 16-85mm VR</strong> - great lens...best of the variable f-stop bunch, but the IQ did not seem that much better than the 18-105 to warrant over 2x the cost. What I saw was barely marginal, but it could have been the nasty in-store lighting.<br>

<strong>Nikon 18-105mm VR</strong> - seemed to be the best from a price-performance perspective.<br>

<strong>Nikon 18-70mm VR</strong> - really good IQ, but I think I need VR for anything above 50mm<br>

<strong>Tamron 17-50mm (VC and non-VC)</strong> - IQ for both at least as good (if not better) than the 16-85, but I want/need something a little longer (especially after seeing the other options).<br>

<strong>Nikon 17-55mm</strong> - too expensive but checked it out just for kicks...it blew all of them away in terms of IQ.</p>

<p>Granted this is in-store comparisons on the D90 LCD taking shots of people under the horrible florescent lighting stores typically have. That said, I couldn't get a strong idea of color contrast for any of them.</p>

<p>Jay, thanks for the shots with the 16-85mm. The one of the your dog is amazing!</p>

[kenneth_cortland]

<p>After a lot of jumping back and forth between the 16-85 and the 18-105, I ordered the 16-85 from Adorama (I think I was sold by Jay's photos). I'll let you all know how it goes when I get it.</p>

<p>Thanks again!</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>Good choice Kenneth-you'll be happy with it. Happy shooting! cb :-)</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Kenneth, I think that your observations concerning the five lenses make a lot of sense. Another factor in favor of the 16-85 VR over the 18-105 VR is that since you are not bringing an ultrawide zoom, the 2mm on the wide side is probably more important than the 20mm on the long side. You can always crop out, but you can't "crop in".</p>

<p>The 18-200 VR is very sharp from 18-100mm and should be comparable to the 18-55 VR at those focal lengths. It will not be as sharp as the 55-200 VR from 100-200mm. If you are not satisfied with it, you might as well sell it. It will go a long way toward paying for the 16-85 VR.</p>

<p>Enjoy you new lens!</p>

[kenneth_cortland]

<p>Hey Mark,</p>

<p>I thought about the wide-angle aspect of it also and this is a great point. I actually had a 10-24mm Nikon but returned it because it just wasn't my thing at the time. That lens is more of a specialty item, but being able to get those 2mm in could give me a little something if I needed it. I know the 16-85mm cannot replace a dedicated ultra-wide angle, but until I increase my appetite for this type of photography then I'll make do with the 16-85. Those ultra-wides are really pricey though!</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>The difference between 16 and 18mm is like 24 to 28 in 35mm terms. It's not a lot, but it can make a difference. I live in NYC and do a lot of urban photography and my Sigma 10-20 is a necessity. I even use a Nikon 10.5mm FF FE for those times when it's the only lens that gets it all in. You could look for a used Sigma 10-20. With the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 coming out there may be more used 10-20 f/4-5.6's around. Same with the Tokina 12-24 f/4 now that the f/2.8 came out. Check keh.com.</p>