Nikon D90 AF zoom lens

[anil_m]

<p>My friend bought a D-90 body recently. He wants to buy a general purpose lens with good image quality. He is thinking about Nikon 16-85, 18-105 and Tamron 17-50(or 55) 2.8. Nikon 17-55 (2.8) is heavy and pricy. Can anyone help him select?</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>Anil-I have the D90 and my general walk around lens is the 16-85; it can be a little slow at the long end but VR really helps. I am very happy with it. regards, cb :-)</p>

[anil_m]

<p>One more choice i forgot to mention Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di</p>

[hans_janssen]

<p>With the 28-75 you have to less at wide end.</p>

[drjoder]

<p>I use the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 on my D90 as my walk-around lens, but I do sometimes miss having something a tad bit longer. However, I do like the image quality, the lower light capability and VC (vibration compensation), so I am willing to accept that. Beyond 50mm, I try to zoom with my feet. What kind of shooting does your friend do? Which is more important: short end? long end? low light? That might help you decide.</p>

[tim_knight]

<p>I have the Tamron 17-50/2.8 it allows me to shoot indoors and outdoors with only having to change the apperature to what light I have. For me it is the perfect kit lense for your camera. It only comes off when I need to use the 70-300 vr.</p>

[andreas_manessinger]

<p>Not to forget: Sigma just introduced a new stabilized 17-50/2.8. I don't have it, have not even seen it yet, but it is already available, and the review for the Canon version on <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os">Photozone.de</a> is very favorable. It is more expensive than the Tamron, but less than the Nikon 17-55/2.8.</p>

[anil_m]

<p>So, better go for f 2.8? He visits places and shoots landscape, people etc.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>You might have your D90-owning friend look at the AF-S 18-105mm VR Nikkor lens. If he does not plan on getting wall-sized reprints, the 18-105 lens works.</p>

<p> </p>

[pictureted]

<p>The 16-85 was my first lens for my D90 and it's still my all purpose go-to lens. I highly recommend it for the wide zoom range (16mm feels a lot wider), VR, fast AF, great IQ and ergonomics.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>If he shoots often in very low light, does not want to use a flash, wants to shoot handheld (ie no tripod or similar support) and wants a shallow DOF to isolate subjects then yes, an f/2.8 zoom is best. </p>

<p>VR is a poor substitute for a tri-pod IMHO but it does really assist to get more "keepers" at shutter speeds around 1/125th sec. and slower. So the f/4 16-85mm VR Nikkor may be a good compromise for speed vs. cost.</p>

<p>I can't vouch for any of these lenses apart from the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 which can produce excellent image quality, especially with close range subject matter.</p>

<p>This 'which zoom for DX body' discussion has been mulled over many times in this forum - try the search tool at the top right of the page for historical references on this subject.</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

<p>Is this for use mostly outdoors? A 2.8 lens doesn't really do anything for you in daylight that a less expensive lens doesn't, but if it's for lower light the faster lenses are a big plus, as are prime lenses - a 35mm or 50mm prime is better than a 2.8 zoom for using at night and in other situations that aren't well lit.</p>

<p>I'd stay clear of the 16-85 lens - it's just a kit lens, plus a few metal bits, I don't see why everybody gets so excited about it but in my experience it has no image quality advantages over the other Nikon VR kit lenses and the only usability advantage is the focus scale. Consider: If you wanted to spend on Nikon products $630, you could buy the 16-85, or you could buy the 18-105, and an SB-600 flash, and a 50mm f/1.8</p>

<p>As everyday zooms go, my personal favorites are the Nikon 18-105 and the Sigma 17-70 (a bit more expensive but a bit sharper and as well built as the 16-85, and good for close focus). YMMV. The Tamron 28-75 you mentioned is what I use most on my F100, it's not very wide on a DX camera but it's a good lens.</p>

[anil_m]

<p>Ted, you shoot interiors with 16 -85? I mean stage programmes etc?

 

</p>

[jim_carnevale]

<p>When I first got my D90 I bought the Nikkor DX AF-S 18-55. I bought a refurbished one for $94. For an extremely inexpensive lens I got surprisingly good results. When the budget allowed for a better lens I got the Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VRII. I love it - it's a great lens. It's on the heavy side, but it has a wide range and I get some amazing results with it. When I don't feel like lugging around a heavy chunk of glass I'll still shoot with the 18-55.</p>

[shineofleo]

<p>I just used a D90 + 18-105 lens. Quite good combination for general photography.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd stay clear of the 16-85 lens - it's just a kit lens, plus a few metal bits</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew,<br />I've read this comment from you a lot of times now, so i wonder :<br />- is there something specific you've got against this lens like bad experiences of some kind ?<br />Everywere else ( Photozone, Tom Hogan's pages etc. ) I read a lot of positive comments about this lens.<br />From other people who own and use this lens I have not read bad comments either. <br />I myself own this lens too, and I like it a lot too because of its IQ , handling and effective BR when needed and range from wide to light tele...</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>This depends on your friend's preferences, and he should be asking this question himself, maybe in a reputable camera store if possible.</p>

<p>I'd get the 16-85, hands down, unless I KNEW I needed f2.8. If you don't know you need it, you might want!</p>

[andylynn]

<p>CPM - I've tested two copies of it on two bodies and also tested the Nikon 18-105, 18-55 and Sigma 17-70 to compare, and I've never been able to find the difference in quality. The 18-55 has some limitations (front spins when focusing, for example) but the 16-85, 18-105 and 17-70 are pretty much equal. So why should the 16-85 cost so much when all it gives you is a few dollars worth of metal and a mm or two at the wide end - and why does everybody who recommends a lens for a DX camera on this board recommend the most expensive of three lenses that are so similar?</p>

<p>Thom actually gives the 16-85 and the 18-105 the same score for performance, says that both vignette and are a bit soft wide open, and if you look at the sharpness shots and the vignette shots they're as close to indistinguishable as you'll see two lenses get. Look at the MTF and other charts on Photozone - they're indistinguishable, if it weren't for the lens being named at the top of the page you wouldn't be able to tell which you were looking at. The only difference is half a pixel of CA, which I can't see in the photos. Why does one of these lenses cost twice as much as the other?</p>

<p>It's not that there's anything wrong with the 16-85, and if you look at its real value in enabling you to take photos maybe it's worth $630, but why pay that when the other options?</p>

<p>I think there's also a stigma against lenses that are "kit", and against plastic mounts - which I also don't view as a negative. A replacement plastic mount piece costs something like $10-15, postage paid, so if I were to drop my camera in a way that applies enough stress to the mount area to break something, I want it to be the cheap piece held on by 3 screws, not some part of the camera body that needs major surgery to repair! Heck, one could buy a spare mount piece and leave it, and the appropriate screwdriver, in the camera bag as insurance.</p>

[pictureted]

<p>Here's a shot at SF Ferry building 16mm, f11, 1/4 second. VR on, handheld.<br>

Another at a Church in HA. 16mm, f4.8, 1/15. VR on, handheld.<br>

[andylynn]

<p>http://www.fluidr.com/photos/21616771@N04/sets/72157624549591771</p>

<p>I used the 35/1.8 for four of those, the rest are the 18-105, all handheld.</p>

[mlg28]

<p>I'm a big fan of the Nikon 18-200 mm VR. It's not for indoor sports, but it's a great all-around lens. About $700 and one pound.</p>

[munim]

<p>Andrew,<br>

Apparently, time is not important to you. I broke the plastic mount on my 18-105 and it took weeks to repair. In the meantime I bought a used 18-55 - not bad and I still keep it. I replaced the 18-105 with the 16-85 and I'm so relieved I don't own a fragile lens anymore. If the 17-55 is a "pro lens", the 18-105 is an "amateur" lens, and the 16-85 is a "semi-pro". Sharpness? DxOMark says 18-105 is sharper but in my own tests, 16-85 at 85mm resolves distant objects at approximately the same resolution at 18-105 at 105mm. The 18-105 has vignetting at certain settings, too.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Raden, that's where my carrying a spare mount part idea comes in. Actually I think I'm going to try to buy one this week for that reason. (Add $15 to lens cost, still a winner.)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>your best bet is really the tamron 17-50. if the 16-85 were, say an f/4, it might be worth its cost. but as it is, that and the 18-200 are both overpriced for what you get IMO. the 17-50 is the sharpest 2.8 zoom i own @2.8, and the corners pick up at f/9 for landscape. it's really the best walkaround lens for DX cameras available; the other day i was shooting an all-day event for a news outlet, which involved multiple locations and shooting conditions, including some up-close-and-personal candid crowd shots, and it stayed on the camera the whole time. i could have left the big bulky telezoom at home. no way would a 16-85 have worked for no-flash shots as the light got dim, and carting a 17-55 on my shoulder for 6-7 hours straight would have killed me. sometimes i think an extra 25mm on the long end would be nice, but most of the time you can just walk forward a few steps.</p>

<p><em>I'd get the 16-85, hands down, unless I KNEW I needed f2.8. If you don't know you need it, you might want!</em></p>

<p>hmm, i'd disagree about this, peter. i think a lot of first-time DSLR buyers think the 16-85 or 18-200 or 18-105 will be a one-lens solution, only to find out the low-light action shots or OoF effects they wanted to do can't be done with kit lenses--at least, not very well. i know when i bought my first DSLR four years ago, i was stoked to have the 18-70. after about a month i realized i needed a faster zoom for what i was shooting. so i got the tamron 28-75 and never picked up the 18-70 again. then i realized i needed something wider, so i got the 17-50. if i had to do it all over again, i would have gotten the 17-50 from the beginning. that's about $700 i spent that i didnt really have to had i known better--easily enough for an UWA or fast prime.</p>

<p> </p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I would make the decision based on what lens speed and focal length as well as weight and price would best would best suit my needs. If you need a really fast lens then it would be primes at whatever focal length required. IMHO the 16-85 is expensive but those 2 extra mm could make the case for a single lens. If I was going to carry the setup a long time then I would look at a kit lens or single prime. If it is event type shooting then a 17-50mm type zooms seems to be the ticket. I use a D700 with a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 that works very well or I take some faster primes if I want a smaller package or need the extra lens speed. The kit lenses are not expensive and can be used as a learning tool as well as being light and small. If you really don't know what you need then that may be the best option then go use it as much as possible.</p>