DX 16-85 vs FX 24-85

[rwa757]

<p>Intend to use one or the other on a D7000 (or D7100 in the near future). I have a 10-24DX for superwide so that's not a concern. Any advantage of FX over DX?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Any advantage of FX over DX?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 24-85 is faster throughout the zoom range. Especially near the long end the 16-85 is rather slow; f/5.6 at 85 can be quite limiting depending on what you shoot.</p>

<p>On the other hand, 24-85 is not a very convenient range on DX - you will likely change between the 24-85 and the 10-24 a lot.</p>

<p>Between the two, I'd pick the 16-85; optically from what I've seen there is not a whole lot of difference. The newer 16-80/2.8-80 likely performs better, but also costs a bundle more. My favorite to cover the this range is the 18-140, which performs a tad better than the 16-85 especially on a 24MP camera.</p>

[hans_janssen1]

<p>The 16-85 is the best choice, with the 24 - 85 you have to change very often with the focal length break in the middle working range.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

I'm with Dieter in recommending the 18-140mm

zoom. A stunningly good lens for its price.

 

The only advantage the 24-85 would have is if you plan to change to FX in the near future.

[doug andrews]

<p>I have a D7100 and got the 24-85mm for the very reason Rodeo Joe mentions, my next camera will be FX. For me it works quite well with my Tokina 12-24mm.</p>