Nikon 18-70mm OR 16-85mm VR

D

DazzGreen

Suspended / Banned
Messages
387
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
No
My Nikon 18-70mm kit lens has broken and has been with Nikon UK now for 2 weeks awaiting an estimate for repair. I'm now starting to look at replacements in case the cost of repair is too high to justify (as opposed to buying a replacement).

Before I go out and buy a new 18-70mm I was considering the new 16-85mm VR. I have kind of ruled out the 18-200mm as I've heard a lot of bad news about Image Quality at certain settings. I was pretty happy with the quality from my 18-70mm.

I known there's a big cost difference between the Nikon 18-70mm and the new 16-85mm VR. I think the VR will come in handy, but I'm mostly concerned about the IQ.

Does anyone know what the IQ of the 16-85mm is like, compared to the 18-70mm? And can anyone suggest anything else I should be looking at, spending around £400 as a maximum. It's for a general walkaround lens.

Cheers for your help.
 
Hi Dazzgreen,

I have the 18-200 and cannot say enough good things about it. The IQ is very good. It was also the case with the one that I had prior to this copy. I replaced my 18-70 with it and have been very happy. Try it out you may be surprised. There appears to be a bit of a myth growing about this lens being poor. It was less than a year ago when you couldn't get hold of them because they were thought of as being very good. It actually pushed the prices up to £500.00 +. Glad to see they have now come down to reasonable levels.

The 16-85 has some good reviews and some poor reviews and in many ways mirrors the comments that people have made about the 18-200. If you get a good copy it appears to be excellent. I have not had this lens so cannot say too much about it.

I have to say I was always very pleased with my 18-70 and often think that I should have kept it. Solid lens and excellent IQ.

Chris :)
 
The IQ is so much better than the 18-200 VR.

The 16-85 VR is really good. The 18-70 is an excellent lens too, I find that sharpness is pretty close. The 16-85 VR is superb at 16mm and it easily as good in the corners as a dedicated wide angle.

Its over-priced for what it is, I think £380-£400 is a bit on the steep side (but then again I feel the 18-200 VR is over-priced too).

Value-wise the 18-70 DX is hard to beat, and you can get a used copy for peanuts. Do you "need" VR and are you willing to pay another £250 more for it over a used 18-70?
 
You could also look a Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 macro fast lens with excellent IQ.
 
puddleduck said:
The IQ is so much better than the 18-200 VR.

The 16-85 VR is really good. The 18-70 is an excellent lens too, I find that sharpness is pretty close. The 16-85 VR is superb at 16mm and it easily as good in the corners as a dedicated wide angle.

Its over-priced for what it is, I think £380-£400 is a bit on the steep side (but then again I feel the 18-200 VR is over-priced too).

Value-wise the 18-70 DX is hard to beat, and you can get a used copy for peanuts. Do you "need" VR and are you willing to pay another £250 more for it over a used 18-70?
Click to expand...

I don't 'need 'the VR as such, but I have it on my 70-300mm VR and when you need it it works brilliantly. As this lens is to me my general walkabout lens I figured having the VR would be a bonus as the light starts to drop. If the 16-85mm is optically better (or at least the same) as the 18-70mm, if I can find a good deal then I may go for it. I can get a brand new 18-70mm for £160 and the 16-85mm VR for £350 from simply electronics, it does make the 16-85mm look overpriced doesn't it?
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
You could also look a Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 macro fast lens with excellent IQ.
Click to expand...

There's just something there making me want to stick with Nikon lens, can't get over it! I hadn't realised that this lens was so competitively priced (cheap!). I've wanted a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 for ages now but it's always been out of my price range. Oh the choices...
 
I've wanted a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 for ages now but it's always been out of my price range.

I have just sold my 24-70. Would you like to see a 100% crop of how the 16-85 VR stacks up against this lens - let me tell you now... the 16-85 VR does better than you might think :)

Its REALLY good optically.
 
What about the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 not as fast as the VR throughout the zoom range but this is a great lens for walking about with I haven't taken it off my camera since I got it about 7 weeks ago.
 
Agreed - the Sigma 17-70 is really good as well.

A chap at worked picked one up on my recommendation (the HSM version) and it beats my 18-70 DX wide open @ 70mm, although the Nikkor has better corners on the wide end, until about f/8.

I have the non HSM version and and its great lens as you say :)

Actually its just occured to me, looking at this post I have an 18-70 DX, a Sigma 17-70 and a 16-85 VR... ! Just a *tad* amount of overlap going on...!
 
puddleduck said:
I've wanted a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 for ages now but it's always been out of my price range.

I have just sold my 24-70. Would you like to see a 100% crop of how the 16-85 VR stacks up against this lens - let me tell you now... the 16-85 VR does better than you might think :)

Its REALLY good optically.
Click to expand...

Would love to see that comparison, I will PM you my email.
 
puddleduck said:
I've wanted a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 for ages now but it's always been out of my price range.

I have just sold my 24-70. Would you like to see a 100% crop of how the 16-85 VR stacks up against this lens - let me tell you now... the 16-85 VR does better than you might think :)

Its REALLY good optically.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the PM Puddleduck, I am surprised how good optically the 16-85mm is compared to the 24-70mm.

I'm gonna wait for the Nikon repair centre to get back to me with a price and if it's not worth repairing my broken 18-70mm I'm gonna be on the lookout for a second hand 16-85mm me thinks!
 
You're welcome.

I firmly believe with the 16-85 VR Nikon went all out to produce a really good lens to say "Hey, DX is still important to us!".

The 16-85 VR has no weak points (apart from middling bokeh), its sharp in the center, and the corners are great too, edge to edge really.
 
Hi
Just come across this post and it asks the same question that I'm interested in, hope I can add to it!
I have an 18/70mm which is a super lens, I'm looking for something a bit wider for travel - the 16/85 would, rather expensively!, fit the bill by getting a bit more in at both ends.
Looks like the IQ of the 16/85 is a bit better than the 18/70 - though comments appreciated here.
I would like to ask about how much more you get in at 16mm as opposed to 18mm - can anybody point me to a comparison, landscape wise. I've seen the Rockwell comparison, but Ken does a near-distance comparison, not as good for me as I'm wanting it for landscape work.
Also interested in colour comparisons between these two lenses, again comments appreciated.
I've got a 70/300 VR which is better at 70mm than the 18/70. With having the 18/70 I need to add more at the wide end, so not interesten in the 18/105 VR.
Regards
 
puddleduck i get the impression youre something of an old hand around these parts and generous to boot. ive always wondered how or why the 16-85 with variable aperture manages to get so many good reviews when stacked against the 2.8s?
 
Hi

The 16-85 really is excellent. I still think its over-priced compared to say the 18-70 DX (and now the 18-105 VR which is also supposed to be very god) but its really excellent optically, and its sharp edge to edge right into the corners. Its probably the perfect travel lens, it goes wide, and handily long.

I tried my 24-70 and 16-85 both at 70mm and the 16-85 VR gave up nothing at all to the "Pro" lens optically, and actually wider it was better (the 24-70 only gets good over 28mm) and only the difference is speed between f/3.5 and f/2.8 is marginal there.

Its probably Nikon's best DX lens though, and IMHO its a much better affirmation of DX than the 17-55 for example.

Regarding the 18-70 DX, well I've just picked another one up for my D40, they are very cheap used, and are always excellent performers.

In all honesty, as I'm basically full frame now, I can't really justify a 16-85 VR now, but its excellent in all respects.
 
so youd still go with a 16-85 over an 18-105? assuming they were the same price for instance.


sorry for the hijack!
 
I've just got the 16-85mm VR nikon and it its a cracking lens - i was going to get the 17-55mm but decided on 16-85mm as i thought i'd miss the the long end of my Sigma 24-70mm and optically i could'nt tell any the differance from the 17-55mm . My sigma 10-20mm and sigma 24-70mm f2.8 are now both up on ebay i will get a Nikon 20mm f2.8 to go with my 50mm f1.4 with the proceeds this should give me plenty of scope for low light work when need and it'll give me 10:1 reverse mounted on my bellows:D
 
fontmoss said:
so youd still go with a 16-85 over an 18-105? assuming they were the same price for instance.


sorry for the hijack!
Click to expand...

If they were the same price, I'd definately get the 16-85!

However I think the 16-85 VR is about twice the price in reality.

The problem the 16-85 VR has - as good as it is - is that the 18-70 DX (and presumably the 18-105) are also excellent.

I think the 16mm to 18mm difference is significant though - it might just save you buying a Tokina or Nikkor 12-24 for example as you only gain an extra 4mm..
 
yup my thoughts exactly, means you could potentially forego a short wide like 10-20 and 85 at the other end seems like plenty of scope. hmmmm
 
Thanks

I think that 2mm at the wide end swings it for me for travel - I'm going mountain hiking soon and can only take one lens and 18mm is just too narrow.

Puddleduck - pm me if you are thinking of parting with your 16/85!

Regards
 
I own both the 18-70mm and the 16-85mm VR and to tell the truth I love them both! However, that 2mm difference at the wide end sold it to me over the 18-200mm and the optical quality is great!

If you can afford the 16-85mm VR; I'd go for that one and you will not be disappointed.

If you are working to a budget, then I'm sure you can find another 18-70mm at a good price! The 18-135mm and 18-105mm VR are OK lenses but, built to a lower spec; with plastic mounts.
 
fontmoss said:
whats the 16-85 like in low light btw?
Click to expand...



This was taken indoors. Hand held.




Exposure: 0.125 sec (1/8)
Aperture: f/8
Focal Length: 19 mm
ISO Speed: 500
 
good then ;)

how does it stack up against a 2.8? in low light like in a bar for instance?
 
fontmoss said:
good then ;)

how does it stack up against a 2.8? in low light like in a bar for instance?
Click to expand...


I didn't try it in a bar so i couldn't really say.
 
Frontmoss did you ever get the 16-85 and try it on the S5?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top