1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Typical confusion - which standard zoom on a crop..

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Fabrian, Aug 1, 2008.

  1. Nikkor 16-85 VR

    66.7%
  2. Nikkor 18-70

    27.8%
  3. Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Marcro *HSM*

    5.6%
  4. Sigma 17-70 *HSM*

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Some user experience needed here. I'm curious as to what this poll reveals, and you know you love polls..LOL!
     
  2. rotxlk82

    rotxlk82

    Jul 20, 2007
    UK
    If I could only have one lens and use it for everything I'd take the 16-85vr
     
  3. Micky

    Micky

    190
    Feb 29, 2008
    Vermont
    What about the 17-55?

    I wouldn't put a slow lens on as a standard zoom...
     
  4. I don't want to either, but for me the 17-55 is out of reach.
     
  5. 16-85 is about 50% overpriced in my book, at $400 it would make a lot more sense. The 18-70 is pretty solid, and for the prices you can get it lightly used (~$150) it is one of the two best bargains for a DX normal zoom (other being the 18-135 for ~$200).

    I like the Sigma 18-50 Macro quite a bit, though it seems to suffer from the lack of corner sharpness inherent to DX F2.8 zooms in that range (I had the same issue with the Tamron 17-50 and Nikkor 17-55). The 17-70 is about the same cost, and trades speed for a slightly better macro and wider zoom range. I haven't used that one, so I don't know exactly how it would stack up.

    I voted for the 18-70. It's just too good of a deal. If you prefer speed, I'd get the Sigma 18-50.
     
  6. I'm not going to play fair. I'm going to vote for a lens NOT on your list: Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

    Samples:

    2148123252_f186ec4557.

    2081955914_ddd0bd4d26.

    1023372615_4cfd9eec63.

    Hope that helps.
     
  7. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    18-70, no doubt
    worth far more than the measley money they fetch used these days,IMO

    if the 16-85 was $399, I might have have bitten
     
  8. avyoung

    avyoung

    Dec 17, 2007
    Canada
    I noticed Thom is suggesting something new is on its way...


    Re: 18-70 replacement, 16-85 or 17-55 ? NEW
    Thom Hogan - 25 mins ago
    alexgodro wrote:
    > The 18-70mm is a very good lense for the price, probably the best
    > value/quality compromise compared to 16-85vr, 17-55 and 18-55.
    >
    > Yes, it gives good result but how better are the 16-85 and 17-55?

    Implicit in your question is that you own the 18-70mm. Other than vignetting, it's a darned good lens. So the question you have to ask is "what am I not getting from this lens?" That would be followed by "would other lenses give me what I'm missing?" But without specificity on the first question you can't answer the second.

    Also: wait until the end of September before making your decision.

    --
    Thom Hogan
    author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (18 and counting)
    http://www.bythom.com



    here is the thread:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=28712083
     
  9. Why are these the only choices you offer? Are you shopping?
     
  10. Hmm... interesting that something new may be coming out soon. IMO the 16-85 should have been and f/4. I'm sure it would be a huge seller.

    I listed those particular lenses because they seem to be "decent" for the price range. I usually shoot for the best constant aperture lens I can get given the focal length of interest, but I can't do that right now since my budget is too tight - I'll likely start building my ideal kit in the coming months though.

    FWIW, I left the Tamron out of the poll due to AF design. I'd have left the 18-50 out as well but it is HSM and constant 2.8.

    What I'm really looking for is a standard zoom on a crop that could be considered "damn good for the price" - to hold me over for a while.
     
  11. All the more reason you should be including the Tamron. It may not have an in-built focusing motor (although the newer ones do, not sure what the result is), it focuses nearly as fast on my D80 as the 18-70 AF-S it replaced. There's also no comparison between the two as far as sharpness . . .
     
  12. Mr. Graceful, I've yet to see the images you posted since my Corp. filters out flikr. I did have the Tamron and I know of it's sharpness.

    I've read that when using flash this lens tends to over expose. Are there any differences when using Nikkor lenses VS 3rd party in regards to flash information/exposure?
     
  13. timkoo

    timkoo

    304
    Oct 9, 2007
    Chicago
    another vote for 17-50.
    f/2.8 and you have two flavors
    built in AF (newer) or the screw-driven
     
  14. CraigH

    CraigH

    691
    Mar 21, 2008
    Orlando, Florida
    I vote for the 18-135 Nikkor or the Tamron 17-50 screw drive. None of the Sigma zooms really interest me.
     
  15. Bingo!
    Another vote for the 17-50 here.



    MikeT
     
  16. The 16-85mm VR replaced my 17-55mm f/2.8 as my primary walkaround lens.

    :Note well: Nikon clearly designed the 16-85mm VR for a wide demographic:

    -Us 'Oldsters' who shot slides/film using F2s in the Kodachrome ages; we are approaching collecting Social Security $ in the US(!)

    -You 'youngsters' who will select and use this lens because of its linearly excellent optical attributes and sharp-capture low light capability.

    What follows:
    Comparison, 16-85mm VR vs 17-55mm:
    MY take; YMMV:

    -Field curvature on the 17-55mm f/2.8 is inordinately excessive (even when the awkward beyond-infinity focus recommendations are exercised for the 17-55, and you're pp'ing for what is in focus yet still isn't.)

    I've found the 16-85mm VR is superior to the 17-55mm; -optically -
    -Far less linear distortion, especially at the wide end
    -Better flare resistance in harsh lighting
    -VR with selectable DOF in low light interior shots = stop down for sharp hand-holdability, or wide open for selective subject
    -Added reach with VR for Decent (no it's not an 85mm f/1.4, duh!) isolation at all light levels
    -Color & contrast are snappy - about equal
    -Tidy design, pocketable as a swapout/swapin with whatever you have mounted at the time.
    -VR
    -VR - yes, even at wide FLs, VR Helps Get the Shot.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2008
  17. gadgetguy11

    gadgetguy11

    Nov 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    I use the 17-55 /2.8 on the D300 most of the time, so I'd vote "other" if there was such an option.
     
  18. Donzo98

    Donzo98

    Nov 10, 2005
    Merrick, NY
    Same here... my 17-55 is my primary lens on the D2XS now. :smile:
     
  19. Has anyone tested the new version of the Tamron 17-50 (built in AF motor)? Some results from this lens I'd like to see.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.