 |
| |||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
I got a D7000 for Christmas. I am thinking about purchasing a 16-85mm lens. I have read pros and cons. I cannot find someone who has used one. I am looking for some input. Yes, I tried to search before I posted this. Couldn't locate any. Thank you.
I have Nikon's version of this lens and I like it. Like most zooms, it suffers from pincushion and barrel distortion, so it isn't the best choice for architectural shots or shots were vertical and horizontal straight lines are important. (However, this kind of distortion is correctable in such applications as Photoshop.) As you might expect, it's best when stopped down about two f-stops from wide open and, even then, the corners are not as sharp as the center. Like most zooms, it displays some chromatic abberation (CA), but it's not visible in normally sized prints. For example, I regularly make 13- x 19-inch prints from RAW files that I shoot on my D300 with this lens and the prints are fine. In short, I think you'll be happy with the lens unless you're a real stickler for corner-to-corner sharpness, in which case you should be using only prime lenses anyway.
Thank you for the response. I am leaning for this lens as a walk around lens. I am thinking about getting the 70-300mm to fill in the other in of spectrim. I have a 35mm and 50mm for indoor pictures.
I haven't used the 16-85 but I've heard and read a lot of very good things about it. I have used the Nikon 70-300 VR and it is a very good lens. You may also want to consider the Tamron 70-300 VC. It's also very good, maybe even a little sharper at 300mm, and it's less expensive.
Another lens you may wish to consider is Nikon's 18-200mm. I also own this lens and I use it a lot. Again, it isn't the sharpest lens available, nor is it very fast, and it displays barrel and pincushion distortion. But, I"ve blown up images as large as 17 x 25 inches made by this lens and it's pretty darned good. (I also process the images using OnOne Software's Perfect Resize, which they used to call Genuine Fractals.) In either case, I think you'll be happy. Between the two, I find that I like the longer reach of the 18-200, but, occasionally, I find that the slightly wider 16mm is of real value.Originally Posted by spacgoste
I got my lens and love it. Traveling to El Paso in three weeks. Looking forward to using it.
Nikon 16-85mm lens is really excellent,It is sharp zooms well and provide much feasibility to handle it..It's distortion have enough to require for the critical shots.
I have to disagree. 16-85 optics are ok, but not stunning. It is better than 18-55 or 18-105, but not by a large margin. Along with the fact that it's dark (f/5.6 at the long end) and relatively expensive, I don't think it's a very good option.
If I were you, I'd rather look for a good copy of Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS. Sharp, stabilized and bright - it's always good to have f/2.8 when you need it.
Take care!
Nikon's 16-85 f3.5-5.6 is a VR lens. Although it's slower than Sigma's 17-50 f2.8, it has a longer zoom range; moreover, I suspect that it's as sharp as Sigma's f2.8. So, I think it's a matter of preference - do you want an f2.8 or a wider zoom.
this depends what you are taking photos of. the lens is not good for sports. the 18-300 is a much better lens. i have the 28-300 just about good for everything i have had it for a few years. i will be shooting a spring musical with it Wednsday night with a speedlight with a high ISO
. i shoot for a year book co. i have 7 lenses because you never know what jobs i will get. not every one needs these many lenses. GOOD LUCK
JERRY
Posting Permissions
Copyright © 2011 Bonnier Corp. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Reply With Quote