AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR ?

[DM101]

the ones which quoted me the preferable price that is haha. oh well..

What is the "un-preferable" prioce they quoted ?

 

[brapodam]

IMO this lens is overpriced. For that kind of small aperture, the price you pay is not worth it. It is a very sharp lens no doubt, but sharpness isn't everything. I would go for the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS HSM if I were you. Slightly less sharp, but it's also stabilised, and has a larger aperture.

 

[deltatango]

I'm interested in getting this lens too but the Sigma's f2.8-4 is very tempting as well, plus it's cheaper. How is the Sigma and is it worth buying over the Nikon 16-85? I know it's definitely faster, but how much is "slightly less sharp" as sharpness is important for me in my shooting.

 

[TheChef]

I'm interested in getting this lens too but the Sigma's f2.8-4 is very tempting as well, plus it's cheaper. How is the Sigma and is it worth buying over the Nikon 16-85? I know it's definitely faster, but how much is "slightly less sharp" as sharpness is important for me in my shooting.

Unless you know how to test on the spot, my advice to you is to stick with Nikon lenses. Get Nikkor 16-85VR for peace of mind.

 

[TheChef]

I'm kind of surprised you choose the 16-85mm over the 17-55mm. Considering the 17-55mm has wider aperture and better IQ, what makes you change your mind?

I usually travel with 2 lenses - the 16-85 and 80-400. I usually don't use wide apertures to shoot landscape shots even at night. The VR is effective enough for me to deliver sharp shots under low light. For wider apertures (usually for portraits), I prefer my Sigma 50f1.4 (much better bokeh and subject isolation). I sold my 17-55 to buy 80-400 to cover my preferred shooting focal range.

 

[Cowseye]

I usually travel with 2 lenses - the 16-85 and 80-400. I usually don't use wide apertures to shoot landscape shots even at night. The VR is effective enough for me to deliver sharp shots under low light. For wider apertures (usually for portraits), I prefer my Sigma 50f1.4 (much better bokeh and subject isolation). I sold my 17-55 to buy 80-400 to cover my preferred shooting focal range.

Salute for carrying the 80-400m for travel. It's one heck of a weight to lug around.

 

[Astin]

I use D5000 with 16-85 zoom, images are sharp, distortion is minimal, it is definitely better than the kit zooms but of course not as good as the $2k zoom. The 16-85 is light weight so easy to carry around, VR2 works great for many hand held situation.

 

[DM101]

I use D5000 with 16-85 zoom, images are sharp, distortion is minimal, it is definitely better than the kit zooms but of course not as good as the $2k zoom. The 16-85 is light weight so easy to carry around, VR2 works great for many hand held situation.

Focusing ia also quite fast too

 

[cheesy]

I usually travel with 2 lenses - the 16-85 and 80-400. I usually don't use wide apertures to shoot landscape shots even at night. The VR is effective enough for me to deliver sharp shots under low light. For wider apertures (usually for portraits), I prefer my Sigma 50f1.4 (much better bokeh and subject isolation). I sold my 17-55 to buy 80-400 to cover my preferred shooting focal range.

how much did you pay for your Sigma 50mm f/1.4? why did you choose it over Nikkor's 50mm f/1.4?

 

[Sgdevilzz]

how much did you pay for your Sigma 50mm f/1.4? why did you choose it over Nikkor's 50mm f/1.4?

Here is a comparison of the Sigma and nikon 50mm f1.4 and nikon 50mm f1.8
[video=youtube;pfyrGfqZQ-A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfyrGfqZQ-A[/video]

 

[TheChef]

how much did you pay for your Sigma 50mm f/1.4? why did you choose it over Nikkor's 50mm f/1.4?

Don't take my word for it. Do a comparison for yourself. I understand that TK Foto is selling Sigma 50mm at $700+ recently. Most other shops are selling at $800+.

 

[nic67]

If I were you, I'd rather go for a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC or even a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Not so much that the AF-S 16-85 VR is not a good lens, but I think paying that much for a quality 'kit-lens' (as is normally sold together with D300s), I still think getting an f2.8 lens gets you much more in terms of picture quality/Bokehs.

 

[nic67]

If I were you, I'd rather go for a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC or even a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Not so much that the AF-S 16-85 VR is not a good lens, but I think paying that much for a quality 'kit-lens' (as is normally sold together with D300s), I still think getting an f2.8 lens gets you much more in terms of picture quality/Bokehs.