New 24-85 vs 16-85

I am presently using my D7K with 16-85 lens. Although of good quality and useful range for my purposes, I would like a lens with better optical quality. If any members have experienced the use of both lenses on a D7K could you provide me with your personal feel about the optical quality of these lenses?

--
LenG

Both are garbage, imo.  Keep your kit lens, and buy 35/1.8g, 50/1.8d/g and 85/1.8d/g.

But how do you really feel? Just kidding as I always appreciate responses. I, at one time used a 24-120 f/4 lens on D7K which gave me great results but the combo was unbalanced. Gave up on primes many years ago as I hate changing lenses when I'm out shooting. I love high quality, medium range zooms. I am approaching my 80'th birthday and also do not like heavy kits to cary all day long. Oh well maybe Nikon will come up with a higher quality version of the 16-85 to make me happy. Other than focussing speed, I find that my copy of the 18-105 kit lens is slightly superior in optical performance to the 16-85 but of poorer construction and slower focussing. Thanks again for your response.

--
LenG

Len,

It has been quite a while since I have been around the forum or done much study on the current crop of lenses but I'm going to say not much has changed in my absence. If that's true (and I believe it to be), you will have to increase substantially in price, weight, and size to have significant image improvement. Not to mention a range reduction. To experience significant image improvement, will will need a combo something like the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200VR. The associated costs will probably encourage you to love that 16-85.

Phil

I also like primes but if you have to go with a zoom, take a look at the: Tamron SP 17-50mm F/2.8 Di II XR VC LD Aspherical IF Nikon

If it was me, I would be a nice UWA (zoom or prime) the 35mm f1.8, 50mm 1.8 and the 85mm f1.8.

--
Mássimo
http://10000lakesphotography.com/

I appreciate the responses. It appears that Nikon is not encouraging it's crop sensor user base to stick around. Even Sony has come up with an excellent 16-50 f/2.8 lens for their SLT users.

LenG

Ah, OK -- if that's the route you are looking to travel, the Nikkor 17-55DX will provide stunning image quality. I do most of my work with that lens. The Sony 16-50 can't touch it. Again, it's fairly expensive and heavy but will certainly do the job. It's all in what you want.

Phil

Couple of years ago I read a number of posts that indicated that the 17-55 lens was optically great but notorious for being one of the worst for sucking dust into cameras.

--
LenG

You DO understand how opinions are on the internet, right? Most people are simply parroting what they read somewhere and have no actual experience with the object in question.

The lenses notorious for sucking dust are those that extend and retract quite a bit when zooming. The 17-55 is NOT one of those. My 17-55 pretty much lives on my D200 body and I have NEVER had to clean the sensor -- NEVER. That's after 70,000+ images. Yes, a good many of those were with the 70-200VR and 85/1.4 but I'll say 85% were with the 17-55.

The only sensor I have had to clean on a regular basis was my old D70 using the original kit lens that extended and retracted on zoom. Whoever says the 17-55 sucks dust is lying -- plain and simple.

Welcome input; thanks. Do you think that the 17-55 will balance poorly on a D7000? My guess is that the combo may also be fairly heavy.

--
LenG

I have the 24-85. It's a decent lens. I can't imagine it's any better than the 16-85, and I'm not sure why you'd be looking at restricting your focal range on DX, unless you really never use the wide end of your 16-85.

I second the Tamron; before I went full frame, I had the original 17-50 f/2.8. Great lens.

It will balance poorly and be very heavy. You will find yourself using the lens to carry the camera -- but it's the same with any pro-level zoom. It is a big lens and it is front heavy as dictated by all that glass needed to supply a constant F2.8. It is also uncomfortable to shoot due to the position of the zoom ring. Ah, but the image quality!! All that uncomfortable stuff disappears, though, when you clients exclaim, "wow -- you take good pictures!!". It's mostly the lens.

Just like with about everything in photography -- it's a compromise. You must decide what you want and then learn to live with the bad parts. With the 17-55, the "bad parts" are it's heavy and unwieldy.

Phil

Wow!!  You require "better" optical quality than the 16-85 on a D7000?  I don't have and have never shot with the 24-85, but how much better and for how much more is the 24-85??  What excactly do you need the lenses for?  Here are two shots i got yesterday.  Would the 24-85 do better than this??  Don't waste your money.  I took a shot at my lunch and brand new car yesterday.

I have been spoiled by some excellent glass such as L lenses on 5DMK3 as well as having shot with the Nikon 24-120 f/4 lens on a previous D7K but am desperate for a lighter travel kit with superior optics and good dynamic range and decent high ISO capability. I also need good image stabilization and fast, accurate focus. I don't believe that my requirements are so unique. I shoot aperture priority, center point focus and recompose. Never use flash. Use one medium range zoom which I leave home with and stick with for the day. I don't believe that my requirements should be so difficult to obtain but it appears that is the case. If manufacurers can meet these requirements with large, heavy full frame kits they should also be able to do the same for a scaled down DX kit. As I have previously stated I will be 80 years old in less than 2 months and would love a lighter, superb quality kit for my hikes.

--
LenG

Using the D7000 the 16-85 VR is the clear winner between these two. In fact, the 16-85 VR is the best lens in this zoom range, period - for the D7000. Do 4-6 hrs of researchand I am sure you will agree . . . or flop around here and get a half dozen differing opinions from folks with hugely differing photographic backgrounds.

If you are in love with the upper end, the new Nikon 70-200 f4 is the absolute winner.

--
Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com

Beware of silly comments that the lenses discussed are "garbage." I own some fine fast nikon glass and use the 24-85vr in place of the 24-70 2.8. I also own the 85mm and 50mm primes and again the little "kit lens" is quite a stunner and a fine walkaround. I chose it over the 24-120 F4 after testing both for a day.

If the 24-85vr then so is the 24-120 F4 and quite frankly the 24-70 2.8 stopped down to 4.5 at 70mm is also lousy! You'd have a tough time telling the shots from all of them apart.

Below is a simple snap from the 24-85vr at wide open at 4.5 at 85mm. In the real world this is as good as my 70-200 VRII could do at 4.5. Obviously the point of the fast zoom is to shoot it at 2.8, but the point of the 24-85vr is that it's small/light.

Robert





Both the Sigma 17-50 OS and Tamron 17-50 VC f2.8 offer all of that, and fairly inexpensively.

--
Jim

I appreciate all the responses but it is hard to believe that responders are discussing the same lenses; from "junk" to "excellent". I realize that it is up to the OP to make his or her own decisions but sometimes the responses are so far apart that it gets disouraging.

--
LenG

Nice shot of the exact dead center of the frame, where pretty much all lenses preform. Next.

rears its ugly head in the lens forum, devoid of any factual or practical basis.

The 24-85VR would be an excellent choice.  It is sharp edge to edge through its entire range at all f stops on DX.  It is sharper than the 16-85VR or any zoom lens under $1200 hands down.  It has better bokeh, too.  You're using the inner portion of an FX lens, and getting quite the free ride for resolution using it on DX.  It also outresolves the D800e center to mid just in case you're thinking of going FX at some point.

The unit is at or below one blur unit in its entirety on a D7000 per SLRGear.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1526/cat/13

"Used wide open on the D7000, images are almost tack-sharp, with just a hint of corner softness at the 24mm focal length. Zooming to 50mm or stopping down even just a half-stop solves this problem and you're left with super-sharp images."

Photozone has it pushing 4000 lwph at four f stops center to mid.  Sharp as a Zeiss or a Nikon prime.  Nikon hit a home run with this kens as they have with every kit lens in recent history. The 24-120 or the 24-70 are better around the edges, but be prepared to lug it and a gold bar or two when  purchasing.

Photozone