16-85mm vs 18-105mm worth the cost?

I'm looking for a general purpose lens to use on a D7000....

Why is the 16-85mm worth the extra $$ over the 18-105mm? The 16-85mm is only slightly faster and the 18-105mm has a broader range and has generally gotten good reviews so what about the 16-85mm makes it worth the higher cost?

Thanks

Yes.

and No.

Depends who you ask.

Try a search.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

The range on the 16-85mm is actually bigger, if I am not mistaken close or slightly above the 18-200mm! If you go by strict numbers, then of couse the 18-135mm has a wider range, but if you go by vieving angle, then the 16-85 covers a bigger range!

Read Thom Hogan on this issue!

http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor16-85lensreview.htm

Whether or not the 16-85 is worth the extra dosh to you depends on how you shoot. If you have ever used a 24mm versus 28mm in the olden days or full frame these days, you will know that 24mm opens up skies much, much more than a 28mm lens!



Regards
Deed

Why

jack92029 said:

I'm looking for a general purpose lens to use on a D7000....

Why is the 16-85mm worth the extra $$ over the 18-105mm? The 16-85mm is only slightly faster and the 18-105mm has a broader range and has generally gotten good reviews so what about the 16-85mm makes it worth the higher cost?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Had the 16-85 nice lense, and as you noted very pricey.

The build is the best of the consumer zooms I've owned, and I've owned too many. My favorite actually has/was the 18-105 can't be beat for price, value and IQ / $.

If you need the extra 2mm on the wide side its priceless so that was orginally why I piciked it up, Found I very rarely needed the extra 2mm and liked the additional 20mm on the long side.

I think at web sized viewing to 8x10 would be hard pressed to tell the two lenses apart, now for peepers that is another story

jack92029 said:

I'm looking for a general purpose lens to use on a D7000....

Why is the 16-85mm worth the extra $$ over the 18-105mm? The 16-85mm is only slightly faster and the 18-105mm has a broader range and has generally gotten good reviews so what about the 16-85mm makes it worth the higher cost?

Thanks

Click to expand...

The range of the 18-200 is clearly wider than the range of the 16-85. Thom's comment about close focus is not always relevant. How often do you focus closely at 200mm? I'm pretty much always focusing on distant objects at 200mm.

Also, Nikon Imaging lists different angle specs than Thom does.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/zoom/normalzoom/af-s_dx_18-200mmf_35-56g_ed_vr2/index.htm

76° - 8°

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/zoom/normalzoom/af-s_dx_16-85mmf_35-56g_vr/index.htm

83° - 18°50’

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/pdf/nikkor_lenses.pdf

deednets said:

The range on the 16-85mm is actually bigger, if I am not mistaken close or slightly above the 18-200mm! If you go by strict numbers, then of couse the 18-135mm has a wider range, but if you go by vieving angle, then the 16-85 covers a bigger range!

Read Thom Hogan on this issue!

http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor16-85lensreview.htm

Click to expand...

Hmm, depends on how much of a wide angle shooter you are. If you plan to buy another 'true' wide angle zoom anyway (like the Nikon 10-24), then just get the 18-105. If this lens is going to be the widest that you plan on buying for your camera, then maybe in that case the additional expense would be worth it.
--
http://www.southfloridapics.com

I think you you should check the lens spec's on the 16-85 !1 It is far superior to the 18-105, this will clearly show up in your images. The feel of the lens clearly tells you this is a quality piece of glass !! I have one on my D5000 after looking closely for a good walkabout Nikkor. I have not for one moment regreted this purchase, this lens delivers at either end of the scale. If you are after more larger images go for a new 55-300mm next or the stunning newTamron SP 70-300 F4-5.6.
I can say the 16mm ( 24 in DX ) is very useful and you quickly find this out.

Blue Bandit said:

I think you you should check the lens spec's on the 16-85 !1 It is far superior to the 18-105, this will clearly show up in your images. The feel of the lens clearly tells you this is a quality piece of glass !! I have one on my D5000 after looking closely for a good walkabout Nikkor. I have not for one moment regreted this purchase, this lens delivers at either end of the scale. If you are after more larger images go for a new 55-300mm next or the stunning newTamron SP 70-300 F4-5.6.
I can say the 16mm ( 24 in DX ) is very useful and you quickly find this out.

Click to expand...

SLR Gear reviews don't show much of a difference in sharpness. CA and distortion are a bit higher on the 18-105. Build quality is of course better on the 16-85. The question really is whether all that is worth the money to you. Around here it looks like you can get the 18-105 for about half the cost of 16-85 (whether you go used or new for both of them); if you feel the cost is worth it, then go for it. Myself, I am planning on the 18-105 for a few reasons: first, it will let me get the D7000 earlier than if I went body only ;-); second, even though the build quality is not quite as good, I can completely destroy the lens and buy a new one for the same amount as a 16-85 (and I have never even come close to destroying a lens!); third, I plan to have 'special' lenses for when I need extremes (wide angle - Sigma 10-20, sharpness - 35 or 50 or 85 f/1.8, etc), thus, for the 'everything else' case I don't need the lens to be top of the line. If I only planned on getting one lens, I would be much more inclined to get the 16-85, as it seems to be a bit better all around.

Cheers
--
--Wyatt
http://photos.digitalcave.ca
All images (c) unless otherwise specified, please ask me before editing.

Far superior? Actually the 18-105 shows better resolution at all apertures - by independent testers. The 18-105 does have a little worse CA - which can be corrected in raw conversion with ACR - or Nikon software. For myself, I prefer the 18-105 which I bought for my wife's D300.

Blue Bandit said:

I think you you should check the lens spec's on the 16-85 !1 It is far superior to the 18-105, this will clearly show up in your images. The feel of the lens clearly tells you this is a quality piece of glass !! I have one on my D5000 after looking closely for a good walkabout Nikkor. I have not for one moment regreted this purchase, this lens delivers at either end of the scale. If you are after more larger images go for a new 55-300mm next or the stunning newTamron SP 70-300 F4-5.6.
I can say the 16mm ( 24 in DX ) is very useful and you quickly find this out.

Click to expand...

--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com

Agreed, the difference is 3.5 deg in favour of the 18-200! Just read Thoms article without double cheking! So it seems it boils down to personal preference!

Thanks!
Deed

zzzzzzzzzzz said:

The range of the 18-200 is clearly wider than the range of the 16-85. Thom's comment about close focus is not always relevant. How often do you focus closely at 200mm? I'm pretty much always focusing on distant objects at 200mm.

Also, Nikon Imaging lists different angle specs than Thom does.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/zoom/normalzoom/af-s_dx_18-200mmf_35-56g_ed_vr2/index.htm

76° - 8°

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/zoom/normalzoom/af-s_dx_16-85mmf_35-56g_vr/index.htm

83° - 18°50’

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/pdf/nikkor_lenses.pdf

deednets said:

The range on the 16-85mm is actually bigger, if I am not mistaken close or slightly above the 18-200mm! If you go by strict numbers, then of couse the 18-135mm has a wider range, but if you go by vieving angle, then the 16-85 covers a bigger range!

Read Thom Hogan on this issue!

http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor16-85lensreview.htm

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

zzzzzzzzzzz said:

The range of the 18-200 is clearly wider than the range of the 16-85. Thom's comment about close focus is not always relevant. How often do you focus closely at 200mm? I'm pretty much always focusing on distant objects at 200mm.

Also, Nikon Imaging lists different angle specs than Thom does.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/zoom/normalzoom/af-s_dx_18-200mmf_35-56g_ed_vr2/index.htm

76° - 8°

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/zoom/normalzoom/af-s_dx_16-85mmf_35-56g_vr/index.htm

83° - 18°50’

Click to expand...

That either shows that specs are bogus, typos abound, or one should get practical/real to answer these types of questions. I've owned both the 18-200 and 16-85, and I don't need a spec to tell me which gives a wider perspective.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .



Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.com/store
Wedding & Portrait: http://esfotoclix.com/wedevent
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

Never had the 16-85 so anything I might say about it is from pics I've seen and reviews read. I do have a 18-105mm which I got brand new on Ebay for 240.00.

For the price I can dare say that the Nikon18-105 is the best buy in lens right now irrespective of manufacturer. It's a staggering sharp lens nice contrast , fast and silent. Having said this I must admit that for me the 16-85 is a better lens, period. It might not be sharper then the 105 , is it's equal . But where the 85 has an optical advantage over the 105 by what I've seen over and over again is colors and contrast which are a delight to look at.

Some have argumented that the 85 gets it's color rendition and contrast being a bit dark , thus being percieved as the more contrasty lens. What ever the reason I believe it to be better , at least that's what I've seen .

The pics below were taken with the Nikon 18-105mm

jack92029 said:

I'm looking for a general purpose lens to use on a D7000....

Why is the 16-85mm worth the extra $$ over the 18-105mm? The 16-85mm is only slightly faster and the 18-105mm has a broader range and has generally gotten good reviews so what about the 16-85mm makes it worth the higher cost?

Thanks

Click to expand...

I owned both and kept the 16-85. The 2mm wider translates in to 6-7 degrees wider view (depending on which way you choose to measure). While the difference at the long end is only around 3 degrees difference in angle of view.
The 16mm end is wide enough so I generally did not bring my UWA.

Between the two lenses you are looking at, the 16-85 has an edge in sharpness, less distortion, less chromatic aberration, more effective stabilization, better build quality (metal vs plastic mount, etc).

Both are "ok" lenses. The 18-105 is a better value lens, but the 16-85 is a better lens. This is something you are going to meet over and over as you buy lenses. The Sigma 70-200os is a better value, the Nikon 70-200vr is a better lens. You will just have to make up your own mind how much this extra quality is worth to you. We spent our own money not yours, ultimately you have to do the same.

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

Are you claiming that the 16-85 has a wider range of focals and picture angles than the 18-200? I hope not.

eNo said:

That either shows that specs are bogus, typos abound, or one should get practical/real to answer these types of questions. I've owned both the 18-200 and 16-85, and I don't need a spec to tell me which gives a wider perspective.

Click to expand...

zzzzzzzzzzz said:

Are you claiming that the 16-85 has a wider range of focals and picture angles than the 18-200? I hope not.

eNo said:

That either shows that specs are bogus, typos abound, or one should get practical/real to answer these types of questions. I've owned both the 18-200 and 16-85, and I don't need a spec to tell me which gives a wider perspective.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It is a case of both you reading too fast.

He thought you were saying the 18-200 was wider. You thought he was saying the 16-85 was longer.
--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

I think it was a typo/mental misfire and he meant to say 18-105mm instead of 18-200mm.

Obviously since brain sharing isn't invented yet it is extremely likely that I am wrong.

zzzzzzzzzzz said:

Are you claiming that the 16-85 has a wider range of focals and picture angles than the 18-200? I hope not.

eNo said:

That either shows that specs are bogus, typos abound, or one should get practical/real to answer these types of questions. I've owned both the 18-200 and 16-85, and I don't need a spec to tell me which gives a wider perspective.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Im not going to get into which one is better, some people perfer one and other prefer the other

one thing that i will suggest is that you get the 18-105 for one simple reason. Assuming you didnt already order the D7000, if you buy it as a Kit the 18-105 will cost you less then it usualy does. when you are setteled with the camera and lens after few months you can always change it easy since you are not going to loose too much money on the 18-105. Also the price difference is almost big enough that you might be able to add a little and get a even wider lens along the 18-105 or a tele if you find it too short, or a faster prime.

jack92029 said:

I'm looking for a general purpose lens to use on a D7000....

Why is the 16-85mm worth the extra $$ over the 18-105mm? The 16-85mm is only slightly faster and the 18-105mm has a broader range and has generally gotten good reviews so what about the 16-85mm makes it worth the higher cost?

Thanks

Click to expand...

jack92029 said:

I'm looking for a general purpose lens to use on a D7000....

Why is the 16-85mm worth the extra $$ over the 18-105mm? The 16-85mm is only slightly faster and the 18-105mm has a broader range and has generally gotten good reviews so what about the 16-85mm makes it worth the higher cost?

Click to expand...

Better build quality, more options with VR, and a more useful range.

You can crop 85mm to get the same perspective as 105mm and still have a decent-sized image (10.5MP on the D7000). But you can uncrop the 18-105 at 18mm to get a 16mm perspective. And for landscapes, 16mm is pretty nice (~ 10% more linear coverage).

Of course, whether those things are worth it for you is a question you'll have to answer for yourself!

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey