16-35mm vs. 16-85mm for D90

Started Dec 19, 2010 | Discussions thread
Jon Rty Veteran Member • Posts: 3,838
Re: 16-35mm vs. 16-85mm for D90

The 18-70mm is a very highly regarded lens. You'd be hard pressed to find any difference between the 16-85mm and the 18-70mm outside of the focal-length and VR. But the same can be said of the 16-35mm as well. Considering that you already own a ultrawide, I don't see much sense in replacing your already very good lens with another that might be slightly better.

Personally, if I had that kind of money burning in my pocket, I'd look for a lens that offers me something my current lenses don't. Something like the Sigma 85mm F/1.4, or maybe a macro lens comes to mind.

arctic_haven wrote:

The 16-35mm costs about $1100 new and the 16-85mm costs about $600 new. From what I understand the 16-35mm is the one of the sharpest wide angle lenses out there, second only to the 14-24mm. I shoot landscapes with my D90 and either the 10-24mm or the 18-70mm. Obviously I would be holding on the 10-24mm for those really wide angle shots but am looking into upgrading the 18-70mm.

I would love to switch to the next generation of FX cameras but barring winning the lotto that is probably years away. I would also consider the 17-55mm but I just cannot see spending $1300 on a DX lens.

So, is the 16-85mm really all that? Is it dwarfed in comparison to the 16-35mm? And keep in mind the 16-35mm on a cropped frame camera is going to eliminate most of the distortion at 16mm and provide a sharper corner to corner than on an FX.

What are your thoughts? Keep in mind money IS important.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow