16-85 vs. 18-105

Started Nov 17, 2012 | Discussions thread
Hennie de Ruyter
Hennie de Ruyter Contributing Member • Posts: 785
Re: 16-85 vs. 18-105

105 is not much better than 85. In both cases you would want a lens such as the 70-300, another great consumer-grade DX lens, if you need meaningful tele reach. (for many 300 is still not enough :-))

To then have either 18-105 + 70-300 or 16-85 + 70-300 makes the 16-85 the better choice as you have that extra 2mm on the wide angle side. (the 86-105 range is then covered by the 70-300 anyway).

That wide 2mm actually makes a nice difference. Just ask a Canon user who went from the Canon 17-85 to the newer Canon 15-85. 15 on Canon = 16 on Nikon as the Nikon sensor is slightly bigger.

I am a mountaineer/hiker who often only carry one lens, the 16-85 and that 16mm is so much more useful than 18mm. Yes, it is often still not wide enough but it is still great as a one-lens landscape solution for the person also carrying a tent, 5 days+ food and other gear.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow