16-85 vs 18-140 vs Fuji XF18-55

jshen808 · Apr 22, 2018

rpps said:
I bought the 16-85 mm lens for my D5600 as I wanted a lens a bit wider and longer than the supplied kit lens 18-55 AF-P. On the D300 I use to own the 16-85 was a good performer but on my D5600 I find my photos look pretty soft. I think the resolution of the 24mpx sensor in the D5600 is showing up the weekness of the 16-85.

I have started using the 18-55 AF-P lens again until my Sigma 17-50 f2.8 arrives, I'm amazed by the image quality of this cheap little kit lens. Much better sharpness and clarity than my 16-85mm lens and it easily keeps up with my Tamron 24-70 lens on my D750.

I paid $A740 for the16-85 which has been less than satisfactory on my D5600 and still irks me wasting so much money on such a bad lens.

..One thought came to mind for your D5600 and 16-85mm..

..the D5600 camera has three resolution modes..

6000 x 4000 = 24.0mp (Large)

4496 x 3000 = 13.5mp (Medium)

2992 x 2000 = 6.0mp (Small)

..it is possible to use the D5600 camera in the 'medium' resolution mode of 13.5mp, and able to use the 16-85mm lens just fine..

..and just in case, can use this 'mode' to use with other lenses too.. ;-)

..it's worth a try.. :-D

..Cheers..

sluggy_warrior · Apr 23, 2018

Ruekon said:
I agree that you need really good (and expensive) glass for FX if you want to beat DX, in particular when having lenses like the Sigma f/1.8 zooms available.

I disagree though that the 18-140 is only for beginners. It is also for convenience if you are aware of the tradeoffs (don't use it for posters of brick walls ;-).

Coming back to the OP's question, the 18-140 is as good as the 16-85 (at 85mm even better) despite of offering a larger zoom range. Optically better lenses are available for Nikon DX as well (16-80, 18-35, ...).

Thanks much for providing sample shots to compare those lens against the 18-140. Now I feel hopeless in looking for a replacement for the 18-140 :-( I'll just use the 35mm prime only, and let my daughter plays with the 18-140.

I know it's not a fair comparison against lenses of different zoom ranges, but at 18mm which is the most common focal length, the lenses should do reasonable good, so that's why I compared them at 18mm.

Here's a random shot of a (brick, again) building at my campus (slightly adjusted the base curve in Darktable since I usually shoot underexposed). The XF18-55 is not only sharp, but the contrast, color, and clarity are also good. I've noticed the differences in color between the 18-140 vs 35 as well, even at same aperture and focal length, indoor shots of the 18-140 tend to be dull while the 35 gives vivid and correct color (duh, prime vs zoom).

sluggy_warrior · Apr 23, 2018

rpps said:
I bought the 16-85 mm lens for my D5600 as I wanted a lens a bit wider and longer than the supplied kit lens 18-55 AF-P. On the D300 I use to own the 16-85 was a good performer but on my D5600 I find my photos look pretty soft. I think the resolution of the 24mpx sensor in the D5600 is showing up the weekness of the 16-85.

I have started using the 18-55 AF-P lens again until my Sigma 17-50 f2.8 arrives, I'm amazed by the image quality of this cheap little kit lens. Much better sharpness and clarity than my 16-85mm lens and it easily keeps up with my Tamron 24-70 lens on my D750.

I paid $A740 for the16-85 which has been less than satisfactory on my D5600 and still irks me wasting so much money on such a bad lens.

Yes, the new 18-55 AF-P and 18-140 were designed for the 24MP sensor (and without AA filter) so they can resolve better resolution. Older lenses, while were superb on older sensors, might not be as good for the new sensors, that's why I hesitate about the prestige lenses of the past. Thanks for the heads-up about the 16-85.

sluggy_warrior · Apr 23, 2018

jshen808 said:
..One thought came to mind for your D5600 and 16-85mm..

..the D5600 camera has three resolution modes..

6000 x 4000 = 24.0mp (Large)

4496 x 3000 = 13.5mp (Medium)

2992 x 2000 = 6.0mp (Small)

..it is possible to use the D5600 camera in the 'medium' resolution mode of 13.5mp, and able to use the 16-85mm lens just fine..

..and just in case, can use this 'mode' to use with other lenses too.. ;-)

..it's worth a try.. :-D

..Cheers..

rpps · Apr 23, 2018

I might try the 16-85 on my D750 set on FX mode that might be the same as trying it on a 12 mpx camera.

inlawbiker · Apr 23, 2018

sluggy_warrior said:
So, obviously I'm giving up on the 18-140. My question: is the Nikon 16-85 comparable to the Fuji 18-55 in term of quality and sharpness? I'm more than willing to trade a shorter zoom range for better IQ, otherwise the 35mm will be the only lens on my D5500 going forward.

Hm I agree with your conclusion, the 18-140 is a convenient, pretty good lens but nothing to write home about. I slightly prefer the 18-200 to be honest, for the extra range and similar quality. I think the 16-85 is marginally better than both but not by a lot. It's certainly better built and wider.

I have used just about all of the DX zoom lenses in this range, the only one that's actually any better than the rest, in my opinion, is the 18-70 AF-S. Not just a little better, but clearly better to me. I have not tried the new AF-P lenses though because I don't have a compatible camera.

As compared to the Fuji, never used it, but I've used the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS, this is a very good lens. Better than the 18-70 for sure. It' also quite compact and inexpensive, although it has a limited zoom range.

You might just skip to the end, the new 16-80 seems like the ideal lens. I have not used it though. If it's in the same class as the Sigma 17-50 then I would think it's a no-brainer.

jshen808 · Apr 23, 2018

rpps said:
I might try the 16-85 on my D750 set on FX mode that might be the same as trying it on a 12 mpx camera.

..yes, it's worth trying.. :-D

..Cheers..

jonikon · Apr 23, 2018

sluggy_warrior said:
Ruekon said:

I agree that you need really good (and expensive) glass for FX if you want to beat DX, in particular when having lenses like the Sigma f/1.8 zooms available.

I disagree though that the 18-140 is only for beginners. It is also for convenience if you are aware of the tradeoffs (don't use it for posters of brick walls ;-).

Coming back to the OP's question, the 18-140 is as good as the 16-85 (at 85mm even better) despite of offering a larger zoom range. Optically better lenses are available for Nikon DX as well (16-80, 18-35, ...).

Click to expand...

Thanks much for providing sample shots to compare those lens against the 18-140. Now I feel hopeless in looking for a replacement for the 18-140 :-( I'll just use the 35mm prime only, and let my daughter plays with the 18-140.

I know it's not a fair comparison against lenses of different zoom ranges, but at 18mm which is the most common focal length, the lenses should do reasonable good, so that's why I compared them at 18mm.

I suggest you find a good copy of the Nikon18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED DX AF-S and you will be happy (if you are OK without VR), as it is the sharpest of this type of lens and is built better than the 18-140 as well. I too have found VR a double edged sword which has sometimes produced ghosting in the final image.

rbmphoto · Apr 23, 2018

I’ve used Nikon dx bodies for travel since the d40x, through the d5xxx series, and now the second d5500. Through the d5100, the 16-85 gave wonderful results, very good at any price range, truly spectacular in its class - but I’m certainly willing to allow for the possibility that I have a very good copy. It was the only dx lens I owned, as my Nikon glass purchases began with film, and I’ve had ff bodies since their first arrival.

When the 16-80 first came out, I purchased one at full retail from B&H, and have never regretted it, and have never used the 16-85 since. I still have the 16-85, as I can’t quite part with it for all the wonderful travel pics it has taken, but after extensive comparisons between the two, particularly on 24mp sensors, just believe the 16-80 is better in every way. I tried a couple of more times to compare the two, and just couldn’t get past the image quality difference to reuse the 16-85. I went back and compared the two on earlier, less dense dx sensor bodies, and the results still favored the newer model.- and I’m a guy who loved the 16-85...

At the risk of alienating a reader, I never have understood the attraction of going to Fuji dx from Nikon. The cameras are larger/heavier than the 3/5xxx series, and lens about the same size, and one adds a totally diferent user interface. I certainly understand why someone would initially purchase Fuji as they are wonderful products with a unique jpeg rendering, but don’t understand why existing Nikon user, particularly anyone shooting raw, would hope to gain fron adding Fuji gear to a relatively current Nikon smaller dx body. I’m a simple guy though, and the reason(s) are likely obvious.

For what it’s worth, I have played with the 16-80 on my ff bodies and they hold up very well within their circle of coverage.

At any rate, my recommendation would be to buy the excellent 16-80 lens, sell the rest, and simplify your life. BTW, Nikon ff afs glass (including primes to 1.4) works well on the d5500; if you have an opportunity to purchase good quality ff glass at very reasonable prices, and the size/weight is not an issue, you won’t be disappointed.

good luck!

sluggy_warrior · Apr 23, 2018

rbmphoto said:
I’ve used Nikon dx bodies for travel since the d40x, through the d5xxx series, and now the second d5500. Through the d5100, the 16-85 gave wonderful results, very good at any price range, truly spectacular in its class - but I’m certainly willing to allow for the possibility that I have a very good copy. It was the only dx lens I owned, as my Nikon glass purchases began with film, and I’ve had ff bodies since their first arrival.

When the 16-80 first came out, I purchased one at full retail from B&H, and have never regretted it, and have never used the 16-85 since. I still have the 16-85, as I can’t quite part with it for all the wonderful travel pics it has taken, but after extensive comparisons between the two, particularly on 24mp sensors, just believe the 16-80 is better in every way. I tried a couple of more times to compare the two, and just couldn’t get past the image quality difference to reuse the 16-85. I went back and compared the two on earlier, less dense dx sensor bodies, and the results still favored the newer model.- and I’m a guy who loved the 16-85...

Thanks for the comparison between 16-80 and 16-85, that so far is the only missing info between the Nikon lenses discussed. Sounds like I can stick to the plan of getting the 16-80 when I have a chance, it's a recent lens so it should work with the new sensor well. Except VR will still be useless with the D5500 :-(

.

rbmphoto said:
At the risk of alienating a reader, I never have understood the attraction of going to Fuji dx from Nikon. The cameras are larger/heavier than the 3/5xxx series, and lens about the same size, and one adds a totally diferent user interface. I certainly understand why someone would initially purchase Fuji as they are wonderful products with a unique jpeg rendering, but don’t understand why existing Nikon user, particularly anyone shooting raw, would hope to gain fron adding Fuji gear to a relatively current Nikon smaller dx body. I’m a simple guy though, and the reason(s) are likely obvious.

No worries, the fact that I'm still trying to make use of my D5500 means that I'm not totally a traitor, yet

Shooting Nikon DSLRs for the last 8 years, I've never thought of getting a mirrorless. The slow/laggy and battery-eating EVF has always been an obvious downside comparing to the OVF. The main reason I started looking was because of the mirror noise of the D5500, and it's way noisier than my old D5100, so annoying in conference rooms. I did a lot of reading and research for about 2 months, comparing different mirrorless, went to Best Buy several times to handle them and listen to the shutter noise (can't remember either Olympus or Panasonic has the quietest shutter, definitely not the Fuji). Also downloaded the sample RAW files from review sites, tinkered around in Darktable, and inspected them all closely. When I settled for the X-T20, it wasn't a lightly-made decision since the camera with XF18-55 was more than double the price of my refurbished D5500.

At first I thought the X-T20 would just be my secondary camera, I tried to change the settings and adapt to its limitation (EVF set to always-on, auto switch-off after 30 seconds, buying two extra batteries, ...). The real turning point was once I saw the photos I took being clearly better than from the D5500 (with my same crappy skills). Not sure if it's the sensor, the lens, or both, but overall better color, sharpness, and high-ISO noise.

Here're some quick shots that I just did of my living room. They're not adjusted anyway in Darktable, just applied the same denoise combo for both RAF and NEF. They're all shot with no exposure compensation, just tried to match up the same apertures and ISO (all handheld with VR on, except the 35prime on tripod). I think the differences are quite obvious.

D5500 - 35 prime @ 35mm - on tripod

D5500 - 18-140 @ 18mm - VR on

X-T20 - 18-55 @ 18mm - VR on

X-T20 - 18-55 @ 35mm - VR on

.

.

rbmphoto said:
For what it’s worth, I have played with the 16-80 on my ff bodies and they hold up very well within their circle of coverage.

At any rate, my recommendation would be to buy the excellent 16-80 lens, sell the rest, and simplify your life. BTW, Nikon ff afs glass (including primes to 1.4) works well on the d5500; if you have an opportunity to purchase good quality ff glass at very reasonable prices, and the size/weight is not an issue, you won’t be disappointed.

good luck!

So, obviously at this point, I'm keeping the D5500 as secondary since I somehow enjoy the X-T20 very much although it's not any lighter or smaller. I'm not trying to list out why one is better over the other, it's a never ending debate and I'm still in love with Nikon (at least their sensors are still way better than Canon). Speaking of which, perhaps one of the reasons I like the X-T20 is because of my beloved very first SLR, the Canon AE1-P

(hey, at least I took this photo using the D5500)

rbmphoto · Apr 23, 2018

18-140 no match for the 16-xx nikons or the fuji.

??? VR works find on 16-80 / d5500 combo, at least on mine for the last couple of years...

again, good luck!

ps. surprised by shutter noise on your d5500, have owned two and both were/are pretty quiet, never aware of more noise than my beloved d5100, certainly less than any of the nikon ffs I have owned. Perhaps listen to a different copy?

Ruekon · Apr 23, 2018

Low light performance of your X-T20 looks impressive, compared to the D5500! It's also a couple of years newer, but the results prove that Nikon should consider upgrading the D5xxx and D3xxx models -- or does the X-T20 better compare to the D7500?

Such challenging light and space conditions is exactly when I love the Sigma 18-35:

Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 under challenging light and space conditions

Alternatively a prime, but never one of the Nikon DX zooms indoors -- not even the 16-80.

sluggy_warrior · Apr 23, 2018

rbmphoto said:
ps. surprised by shutter noise on your d5500, have owned two and both were/are pretty quiet, never aware of more noise than my beloved d5100, certainly less than any of the nikon ffs I have owned. Perhaps listen to a different copy?

Just did a recording with my Tascam DR-40, both D5500 and D5100 with 18-140 on, put the recordings side-by-side with each shutter speeds (1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250). If you open the audio file in Audacity, you'll see the magnitude of D5500 is about double of the D5100. It's also mostly the high-pitch sound of the D5500 that grabs attention.

Loading…

drive.google.com

rbmphoto · Apr 24, 2018

Clearly you’ve well documented the difference on your copy. Alternatives would be to get it serviced, trade it in on another d5500, or perhaps better yet a refurbished d7200. This assumes you want to stay with Nikon dx.

In my case, having had a series of Nikon dx bodies for travel, unless this one breaks, I suspect it will be the last one I purchase. It suits my needs perfectly, and dx is the smallest format I prefer to use, even ‘just’ for travel. Mirrorless holds no interest for me, and as lens size is determined to a great extent by sensor size and not body type, I anticipate no real size/ weight savings down that path.

You need to find a package for travel you are happy with. A lesson I learned in my film days (at great expense

, is that you just can’t beat good glass, and should put your dollars there - instead of a latest body. Good glass makes any sensor look pretty darn good, but mediocre glass limits any body you ever attach to it.

So my longwinded ramble is to find one manufacturer and body you are happy with, and go for the best glass you can afford - good glass may not be forever, but it is a joy to use for a long, long time.

ps. The reason I am on my second 5500 was just that the first one, while very good, just did not seem to knock my socks off. The major limitation with the 3/5xxx line (and selling point for mirrorless) is their inability to fine tune lens - and perhaps the mating of my first 5500 to my 16-80/85 was just a tad off and these decades, I I’ve gotten to be a princess with a pea about what I’m looking at. At any rate, I sold my first copy, purchased new from B&H, to a happy buyer and tried a refurb from Cameta, and have been very pleased on both counts. BTW, I have no problem buying refurb from a reputable authorized vendor on some items that come with a good warranty - on the more complex costly items, I do like the ease and comfort of dealing with B&H getting a Nikon multiyear warranty - your milage may vary. I point this out only to emphasize that if you are not entirely happy with your photo package, you should get that way - many photo opportunities never come again.

rbm

sluggy_warrior · Apr 24, 2018

Ruekon said:
Low light performance of your X-T20 looks impressive, compared to the D5500! It's also a couple of years newer, but the results prove that Nikon should consider upgrading the D5xxx and D3xxx models -- or does the X-T20 better compare to the D7500?

See for yourself!

I stole the ISO 6400 RAW files of D7500 and X-T20 from dpreview's test lab, converted them in Darktable using the same denoise combo. The only adjustment was setting white balance to the gray square in the middle to be consistent.

I think noise level and detail retention is very similar, the X-T20 is just a tad better at colors as usual. It's also not a fair comparison as the Fuji lens is obviously sharper. I'd have included the ISO6400 from D5500 as well, but somehow my version of Darktable crapped out when opening it.

D7500, ISO 6400

X-T20, ISO 6400

I had a few photos like yours with my 35/f1.8, the bokeh is so nice, color and clarity are also really good. Did you pull the shadow up with the RAW file? I think pulling up the shadow a little more might make the image less contrasty/harsh and soften it up a bit, but that's just my crappy taste. Also a little OCD, I'd crop the left side just a bit more, whatever the bright/shiny piece on the left edge next to the crib/chair bugs me.

A fill flash bounced on the ceiling from the front might also help in this case. Speaking of flash, I've recently got into the Godox ecosystem, all of their flashes work together regardless of brands, so I have a Godox flash for Nikon but bought a Godox remote trigger for my X-T20. That works out nicely as a big flash is quite unbalanced sitting on top of the tiny X-T20 (and even the D5500).

sluggy_warrior · Apr 24, 2018

Slightly off topic: I found out more details about why Darktable crapped out on D5500 ISO6400 NEF file:

Loading…

discuss.pixls.us

Seems to me Nikon is trying to artificially limit the features/data of the lower D3xxx line with multiple settings/levels for the RAW files. Maybe it's simply technical limitation between different sensors. Regardless, the result is quite a mess for end users.

Comparing to Fuji's Kaizen philosophy, where they just released a huge firmware update to make the X-T20 even more awesome, I guess my choices so far have been logical and reasonable (using X-T20 as primary and D5500 as secondary).

Loading…

www.fujifilm.com

Perhaps, Ruekon was indeed right that the X-T20 should be compared to the D7500 instead of the D5500. I think I just did an upgrade, just not within the Nikon family.

JacquesC · Apr 25, 2018

Similar experience here.

I shoot both Nikon D750 and Fuji X-T2 and have noticed that I generally get sharper and more detailed images from the Fuji. What baffles me is that when I look at MTF charts of the various lenses then this should not happen. My Nikon lenses are the 24-70 f2.8 (non-VR), 24-120 f4 VR, 85mm f1.8G, and 50mm f1.8D. My Fuji lenses are XF18-55 and XF18-135.

Make no mistake, the Nikon lenses are fine and I've been quite happy with them (still am), but somehow the Fuji lenses appear to yield better results.

Perhaps the lack of AA filter on the X-T2 has something to do with this, I don't know.

sluggy_warrior · Apr 25, 2018

JacquesC said:
Similar experience here.

I shoot both Nikon D750 and Fuji X-T2 and have noticed that I generally get sharper and more detailed images from the Fuji. What baffles me is that when I look at MTF charts of the various lenses then this should not happen. My Nikon lenses are the 24-70 f2.8 (non-VR), 24-120 f4 VR, 85mm f1.8G, and 50mm f1.8D. My Fuji lenses are XF18-55 and XF18-135.

Make no mistake, the Nikon lenses are fine and I've been quite happy with them (still am), but somehow the Fuji lenses appear to yield better results.

Perhaps the lack of AA filter on the X-T2 has something to do with this, I don't know.

The D5500 also doesn't have AA filter, yet even with the 35 prime, the D5500 couldn't match the X-T20 in term of color and noise. Perhaps the X-Trans sensor indeed has some advantages due to its different filter array, its noise looks more "natural" even with the relatively new Markesteijn demosaicing algorithm.

Here's anther vs at ISO 51200 between the D7500 and X-T20, they look almost identical, except for small color patches (e.g. the color wheels, or the color charts to the right of the bottles, ...). D7500 and X-T20 are both better than D5500, perhaps that's why Nikon backed down from 24MP to 20.9MP sensor (more light per photosite, beside optimized for 4K)?

D7500, ISO 51200

X-T20, ISO 51200

Agreed, make no mistake, the Nikon lenses are really good. I used to be very proud of the 18-140. My colleague had the Tamron 16-300 on Canon 70D taking a group photo with me, the longer zoom 16-300 of course can't compare straightforward to the 18-140, but just to show how much better the Nikon is:

Tamron 16-300 on Canon 70D

Nikon 18-140 on D5500

One last question for ya, how's the XF18-135 compare to the XF18-55? I'm so tempting to get the longer zoom for travelling, but reviews show that its IQ is not that good, so I don't think it worths trading off the increase in weight and size (and money).

inlawbiker · Apr 25, 2018

JacquesC said:
Similar experience here.

I shoot both Nikon D750 and Fuji X-T2 and have noticed that I generally get sharper and more detailed images from the Fuji. What baffles me is that when I look at MTF charts of the various lenses then this should not happen. My Nikon lenses are the 24-70 f2.8 (non-VR), 24-120 f4 VR, 85mm f1.8G, and 50mm f1.8D. My Fuji lenses are XF18-55 and XF18-135.

Make no mistake, the Nikon lenses are fine and I've been quite happy with them (still am), but somehow the Fuji lenses appear to yield better results.

Perhaps the lack of AA filter on the X-T2 has something to do with this, I don't know.

Maybe it has to do with the accuracy of mirrorless. That's been my experience with Micro 4/3, the focus is always spot-on for AF-S focus. On the Nikon's there's sometimes a fine-tune mismatch. If you see better focus with liveview than the viewfinder, that would probably be the reason.

G.

Ruekon · Apr 25, 2018

JacquesC said:
Similar experience here.

I shoot both Nikon D750 and Fuji X-T2 and have noticed that I generally get sharper and more detailed images from the Fuji. What baffles me is that when I look at MTF charts of the various lenses then this should not happen. My Nikon lenses are the 24-70 f2.8 (non-VR), 24-120 f4 VR, 85mm f1.8G, and 50mm f1.8D. My Fuji lenses are XF18-55 and XF18-135.

Make no mistake, the Nikon lenses are fine and I've been quite happy with them (still am), but somehow the Fuji lenses appear to yield better results.

Perhaps the lack of AA filter on the X-T2 has something to do with this, I don't know.

The results of your comparison of D750 with X-T2 sound surprising. On the other hand, when considering the ever more impressive results possible with tiny smartphone sensors, it is obvious that there must be a huge potential left for comparably huge APS-C sensors. And Fuji is certainly working hard to push APS-C forward. From this perspective it does not appear impossible that the three years newer X-T2 beats the older full frame D750.

16-85 vs 18-140 vs Fuji XF18-55

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Ruekon

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Ruekon

Guest

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts