DSLRUsers.com

Does anybody have a AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR yet?

I am looking at upgrading over the coming months and was looking at the 17-55 f2.8, but found this lens today and wondered if the VR would overcome the lack of f2.8?

I do mainly landscape photography, but occaisionaly use the 80mm end. I currently use my 18-70 kit lens mainly and also want to take a step up in quality of image.

Appreciate any thoughts or links to reviews.

Stuart French
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartfrench/

IMO the 17-55 is really more of an event/photojournalist lens, and probably has too much distortion at the wide end for landscapes (plus you'd really be wasting it shooting at ~ f/8).

Have you considered one of the ultrawides? the Tokina 12-24 is great (I love mine!) and the Sigma 10-20 is very highly regarded as well. Otherwise the 17-35 and 14-24 are known to be brilliant for wide stuff (and correspondingly exxy)

I reckon the 18-70 is one of the gems in the Nikon consumer range, so you will find it pretty hard to get a lens that will clearly beat it in image quality, especially stopped down for landscapes.

kurokaze204 wrote: wondered if the VR would overcome the lack of f2.8?

Stuart,

No.

VR permits you to use a slower shutter speed than might otherwise be possible: I've successfully shot, handheld, at a half second.

But if there is subject movement, then you may still have a need to shoot at f/2.8 with a faster shutter speed, rather than f/5.6 and a shutter speed measured in days. VR cannot address that problem for you.

Bottom line, VR is great, and just one of the tools you should consider including in your toolkit. Ditto for fast lenses.

I'm with the other guys, if ur mainly shooting landscapes then the 17-55 would be wasted. I have used the Tokina 12-24, really nice, and i have also used the Tamon 17-35mm, also really nice. I would have no problems recommending either lens, but if your looking at landscapes the Tokina's extra width will be really good to have.

Thanks guys,

I here what you are saying and appreciate the feedback.

I like the idea of the 12-24, but quite frequently use between 35-70mm on my kit lens. So I'm pretty sure having to change lenses all the time would drive me nuts.

Below are some example shots and their focal length:
48mm

70mm

18mm

So I guess the larger zoom is important. I was considering the 18-200 VR, but my friend bought one with his D200 and I was really dissapointed by the softness of the shots. I simply could not coax a really sharp shot out of it regardless of apeture of focal length. I have had slight focus problems for the last 12 months or so with my 18-70 and considered it to be age and travel wear and tear, but the 18-200 couldn't even beat my old kit lens.

Thus my looking at one of these two lenses. So is there no replacement for the 18-70 even if I spend $1500-$2000 for a lens? Am I stuck having to go for multiple lenses? (I plan to sell my kit lens with the D70 when I buy the D300).

kurokaze204 wrote:So is there no replacement for the 18-70 even if I spend $1500-$2000 for a lens? Am I stuck having to go for multiple lenses? (I plan to sell my kit lens with the D70 when I buy the D300).

G'day

I've recently bought a D300 and I have a18-200VR lens to go with it. It is a fine general purpose lens. I have just sold my D70S 18-70mm kit and a Sigma 70-300. The 18-200 is not as sharp as the 18-70 was and is certainly not better than the Sigma, but it's nice for those times when I don't want to change lenses in dusty dirty areas.

I have a couple of primes 50mm and 105mm but I wanted a replacement for my 18-700 that offers more sharpness and speed. I don't have the ability to pay $thousands so I've recently ordered the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 which I'm hoping will prove to be a worthy upgrade from the D70S kit lens. I doubt I'll miss the 18-24mm range, I usually crop my shots anyway. An analysis using the ExposurePlot software showed I mainly used the 18-70mm around the 35-45mm range.

Fantastic advice Bob, I downloaded and ran ExposurePlot and was a little shocked at the results.

It seems that about 17% of my shots were at 18mm and I know a lot of them I wanted to go wider.

The 24-70mm f2.8 converts to 40mm in a 35mm camera and only 1% of my shots were btween these two figures! Basically saying if I went for the Nikon or Tokina 12-24 wide-angle and the 24-70 f2.8 I should cover all my needs.

I am very glad I asked the question. Thankyou everybody for their input and feedback.

First thing I notice is the zoom ring is VERY stiff, takes a bit of strength to turn it, it's a bit weird but other people online have said that it's quite stiff as well.

Picture quality wise it's great, couldn't find much fault in it except for the normal barrel distortion at 16mm and little pincushion distortion at the telephoto end, other than that it's sharp (but stiff).

Yep the zoom rings are a little stiff! I used one in shop, the optics in the glass are very nice though. I guess if you want a general purpose lens this will do a great job. I'd pick this over the 18-200VR any day. I just find the 18-200VR is soft, its ok on a D80 and D40x but on a D300, which is a lil softer than the other bodies, it becomes too soft. But that is a personal opinion.

Damn u Cameron! i'm pretty keen on trying this lens too.. would be good as a walkabout - 28mm is too long sometimes, and 12-24 tokina doesnt give me enough range when i decide to leave the rest of the kit at home.

-j

seeto.centric wrote:Damn u Cameron! i'm pretty keen on trying this lens too.. would be good as a walkabout - 28mm is too long sometimes, and 12-24 tokina doesnt give me enough range when i decide to leave the rest of the kit at home.

-j

Yep it would be a great walkabout, even better if it was f/2.8 and FX though!!!