Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 9, 2013, 05:18 PM   #1
pilotkid
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chandler, AZ
Nikon 16-85mm

Hey everyone. I just got my D7100 today and I bought the body only. Now I'm looking to buy a lens. The Nikon 16-85mm has caught my eye for its versatility and I'm wanting to gather opinions from those who have this lens or have used it. In addition to this lens I plan on purchasing the 70-300mm or 80-400mm shortly after for the far out stuff. I'm a big aviation buff and its good to have a long lens for capturing aircraft at air shows, etc. Lets hear your options on the 16-85mm!
__________________
21.5in iMac (Late 2012), Early 2014 MacBook Air i7, 8GB RAM, iPhone 6 64GB, Nikon D610 W/24-85mm VR, Nikon 70-300mm, Canon Pixma Pro-100.
pilotkid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2013, 11:01 PM   #2
nneufeld
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Minnesota, United States
Well, I'll be honest. I'm not familiar with that exact lens. However, I'd be happy to give you a bit of advice about lenses generally.

Whatever you do, don't cheap out on the glass.

Indeed, I don't expect you to make an initial foray into photography by dropping $10k on bodies and glass and the 16-85 appears to be a relatively good lens. When it comes to lenses though, much more than the zoom range is important to determine the quality of the lens. The "F number" is one of the easiest ways to tell if a lens is any good or not (not always true, of course). The lower the F number (numerical representation of the physical size of the iris), the more light that the lens lets through to the sensor.

Because designing a lens with a larger iris is more difficult (read "more expensive"), this is generally a good indication of the overall quality of the construction of the lens. Further, a larger iris makes a lens more versatile, particularly in low-light situations.

Unfortunately, the DX line of lenses are somewhat limited in this regard as they are geared toward hobbyists and amateurs. If I were to pick from the lineup, I'd go with the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8.

This does come at a much steeper price. Remember though, your glass will last much longer than your body if you take care of it properly. Glass is an investment, bodies are not.

Keep in mind also that the DX cameras are able to mount FX lenses at a "crop factor" of 1.5. (a 70-200mm lens effectively becomes a 140-300mm).

You may also want to look into prime (non zoom) lenses.

And I like to answer questions so if anything here was helpful at all, I'd be happy to advise further.
nneufeld is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2013, 04:16 AM   #3
88888888
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2008
go with a used 17-55. can get a good one for 800~900. Only a few hundred more than new 16-85
__________________
Flickr
88888888 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2013, 08:38 AM   #4
BJMRamage
macrumors 68000
 
BJMRamage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by nneufeld View Post
Well, I'll be honest. I'm not familiar with that exact lens. However, I'd be happy to give you a bit of advice about lenses generally.

Whatever you do, don't cheap out on the glass.
This is great advise!
BJMRamage is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2013, 08:51 AM   #5
fa8362
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by BJMRamage View Post
This is great advise!
Not necessarily. Plenty of people can't tell the difference between the most expensive lenses and the less expensive lenses and/or don't care. So it would be bad advice for them. The truth is, most people don't need anything better than typical consumer lenses.
fa8362 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2013, 08:57 AM   #6
ohbrilliance
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
There are some good alternatives. Take a look at the Tamron 17-50/2.8 for one. I replaced my 18-70 kit lens (which should be comparable with the 16-85) with this, and found it a much better lens -- sharper wide-open and more flexible because of it.

While you shouldn't cheap out on glass, it also doesn't pay to go overboard. You can't compensate for good technique.
ohbrilliance is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2013, 09:01 AM   #7
magbarn
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohbrilliance View Post
There are some good alternatives. Take a look at the Tamron 17-50/2.8 for one. I replaced my 18-70 kit lens (which should be comparable with the 16-85) with this, and found it a much better lens -- sharper wide-open and more flexible because of it.

While you shouldn't cheap out on glass, it also doesn't pay to go overboard. You can't compensate for good technique.
Whilst the Tamron 17-50 is a good mid range zoom, the variable quality is killer. Highly suggest you buy it locally that has a good exchange policy. My 1st copy was much softer wide open than it should've been. The 16-85 is a great/versatile travel lens for me before I went all FX. I usually paired it with the Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX lens for a lightweight very usable combo for family trips. Yes the 17-55 2.8 is better and sharper, but that lens is too long on the tooth and is way too bulky and lacks VR for it's size/price. Nikon has been neglecting DX shooters when it comes to lenses for far too long! A supposedly much better lens than the 17-55 for even cheaper is the upcoming Sigma 18-35 1.8 zoom looks to be stellar. Their recent Art line is really really good. My Sigma 35mm 1.4 spends plenty of time on my D800.
__________________
13" 2013 rMBP i5/8/1TB, 15" 2012 rMBP 2.6/8/512, 2012 Mini i7 2.3/16/512 SSD/2TB HDD, 2012 Mini i5 2.5/bone stock
magbarn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2013, 11:24 AM   #8
BJMRamage
macrumors 68000
 
BJMRamage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by fa8362 View Post
Not necessarily. Plenty of people can't tell the difference between the most expensive lenses and the less expensive lenses and/or don't care. So it would be bad advice for them. The truth is, most people don't need anything better than typical consumer lenses.
I guess what I am saying is (as others pointed out) don't simply buy, buy, buy and think that will cut it. Look into the details, and see what makes the lenses cost more and realize that super zoom for $200 might seem great but the results wont be as crisp as you'd hope.

Don't go out and buy many lenses thinking you've got a rocking setup. invest in lenses as they can transfer to future camera bodies. perhaps buy one lens and "master" that before buying the next.

and with Aviation, I think of Air Shows where the planes are far away and fast. a cheap zoom wont stop the plane easily compared to a more expensive zoom. but thinking you might be 2-3 zooms in hope of having the right one on the camera to get teh shot and not isn't great. When i bought my latest camera it came with a decent lens. I used that and didn't take others simply because i didn't want to keep swapping out. I now have added a prime lens and so will only be taking one extra lens with me.
BJMRamage is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2013, 11:50 AM   #9
fa8362
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by BJMRamage View Post
and with Aviation, I think of Air Shows where the planes are far away and fast. a cheap zoom wont stop the plane easily compared to a more expensive zoom.
All he has to do is bump up his ISO, which a 7100 should easily handle and still look good. For most people, there's no need for an expensive zoom in that situation.
fa8362 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2013, 03:28 PM   #10
Cheese&Apple
macrumors Demi-God
 
Cheese&Apple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Toronto
I can't comment on the 16-85mm but if you're thinking that you may, at a later date, pick-up the 80-400mm there are rumours afloat that the new Nikon 300mm f/4 will be out this fall.

The existing 300 f/4 with the 1.4 TC (420mm) is viewed by many as superior to the new 80-400mm. The only drawback to the 300 f/4 has been the lack of stabilization (VR). A new version with VR will, in all likelihood, be an awesome lens that is sharper, lighter and cheaper than the 80-400mm.

A new 300mm with 1.4 TC would be about $500 less than the 80-400mm. This would allow you more purchasing room for a lens now if you can live without the zoom.

Peter

Last edited by Cheese&Apple; Jul 16, 2013 at 03:53 PM.
Cheese&Apple is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2013, 03:36 PM   #11
MaxxTraxx
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
The 16-85 is a good buy. I bought one for $270 used.
__________________
iPod Nano | iPod Classic [80GB] | Nikon D3100 | iPhone 4 32GB| '15 MacBook Pro 2.53 Ghz|
MaxxTraxx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2013, 10:15 PM   #12
deep diver
macrumors 6502a
 
deep diver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Solon, OH
I have not used the 16-85, but I do own the 80-400. I really like it. It is heavy and the focus is a little slow, but neither more so than expected. The reach on a DX camera (I have the D7000) is great and the pictures are very sharp. I would buy it again in a second. I am partial to Nikon glass, but Sigma and Tamron have excellent lenses that top out at 400 or 500.
deep diver is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 01:03 PM   #13
talmy
macrumors 601
 
talmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Oregon
I bought the 16-85 when I went to the D300s some years ago. I had been using the 18-70 as my "normal" zoom. I shoot primarily landscapes. I've got other zooms and primes as well.

The big boon for me has been that I don't need to use a tripod in well lit conditions -- the VR is good enough for resolution to the pixel level without any blur at the base ISO. The extra 2mm at the wide end makes more of a difference than one might think, however there is noticeable distortion.

I don't do air shows but I sure would think that if I did I'd put my money into the 70-200 f/2.8 and an extender and go cheap on the "normal" if I ended up cash strapped. The telephotos I use always end up on a tripod because of their small apertures and my aversion to high ISOs for my style of photography.
__________________
27" i7 iMac, 15" MacBook Pro, Mac mini with Yosemite Server, 5 other Macs and an unused Apple TV in the household.
talmy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2013, 02:20 PM   #14
wabbit42
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
For airshows I would say choose a lens that goes up to at least 300mm. I use a 55-200mm lens with my Sony Alpha and it falls short for getting decent shots of smaller planes such as fighters.
__________________
cMBP 13" 2012 2.5/8/500 | Mac mini 2009 2.26/8/160
Sony Alpha A300 | 16-50mm f/2.8 SSM | 35mm f/1.8
wabbit42 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 31, 2013, 10:10 PM   #15
mofunk
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Americas
Another option is to rent the lens before you buy. lensrental.com is one of the companies I use. If you are an occasional shooter then go with the basic kit lens. If you want more in your camera..like most said here... get good glass. Its almost like night and day. I've used some of those fast glass... 24-70 70-200mm lenses and OMG my camera takes some great photos. My images are great with my 50mm but when I use some fast glass, I can really see this DSLR at work!


List what you are going to be shooting the most. And go from there. If your budget is limited, try looking at a used lens from a reputable dealer. i.e. keh.com adorama.com or bhphotovideo.com

You could start with a 70-300 and get a cheaper kit lens used like 18-70mm or 18-105mm or 16-85mm. Or even go with a 50mm lens f/1.8
mofunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 31, 2013, 10:58 PM   #16
dmax35
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
I've been photographing aircraft for over 30 yrs and my go to lens is a trusty 70-200mm 2.8. Allows you to get in close as needed and shoot far enough out to crop in post.
__________________
(2) 3.5 GHz New Mac Pro 6 Core - (3) Macbook Pro's- iPad Air x 3,i,ATV3. Beech King Air 350,P645+ Phase One IQ280, Nikon D800E, .
dmax35 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2013, 02:49 PM   #17
flynz4
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmax35 View Post
I've been photographing aircraft for over 30 yrs and my go to lens is a trusty 70-200mm 2.8. Allows you to get in close as needed and shoot far enough out to crop in post.
I use the same lens and agree. It is pricy, but a fantastic lens. Mine is the first generation of VR, which has since been replaced with VRII.

Mine was $1700 or so when I bought it, and I think the new one is about $2400. I also have the dedicated 2x extender... which for me was a waste of money. I just don't use it at all.

/Jim
flynz4 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2013, 03:22 AM   #18
adversus
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Portland, OR
Send a message via ICQ to adversus Send a message via AIM to adversus Send a message via MSN to adversus Send a message via Yahoo to adversus Send a message via Skype™ to adversus
I'll second the 17-55 2.8 suggestion. I just rented one for a friend's wedding two weeks ago and loved it so much I'm thinking of buying one. I have a D7000 and got some stellar results with it:

http://500px.com/photo/41597794

(don't have a local copy on this laptop, sorry!)
__________________
I own stuff.
adversus is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2014, 03:21 PM   #19
danmanc
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
recommended

I have a 16-85 and love it! My advice, stay away from Sigma lenses, I've noticed many times they don't focus so well. The 16-85 is an investment but it's a lens I use very often and well worth the cost.
danmanc is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon 50mm Prime lens (1.4g or 1.8g) to big (tight FOV) for nikon d5200? Chuck-Norris Digital Photography 104 May 28, 2013 06:27 PM
Testing out my new Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G on my son. Razeus Digital Photography 3 Jun 1, 2012 08:52 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC