Having trouble settling on an all-around lens (Nikon)

Pupator · November 26, 2011

Since switching from Sony to Nikon the only difficulty I've had is settling on a standard zoom. On the Sony, the 16-85 CZ was my go-to lens. With Nikon, I tried the 18-200 and 18-105 and wasn't pleased with the IQ of either. Now I've got the 17-55 f/2.8 and, while the image quality is excellent, the range is rather limiting. F/2.8 is nice, but this lens is almost always used outdoors where 2.8 isn't really necessary (I use primes indoors).

I'm thinking of trying either the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 or the Nikon 16-85 next. I'd love to hear about some real-world experience with either of these lenses and suggestions of what I should do. I may just start renting lenses and see what sticks, but sometimes it's cheaper to buy (used) and resell than to rent. :dunno

FearNothing321 · November 26, 2011

You could always use some sneaker zoom

There is always the 24-70 f2.8

(I have never used any of these lenses tho)

Pupator · November 26, 2011

Thanks for the suggestion, but 24 isn't nearly wide enough.

insanefred · November 27, 2011

Try renting the 16-85?

DsrtVW · November 27, 2011

I have had the 17-70mmSigma it was decent but the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 is so much better. If you are looking for more focal range Nikon 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 VRII is very nice I bought mine refurbished from Nikon. It is the full frame version of the 18-200mm but so much better, I was not happy with that lens either. Tokina makes a 16.5-135mm f3.5-5.6 dont know its IQ but I can vouch for the 11-16mm f2.8 and the 50-135mm f2.8 as very good.

angevin1 · November 27, 2011

Forgive me for interjecting contrary to your lens request. One to consider is Nikon's AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G ED. It was a Kit lens Nikon offered and unfortunately is no longer made. But is a Killer lens, esp. for the Money. We picked one up earlier this year from KEH for $150.

Matthew Saville · November 27, 2011

Pupator wrote: »

Since switching from Sony to Nikon the only difficulty I've had is settling on a standard zoom. On the Sony, the 16-85 CZ was my go-to lens. With Nikon, I tried the 18-200 and 18-105 and wasn't pleased with the IQ of either. Now I've got the 17-55 f/2.8 and, while the image quality is excellent, the range is rather limiting. F/2.8 is nice, but this lens is almost always used outdoors where 2.8 isn't really necessary (I use primes indoors).

I'm thinking of trying either the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 or the Nikon 16-85 next. I'd love to hear about some real-world experience with either of these lenses and suggestions of what I should do. I may just start renting lenses and see what sticks, but sometimes it's cheaper to buy (used) and resell than to rent.

Nikon's 16-85 is the original 16-85, and if you get a good copy it is flawlessly sharp. I wouldn't hesitate to buy it in an instant.

As you can see on at least one review site, even the CZ 16-80 is out-classed by the Nikon 16-85:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/973/cat/83

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1177/cat/13

...My advice? Forget about f/2.8 zooms on a crop sensor, and just stick with "all-around zooms" and then get primes for when you really need the low-light performance. There's nothing like hitting f/1.8 or f/1.4 on a crop sensor, it lets you keep your ISO 1-2 stops lower without having to sacrifice shutter speed and rely on VR...

You can find a used 16-85 DX on KEH for about $500, and I'm sure on Ebay for slightly less even. Good luck deciding!

=Matt=

Pupator · November 27, 2011

Thanks guys. I will look in to the Nikon 18-70 and the 16-85. As I said, I don't care about low-light because I have the 35mm f/1.4 that's my primary indoor lens. (I was using the 50mm f/1.8G also but that's just a little too long for most indoor shooting I do.)

Fred - I may well rent it, but as I said, sometimes it's cheaper to buy used and re-sell.

Tom - Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out!

Matt - I think you're exactly right. On the crop sensor there's just no reason not to have a handful of primes for indoors. I've been very, very pleased with the D7000 low-light performance - but low ISO is always to be preferred. I had hoped to score a used D700 by now but, unfortunately, prices have gone up rather than down in the last several months.

Y_Knot · November 27, 2011

My 16-85 is on my camera 90 % of the time unless I'm doing sports.It is a great lens. I work in the WS area often & I would be willing to let you look at it sometime.

Steve

Pupator · November 27, 2011

Steve - that's a very gracious offer, thank you. Actually, though, I'm a terribly impatient person and I ordered a used 16-85 a few minutes ago. It'll be here by Wednesday. If you're ever around here with time to go shooting let me know - I love photo meetups!

Art Scott · November 27, 2011

wish I had found this before now....when shooting everything upto my current nikons my lenses were the Sigma 70-200 and 24-70...that combo for ME could not be beat...I did a lot of foot zooming but that was something I was not unfamiliar with.....not to long ago I bought and returned a Nikon 24-120 f3.5-5.6....the focal lenghts was pretty close to perfect for what I wanted it for, but the variable aperture was the deal killer for me...I will be getting the 24-120 f4 in the future and that will give me a perfect for me kit (24-120 / 70-200) for walk around, portraits and weddings...as well as some product photography.....

Hope you like your 16-85.....Have a great week.

Pupator · November 28, 2011

Thanks Art. I've learned from past experience that 24 is simply not wide enough to be my standard zoom. The difference between 16/17 and 24 feels like a mile.

A-1 Boss · November 28, 2011

I have the sigma 17-70 and really love it. It is on my d7000 more than any of my other lenses. My 2 cents.

Pupator · November 29, 2011

Thanks for the suggestion A-1 Boss. For the record, what are your other lenses?

Mitchell · November 30, 2011

What Nikon body are you shooting?

angevin1 · November 30, 2011

Mitchell wrote: »

What Nikon body are you shooting?

He's shootin a D7000 Mitchell

jthomas · November 30, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Nikon's 16-85 is the original 16-85, and if you get a good copy it is flawlessly sharp. I wouldn't hesitate to buy it in an instant.

As you can see on at least one review site, even the CZ 16-80 is out-classed by the Nikon 16-85:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/973/cat/83

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1177/cat/13

...My advice? Forget about f/2.8 zooms on a crop sensor, and just stick with "all-around zooms" and then get primes for when you really need the low-light performance. There's nothing like hitting f/1.8 or f/1.4 on a crop sensor, it lets you keep your ISO 1-2 stops lower without having to sacrifice shutter speed and rely on VR...

You can find a used 16-85 DX on KEH for about $500, and I'm sure on Ebay for slightly less even. Good luck deciding!

=Matt=

This advice is spot on. My 16-85VR was my go-to lens on my D90 and it serves the same purpose on my D7000. I like it much better than the 17-55 I owned for several months. For low-light or subject isolation I use primes.

Matthew Saville · November 30, 2011

jthomas wrote: »

This advice is spot on. My 16-85VR was my go-to lens on my D90 and it serves the same purpose on my D7000. I like it much better than the 17-55 I owned for several months. For low-light or subject isolation I use primes.

Yep, I owned a 17-55 2.8 for about a year before it was stolen, and when it was I didn't replace it. Sure, it's a burly, powerful workhorse lens for crop sensor shooters. But honestly, it always just felt like a stepping stone to a D700 and 24-70. The 17-55 2.8 has a WEIRD issue with focus shift, and my copy was REALLY bad when stopping down. For example, you would think that at 17mm on a crop sensor, f/5.6 would give you great depth of field when focused to 10-20 ft away, right? Wrong. My copy of the lens basically acted like a tilt-shift lens; it completely "wobbled" the plane of focus such that my DOF would be fantastic in the center of the frame, (from 5 ft to nearly infinity, when stopping down a few stops) ...however towards the edges, things would get totally out of focus. It was so annoying, I literally stopped using that lens for group formals, and started using an old 24mm AIS that I had originally purchased for use on a film SLR!

Anyways, my point is just that the 16-85 is a great all-around lens, while lenses like the faster f/2.8's are HIGHLY specialized, and should only be used for specific tasks, in my opinion.

Bottom line: With the D7000 as a "casual" photographer, shooting everything from landscapes to portraits and general friends-and-family candids, ...I'd be most happy with a 16-85 and then maybe something like the 35 1.8 or 50 1.8 AFS-G....

(I wish Nikon would hurry up and make a nice ~18mm or 24mm f/1.8 DX prime as well, but I dunno if that will ever happen unfortunately...)

=Matt=

Pupator · November 30, 2011

The 16-85 arrived today but I haven't had a chance to mount it on the camera yet - maybe tomorrow.

Matt - I had the 50mm f/1.8G but found 50mm just a bit too long for indoor candids on a crop sensor. I just acquired the 35mm f/1.4 but I haven't given it much of a workout yet either.

Oh, and, for the record, my copy of the 17-55 f/2.8G doesn't have any of the weird focus issues you describe.

ront · December 1, 2011

I have the 16-85VR on my D7000 most all of the time either. It is a very nice lens! I think you will like it Pupator.

Included are a couple samples from my D7000 and 16-85VR.

Ron

Pupator · December 1, 2011

Looks good!

Having trouble settling on an all-around lens (Nikon)

Comments