Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Nikon 16-35 Vs Nikon 16-85

  1. #1

    Default Nikon 16-35 Vs Nikon 16-85

    Has anyone tried the two lens, say on a DX camera, for eg D7K ? How did the two lens compare in term of sharpness and performance ? is it worth forsaking 16-85 for 16-35, for a DX camera user?

  2. #2
    Member Irvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    North? South? East? West?
    Posts
    1,037

    Default Re: Nikon 16-35 Vs Nikon 16-85

    instead of just concentrating on the performances of both lenses, ask urself this. do u tink u can live without the extra 50mm reach?
    Google is your friend. Make use of it.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Nikon 16-35 Vs Nikon 16-85

    The 16-35 is extremely well built. I've been using it with the D7000 and it does deliver the sharpness and performance a lens of its class would have.
    I don't have the 16-85, but do check out the MTF charts to be sure about sharpness.

  4. #4
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Nikon 16-35 Vs Nikon 16-85

    Quote Originally Posted by Zertelle View Post
    The 16-35 is extremely well built. I've been using it with the D7000 and it does deliver the sharpness and performance a lens of its class would have.
    I don't have the 16-85, but do check out the MTF charts to be sure about sharpness.
    Please also know that the 16-35 is expensive and very heavy and with a short range. Why bother using it on DX?

  5. #5

    Default Re: Nikon 16-35 Vs Nikon 16-85

    Cost difference is almost double but I'm not sure if the IQ difference is that much. Considering the speed of both lenses they're about the same f/4 vs f/3.5-5.6 so depth of field performance can be taken as same (relatively)

    The key deciding point will be w.r.t what you're shooting with now (DX) and if you plan to upgrade to FX in future. If so, the 16-85 will be limiting cos it's DX only (yea yea, can be used on FX but what's the point cos it'll crop to DX). The 16-35 will give you more mileage if you plan to go full frame in future but to me the 50mm difference on the tele end is a lot.

    A lot also comes down to wat you like to shoot... if you are dedicated to DOF then you may be happy(ier) with the 16-35 cos you're likely to switch out the 16-85 for a faster 50/1.8 or 85/1.8 at the tele end for better DOF anyway vs f5.6. But if you're an "everything" shooter then the 16-85 may be acceptable. If you already have a fast 50 or 85 then the 16-35 would be a better choice IMHO.
    Happiness is a state of mind.

  6. #6
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    Don't know about the 16-35, but the 16-85 did not let me down in Japan. See images in the review sub forum

  7. #7

    Default Re: Nikon 16-35 Vs Nikon 16-85

    Thank you Sifus for all your advice I will keep my 16-85. Fr time to time, I face temptation when ppl shows me their lens.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,786

    Default Re: Nikon 16-35 Vs Nikon 16-85

    The best cure from such temptation is to really understand your needs and stay focus. If you don't, do not buy the lens/equipment.
    if you really die die must buy something, try getting those small accessories such as lens caps, cleaning kits and bounce card.
    They are still useful and you spend less money to satisfy a purchase experience
    Equipment: D800|D700|11-16|28-75|105 Micro VR|50 F1.4G|85 F1.8G
    Through the Lens of Cowseye

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowseye
    The best cure from such temptation is to really understand your needs and stay focus. If you don't, do not buy the lens/equipment.
    if you really die die must buy something, try getting those small accessories such as lens caps, cleaning kits and bounce card.
    They are still useful and you spend less money to satisfy a purchase experience
    Haha ..... Ya .. Cannot agree more ...

  10. #10
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Nikon 16-35 Vs Nikon 16-85

    Quote Originally Posted by samueltan99 View Post
    Thank you Sifus for all your advice I will keep my 16-85. Fr time to time, I face temptation when ppl shows me their lens.
    You need to understand your needs more. Learn how to compare.

    What does a 16-35 have over your 16-85?

    1. 1635 is more expensive
    2. 1635 has shorter range
    3. 1635 has VR but so does 1685
    4. 1635 is constant F4, but that is very similar to 1685's F3.5-5.6
    5. 1635 is big and heavy

    16-35VR is an awesome lens, no doubt. But it is designed and built as a UWA. To use it on the DX, it becomes a very short standard zoom. If you are on FX, I will recommend this lens with no hesitation. But on DX, just keep your 16-85 until the time when you really decide to upgrade to FX. Then sell your DX cam and your DX lens and buy the 16-35VR.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •