Nikon 16-35 Vs Nikon 16-85


Jul 10, 2010
113
0
0
#1
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?
 

Irvine

Senior Member
Jan 1, 2010
1,037
0
36
North? South? East? West?
#2
instead of just concentrating on the performances of both lenses, ask urself this. do u tink u can live without the extra 50mm reach?
 

Zertelle

New Member
Dec 5, 2011
58
0
0
#3
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.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,662
69
48
lil red dot
#4
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?
 

holidaydom

New Member
Aug 18, 2006
941
0
0
#5
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.
 

Jul 10, 2010
113
0
0
#7
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.
 

Cowseye

Senior Member
Mar 7, 2010
3,786
0
0
Singapore
www.ttlo-cowseye.com
#8
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 :p
 

Miao

Senior Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,069
1
38
#9
Cowseye said:
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 :p
Haha ..... Ya .. Cannot agree more ...
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,662
69
48
lil red dot
#10
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.
 

Top Bottom