Nikon Lens Choice

Syborg1211

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2000
3,297
26
91
Hi Guys, I have a D5100 with the 18-55mm kit lens, and I've been wanting to upgrade the lens for a while. I've had my eye on the Nikon 16-85mm because of its wide capabilities and general consensus that it is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses for APS-C cameras. The thing I'm worried about is low-light performance, and the fact that it is sold out basically everywhere.

So I've been considering picking up a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. This lens is almost as wide as the Nikon and should perform better indoors/low light because of the aperture.

My question is whether I will miss the zoom range from 50 to 85mm and what I can expect in terms of sharpness comparisions between these two lenses.

Currently I'm primarily interested in a "walk-around" hiking lens and taking landscape pictures from a tripod. Right now I see wide as being more important to me, and maybe getting a dedicated zoom later on if I get interested in that. Any other lens recommendations?

I like the Tokina 11-16, but it's a shame that it doesn't have AF-S. Any other dedicated ultra-wides I might consider if I want to go that route? I almost want to get a D7000 just so I can use this Tokina.

Thanks!
 

dougp

Diamond Member
May 3, 2002
7,909
4
0
Why not look for a 28-70mm f2.8 lens? You need to look at all the pictures you've taken, and see which focal length you use the most. And, if you stay on the lower end, do you crop your pictures a lot?
 

Syborg1211

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2000
3,297
26
91
Why not look for a 28-70mm f2.8 lens? You need to look at all the pictures you've taken, and see which focal length you use the most. And, if you stay on the lower end, do you crop your pictures a lot?

Thanks for the response! I've found that I end up using the widest end of the kit lens the most. I have a 35mm prime lens, and this is great for indoors/people shooting, but when I'm out hiking and overlooking a landscape, I find that the 35mm isn't nearly wide enough to capture a foreground into the picture (mainly because I can't back up through trees or other foliage). I don't crop these pictures as I almost want them to be a little more wide.
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
Then why not get a true wide-angle lens like 10-24? That would expand your options infinitely more than replacing a 18-55 with a 16-85.
 

JohnnyRebel

Senior member
Feb 7, 2011
762
0
0
Hi Guys, I have a D5100 with the 18-55mm kit lens, and I've been wanting to upgrade the lens for a while. I've had my eye on the Nikon 16-85mm because of its wide capabilities and general consensus that it is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses for APS-C cameras. The thing I'm worried about is low-light performance, and the fact that it is sold out basically everywhere.

So I've been considering picking up a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. This lens is almost as wide as the Nikon and should perform better indoors/low light because of the aperture.

My question is whether I will miss the zoom range from 50 to 85mm and what I can expect in terms of sharpness comparisions between these two lenses.

Currently I'm primarily interested in a "walk-around" hiking lens and taking landscape pictures from a tripod. Right now I see wide as being more important to me, and maybe getting a dedicated zoom later on if I get interested in that. Any other lens recommendations?

I like the Tokina 11-16, but it's a shame that it doesn't have AF-S. Any other dedicated ultra-wides I might consider if I want to go that route? I almost want to get a D7000 just so I can use this Tokina.

Thanks!

Sy,
The 18-55 is really a pretty good lens. Faster is always better, so you would enjoy f/2.8 but it would be great if you would give some examples where the 18-55 lens was the limiting factor in a shot you wanted to make.
One possible upgrade would be the 18-70 f/3.5-4.5. I did this back on my D200 and really liked the lens.

JR
 

Syborg1211

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2000
3,297
26
91
I forsee a dedicated wide lens down the road for me, but for now I really just want to replace the 18-55 and hope to get something that is serviceably wide but more importantly sharper than the 18-55 with better lowlight performance. I like the appeal of constant aperture in the Sigma 17-50. Anyone have experience with this lens?
 

Syborg1211

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2000
3,297
26
91
Sy,
The 18-55 is really a pretty good lens. Faster is always better, so you would enjoy f/2.8 but it would be great if you would give some examples where the 18-55 lens was the limiting factor in a shot you wanted to make.
One possible upgrade would be the 18-70 f/3.5-4.5. I did this back on my D200 and really liked the lens.

JR

I don't access to my own pictures at the moment, but I was trying to recreate the picture linked below on my own at sunset with a little more light and not HDR. I found the edges and corners weren't very sharp when I got home. I've been meaning to post up a couple pictures to see if I could have adjusted my settings some to get better shots, but I can't do this from work.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wattsbw2004/3452109502/in/set-72157605292378414/
 

dougp

Diamond Member
May 3, 2002
7,909
4
0
I don't access to my own pictures at the moment, but I was trying to recreate the picture linked below on my own at sunset with a little more light and not HDR. I found the edges and corners weren't very sharp when I got home. I've been meaning to post up a couple pictures to see if I could have adjusted my settings some to get better shots, but I can't do this from work.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wattsbw2004/3452109502/in/set-72157605292378414/

That isn't HDR, he just has a hell of a long exposure time on it with the ISO turned down. Also, you're not shooting on a FF, so your wide angle lenses are still going to be a longer, general focal length. You'll have to go pretty wide to get anything to start including the foreground. A 10mm is going to put you at 15mm when shooting - the lowest end on your kit lens gives you 27.5mm. Keep that in mind when looking at lenses and wanting to go wide-angle. You'll need to shell out some good money to get something with a shorter range than your kit lens.
 

SecurityTheatre

Senior member
Aug 14, 2011
672
0
0
The 18-55 isn't terrible. My opinion is that you won't miss the 50-85 range, unless you're doing tightly cropped portraits or something, but even then, the 50x1.5-75 is long enough until you get into telephoto.

Many pros I know don't even carry a mid-range lens. They have a wide lens (like 17-35 or 14-24) and they have a zoom (like 70-200) and then they might have a 50mm f/1.4. Unless you're doing news, there's seldom a need for middle ranges. They're boring and I've heard many times that it can actually help your creativity if you don't even have lenses in that middle range (middle being about 40-70).

I always advise people away from cameras that require AF-S Lenses. It's too bad to miss out on the great old 50mm f/1.8 for $80 or those old 1990s zoom lenses, which can be found for a song and often perform quite well.

The professional zoom lense was once the 80-200 f/2.8 and you can find those for $300-$500 despite basically comparable optics (but no AF-S). The newest ones have VR, but still cost in the $1300 range, I believe. It often is cheaper to get the better camera and save on the lenses later :)


As for advice, go as wide as you can afford, forget the middle range. Pick up a prime 50-85mm, even if you have to manual focus with it... and then get a zoom in the future.

That's my advice.
 

twistedlogic

Senior member
Feb 4, 2008
606
0
0
That isn't HDR, he just has a hell of a long exposure time on it with the ISO turned down. Also, you're not shooting on a FF, so your wide angle lenses are still going to be a longer, general focal length.

Are you sure? It's located in a "Definitive HDR's photostream".

From flickr caption:

"If you want to see how I made this, take a look at my HDR tutorial."

And he shot it with the Sony A700, which is a 12mp APS-C sensor, @ 10mm F/8 30" exposure ISO 100.

Maybe you where thinking A900, which is FF? :)

And my vote goes for the 16-85, that is if you are just replacing the kit lens and will be getting a dedicated UWA. The Tamron 17-50 is a great lens, I just don't see how it would help with landscapes, which are generally shot at smaller apertures.
 
Last edited:

dougp

Diamond Member
May 3, 2002
7,909
4
0
Are you sure? It's located in a "Definitive HDR's photostream".

From flickr caption:

"If you want to see how I made this, take a look at my HDR tutorial."

And he shot it with the Sony A700, which is a 12mp APS-C sensor, @ 10mm F/8 30" exposure ISO 100.

Maybe you where thinking A900, which is FF? :)

And my vote goes for the 16-85, that is if you are just replacing the kit lens and will be getting a dedicated UWA. The Tamron 17-50 is a great lens, I just don't see how it would help with landscapes, which are generally shot at smaller apertures.

I never said that picture was shot on a FF - I was just saying in general, for the OP - take into account that you need to multiply your focal length by 1.53 (D5100 sensor) to find what you're really shooting with. Also, maybe it is an "HDR" in post process off the RAW, but that 30" exposure would allow all that detail to show in such a low light.
 

twistedlogic

Senior member
Feb 4, 2008
606
0
0
I never said that picture was shot on a FF - I was just saying in general, for the OP - take into account that you need to multiply your focal length by 1.53 (D5100 sensor) to find what you're really shooting with.

Gotcha, I was just thinking that maybe you thought the A700 was FF thus giving the photo on flickr a true 10mm focal length, which OP couldn't get with his DX camera.

Also, maybe it is an "HDR" in post process off the RAW, but that 30" exposure would allow all that detail to show in such a low light.

Yeah and I'm sure he has a very nice tripod to get that much detail on a 30" exposure on what I'm guessing is a pretty windy ledge.

I wonder if them words are actually carved into that tree or if it was added in post.
 
Last edited:

dougp

Diamond Member
May 3, 2002
7,909
4
0
Yeah and I'm sure he has a very nice tripod to get that much detail on a 30" exposure on what I'm guessing is a pretty windy ledge.

I wonder if them words are actually carved into that tree or if it was added in post.

They're carved ... god that image is blurry. If he updated the PP to LR4 and used the clarity function, wow would it smooth out. But yes, that guy has a nice tripod, heh.
 

Syborg1211

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2000
3,297
26
91
He says later in his comments that he used 10 exposures for it.

I found a guy on craigslist selling an excellent condition D7000 for 1100 bucks, and I offered him 900. He accepted. What should I look out for when buying a used camera? I'm going to pair this with a Tokina 11-16mm.


Edit: Also, is there a way to test the AF motor in the D7000 with an AF-S lens? I guess it's not as easy as putting the lens into Manual focus mode and telling the camera to do it?
 
Last edited:

dougp

Diamond Member
May 3, 2002
7,909
4
0
He says later in his comments that he used 10 exposures for it.

I found a guy on craigslist selling an excellent condition D7000 for 1100 bucks, and I offered him 900. He accepted. What should I look out for when buying a used camera? I'm going to pair this with a Tokina 11-16mm.

He took 3 minutes of exposures when he could have shot in RAW and just bracketed it. Uh ... I mean, I guess if you want to do HDR the old fashion way. Though, that's probably the biggest compliment to that piece - it doesn't LOOK like HDR, it looks like an incredibly well done long exposure shot.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
First of all you do not need a d7000 to use AF on a tokina 11-16; they are coming out with an updated version that has a built in motor. http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2012/01/new-gear-11-16mm-tokina-x-116-pro-dx-ii

I have a D5100 as well. I've used a TON of lenses, including every lens mentioned in this thread EXCEPT for the 18-55mm VR (ironically).

16-85VR is a good choice. Moderate wide to moderate telephoto, okay size/weight, aperture is meh but should not be a problem outdoors, or if you have a tripod or flash.

The Sigma 17-50 OS is the lens I most often use. Well built. Low flare/ghosting. It can go almost as wide and can hit 50 f/2.8 to make for a decent portrait lens. The OS is excellent and gives about 3 stops and coupled with f/2.8, it can give good low-light performance on non-moving subjects and yet retain depth of field, unlike the unstabilized primes like the 35/1.8.

Imho, the Tokina 11-16 is the most overrated lens because it isn't that sharp wide open, and if you shoot landscapes you're probably at f/9.5 anyway so you can do almost as well with cheaper alternatives that are pretty good at f/8 or smaller, such as the Sigma 10-20. The Tokina 11-16 was great back when there were fewer choices, but these days you should only get it if you need the constant f/2.8. If you don't, then there are either cheaper options, or options with greater zoom range, all of which are lighter and suffer less from flare/ghosting. A new version is out that supposedly lessens the flare/ghosting, and incorporates a zoom motor so that it can autofocus on bodies like the d5100.

If you want a superwide, consider the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 (not the f/3.5) as it has served me well and is well-built.

I've also used some other ones like the 18-200, 18-105, various telephotos, etc. but I don't think those are what you're looking for.

Hi Guys, I have a D5100 with the 18-55mm kit lens, and I've been wanting to upgrade the lens for a while. I've had my eye on the Nikon 16-85mm because of its wide capabilities and general consensus that it is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses for APS-C cameras. The thing I'm worried about is low-light performance, and the fact that it is sold out basically everywhere.

So I've been considering picking up a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. This lens is almost as wide as the Nikon and should perform better indoors/low light because of the aperture.

My question is whether I will miss the zoom range from 50 to 85mm and what I can expect in terms of sharpness comparisions between these two lenses.

Currently I'm primarily interested in a "walk-around" hiking lens and taking landscape pictures from a tripod. Right now I see wide as being more important to me, and maybe getting a dedicated zoom later on if I get interested in that. Any other lens recommendations?

I like the Tokina 11-16, but it's a shame that it doesn't have AF-S. Any other dedicated ultra-wides I might consider if I want to go that route? I almost want to get a D7000 just so I can use this Tokina.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:

Syborg1211

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2000
3,297
26
91
First of all you do not need a d7000 to use AF on a tokina 11-16; they are coming out with an updated version that has a built in motor. http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2012/01/new-gear-11-16mm-tokina-x-116-pro-dx-ii

I have a D5100 as well. I've used a TON of lenses, including every lens mentioned in this thread EXCEPT for the 18-55mm VR (ironically).

16-85VR is a good choice. Moderate wide to moderate telephoto, okay size/weight, aperture is meh but should not be a problem outdoors, or if you have a tripod or flash.

The Sigma 17-50 OS is the lens I most often use. Well built. Low flare/ghosting. It can go almost as wide and can hit 50 f/2.8 to make for a decent portrait lens. The OS is excellent and gives about 3 stops and coupled with f/2.8, it can give good low-light performance on non-moving subjects and yet retain depth of field, unlike the unstabilized primes like the 35/1.8.

Imho, the Tokina 11-16 is the most overrated lens because it isn't that sharp wide open, and if you shoot landscapes you're probably at f/9.5 anyway so you can do almost as well with cheaper alternatives that are pretty good at f/8 or smaller, such as the Sigma 10-20. The Tokina 11-16 was great back when there were fewer choices, but these days you should only get it if you need the constant f/2.8. If you don't, then there are either cheaper options, or options with greater zoom range, all of which are lighter and suffer less from flare/ghosting. A new version is out that supposedly lessens the flare/ghosting, and incorporates a zoom motor so that it can autofocus on bodies like the d5100.

If you want a superwide, consider the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 (not the f/3.5) as it has served me well and is well-built.

I've also used some other ones like the 18-200, 18-105, various telephotos, etc. but I don't think those are what you're looking for.

Ah, thanks for all the info! I had no idea they were updating the Tokina 11-16. I actually placed an order for the "old" one last night, heh. The new price tag of the updated lens is steep though so I don't think I'll regret not waiting... until the price comes down. I like the Tokina's 2.8 because I like to shoot landscapes during twilight when the light isn't so bright but the colors are great (like in that picture I linked earlier). I do have a tripod though so this is somewhat moot.

I still want a good lens for more general use. I like what you're saying about the Sigma 17-50. The Sigma will perform better than the 16-85 indoors, and I don't believe I'll miss the range from 50-85. I rarely ever use my 18-55 at 55, if ever - usually it's because I'm momentarily checking out a hot girl, not actually trying to compose a shot, and even then I'd want something like a 200mm+ lol. I really wanted the 16-85 more for its wide end, but with the Tokina on the way that's no longer as important either. So it seems I'm leaning towards the Sigma. Any other reasons to get the 16-85 over the Sigma?
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Ah, thanks for all the info! I had no idea they were updating the Tokina 11-16. I actually placed an order for the "old" one last night, heh. The new price tag of the updated lens is steep though so I don't think I'll regret not waiting... until the price comes down. I like the Tokina's 2.8 because I like to shoot landscapes during twilight when the light isn't so bright but the colors are great (like in that picture I linked earlier). I do have a tripod though so this is somewhat moot.

I still want a good lens for more general use. I like what you're saying about the Sigma 17-50. The Sigma will perform better than the 16-85 indoors, and I don't believe I'll miss the range from 50-85. I rarely ever use my 18-55 at 55, if ever - usually it's because I'm momentarily checking out a hot girl, not actually trying to compose a shot, and even then I'd want something like a 200mm+ lol. I really wanted the 16-85 more for its wide end, but with the Tokina on the way that's no longer as important either. So it seems I'm leaning towards the Sigma. Any other reasons to get the 16-85 over the Sigma?

Yeah. If you have a D7k then it won't matter which Tokina 11-16 version you get, anyway. Except maybe long-term resale value, but that's questionable. Even if you stick with the D5100, a wideangle lens is relatively easy to manual focus, and the old version may cost less.

As for your q re: the 16-85, you already pretty much summed it up. The 16-85 is a little cheaper and goes a little wider (and probably has better corners wide open, though it doesn't open as wide) and has greater telephoto range, even if you don't think you'll need it. You also get full time autofocus (manual override even if you are in AF mode), whereas the 17-50 has as switch you need to press to switch to manual focus.

The 17-50 is a versatile lens that can do landscapes and portraits and everything in-between, has better stabilization, and of course, has constant f/2.8 which makes it better in low light. The center is sharp at all apertures. The corners are merely okay wide open, but in most such cases the corners are probably out of focus to begin with, so who cares? I use it to shoot landscapes at f/8 or smaller all the time and am happy with the lens's performance, corners included. (As a bonus, the lens is pretty resistant against flare and ghosting).

The 17-50 can also be used as a 50mm f/2.8 lens for portraits, in a pinch, though the bokeh/blur is only so-so.

And the 17-50 is stabilized so it can sometimes be a better lens to use in low light, than an unstabilized lens. For instance, in a museum that does not allow tripods/flashes, if you use a fast prime wide open, you may have less depth of field than you want. <-- Stabilization is the reason why I got the 17-50 OS instead of the cheaper Tamron 17-50. And the stabilized Tamron 17-50 VC isn't as sharp as the Sigma 17-50 OS.

I hear rumors that that 16-85 VR is about to be re-issued; so it's probably not the best time to buy the old version, if you were going to do so. If you do want it, I would recommend waiting until they come out with the new version later this year (if rumors are true), and then compare the two versions and decide what to do then.
 

CptObvious

Platinum Member
Mar 5, 2004
2,501
7
81
I would personally keep the 18-55 and buy an ultra-wide. 16mm or 17mm is not a huge difference from 18mm. The 17-5X f/2.8 lenses are useful for their wider aperture but they are not really sharper than kit lenses (which are already good in terms of resolution), are bigger and heavier, have longer MFD, etc. I'd buy the Sigma 17-50 if I were traveling and wanted to carry just one lens, but the 18-55 and the 35mm 1.8G probably weigh about the same. I don't have any problems with the 18-55 VR in low light either (at 18mm it's easily hand-holdable at 1/13s).

I used to shoot with a Canon 5D and prime lenses, but went back to the D5100 and 18-55VR. Now I question spending even $600+ on a lens when the cheaper options are so close in performance.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
I would personally keep the 18-55 and buy an ultra-wide. 16mm or 17mm is not a huge difference from 18mm. The 17-5X f/2.8 lenses are useful for their wider aperture but they are not really sharper than kit lenses (which are already good in terms of resolution), are bigger and heavier, have longer MFD, etc. I'd buy the Sigma 17-50 if I were traveling and wanted to carry just one lens, but the 18-55 and the 35mm 1.8G probably weigh about the same. I don't have any problems with the 18-55 VR in low light either (at 18mm it's easily hand-holdable at 1/13s).

I used to shoot with a Canon 5D and prime lenses, but went back to the D5100 and 18-55VR. Now I question spending even $600+ on a lens when the cheaper options are so close in performance.

If OP does not need the larger aperture or stabilization, I might agree. A few things though, trouble me about what you said:

17 is only ~6% wider, but 16 vs 18 is pretty significant at about 12% wider. Millimeters matter much more on the wide end so it's not like comparing 199mm vs. 200mm which is a trivial difference.

The cheaper version of VR on the Nikkor kit zoom isn't as good as the Sigma 17-50 OS.

Also you are smoking something if you think the top-end 17-50's are not sharper than the kit lenses, especially at wider apertures and in the corners. Stopped down the difference is less pronounced, though, I would agree with that. Check this out, and keep in mind the Sigma is sharper than the Tamron 17-50 VC (but they don't have a Nikon d7k review of the Sigma 17-50 OS yet).

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/632-nikkor18553556vr?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/642-tamron175028vcdx?start=1

Disregarding the VR vs. OS difference for a moment: the f/2.8 and f/3.5 difference might not be that bad at the wide end, but what is the minimum aperture of the kit zoom at longer focal lengths? Can it do as well in taking portrait shots or any other time you may want subject isolation? Of course not. Less-well stabilized 55mm f/5.6 (and not particularly sharp, at that) is nowhere near stabilized 50mm f/2.8 (much sharper).

I have the 35mm f/1.8 lens as well. It's good, but it's a hassle to switch lenses in the field sometimes (particularly if it's raining or something), and like I stated previously, the smaller depth of field you are forced into by using larger apertures isn't something you always want. A stabilized f/2.8 may be preferable to a non-stabilized f/1.8 in those situations. And a 35 f/1.8 portrait won't look as good as a 50/2.8 much of the time due to perspective distortion. (Even on DX.)
 

CptObvious

Platinum Member
Mar 5, 2004
2,501
7
81
If OP does not need the larger aperture or stabilization, I might agree. A few things though, trouble me about what you said:

17 is only ~6% wider, but 16 vs 18 is pretty significant at about 12% wider. Millimeters matter much more on the wide end so it's not like comparing 199mm vs. 200mm which is a trivial difference.

The cheaper version of VR on the Nikkor kit zoom isn't as good as the Sigma 17-50 OS.

Also you are smoking something if you think the top-end 17-50's are not sharper than the kit lenses, especially at wider apertures and in the corners. Stopped down the difference is less pronounced, though, I would agree with that. Check this out, and keep in mind the Sigma is sharper than the Tamron 17-50 VC (but they don't have a Nikon d7k review of the Sigma 17-50 OS yet).

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/632-nikkor18553556vr?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/642-tamron175028vcdx?start=1

Disregarding the VR vs. OS difference for a moment: the f/2.8 and f/3.5 difference might not be that bad at the wide end, but what is the minimum aperture of the kit zoom at longer focal lengths? Can it do as well in taking portrait shots or any other time you may want subject isolation? Of course not. Less-well stabilized 55mm f/5.6 (and not particularly sharp, at that) is nowhere near stabilized 50mm f/2.8 (much sharper).

I have the 35mm f/1.8 lens as well. It's good, but it's a hassle to switch lenses in the field sometimes (particularly if it's raining or something), and like I stated previously, the smaller depth of field you are forced into by using larger apertures isn't something you always want. A stabilized f/2.8 may be preferable to a non-stabilized f/1.8 in those situations. And a 35 f/1.8 portrait won't look as good as a 50/2.8 much of the time due to perspective distortion. (Even on DX.)

Personal preference on the wide angle lenses, but I have owned a couple UWA lenses (Sigma 10-20, Samyang 14mm on full-frame) and I did not find that extra width to be significant.

I've owned 3 copies of the Tamron 17-50 (non-VC), plus the Tamron 28-75 (for 5D), and the Sigma 17-50. And I have the 18-55 VR now. I compared shots I took wide open with the f/2.8 lenses to the wide open shots I took with the 18-55, and there is little difference even when viewing at 100%. In many cases the shallower depth of field negates any resolution advantages. Maybe the f/2.8 lenses are sharper when stopped down to f/3.5, the max aperture of the 18-55 (2/3 stop), but that's not a fair comparison.

I'm not saying the 18-55 VR is as good as the Sigma 17-50 (of course not), but it's not a big jump in image quality as reviewers on the net would lead you to believe. The Sigma and Tamron lenses have quite a bit of field curvature so the corners wide-open are not much better than the kit lens. And yes, the f/2.8 lenses are better for portraits than the kit lens, I'm not debating that.

It's a testament to marketing that every photo forum site on the net tells new DSLR owners that their kit lens is crap and they need to upgrade to a 'much sharper' piece of glass. Yet photos taken with the kit lens by experienced photographers shows that the difference becomes really negligible compared to the lighting, composition and post-processing skills of the photographer.
 
Last edited:

Syborg1211

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2000
3,297
26
91
Thanks for all the advice guys. I finally got a couple pictures uploaded to Flickr. Let's see if this works:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/76216978@N05/6991835573/in/photostream

I'm still learning so please tell me what you think I might have done to make it better. I thought the light fall off on the outside border was pretty high. At the time I took these I hadn't fully learned how to adjust the ISO. I think my ISO was too low during this shoot. I really want to go back with the new things I learned about ISO this week just playing around with the camera.

Also, the guy I bought the D7000 from yesterday just so happened to have a 16-85 for me to try out, and it turns out he is selling it too. I got to test out the camera with that lens, and I took home the shots and was really impressed by the sharpness of all the shots. Pictures were clean, and it's pretty obvious this guy took really good care of his stuff. Can I ask what is a fair price to offer him for it?

And back to the topic at hand about the 16-85 versus the Sigma 17-50. My conclusion is that I'm going to end up with both one day. The 16-85 seems like it'll be my favorite hiking lens when the lighting is great and wider range, and the Sigma can be there for everything in between like indoors or portraits.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
I have used a lot of Nikon-format lenses over the years, including the Nikkor 18-105 VR, Nikkor 16-85 VR (twice), Nikkor 18-200 VR, Tokina 11-16 (three times), Tamron 17-50 (non-VC), Sigma 17-50 OS, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 (three times), Nikkor 50/1.4D, Nikkor 35/1.8G, Tamron 70-300 VC, Nikkor 70-300 VR, Nikkor 105/2.8 VR Micro, Nikkor 55-200 VR, Nikkor 85/3.5 Micro, Nikkor 24-70, and probably some others that I'm forgetting. I've also used the older Canon kit lens as well as a ton of MFT lenses (my second system).

Despite all of this, I've never used the Nikkor 18-55 VR. But while I haven't used the Nikkor 18-55 VR, I know its reputation and stats are worse than the 18-105 and 16-85, and arguably even the 18-200. Therefore, I am basing my experiences on the 18-105/16-85/18-200 and figuring that the kit lens is no better than those lenses in low light or in portraits, which I think is a fair statement, especially since all of them start at f/3.5 and the kit lens has the cheaper version of VR, not the more effective version.

I wasn't happy with the 18-105/16-85/18-200 as a general purpose lens. Not good enough in low light many times, and not thin enough DoF on the long end. Therefore I probably would not have been happy with the 18-55 VR lens, either.

Was it worth it to get the 17-50 OS instead? It depends, but for me, the answer was yes--barely. CONS: A multi-lens kit would cover more focal lengths, and a good alternative lineup is a 18-55 VR + UWA + telephoto + 35/1.8 for low light. And yes, 17 isn't much wider than 18. PROS: Every little bit helps, whether it's 6% or 12% extra width. An 18-55 + UWA covers more wide angle focal lengths, but it also involves switching lenses and carrying two lenses instead of one. Plus I like the convenience of a zoom that can go from landscape to portrait in seconds and can take stabilized shots at f/2.8, which gives greater DoF than a 35/1.8 wide open, plus it's actually effectively FASTER than the 35/1.8 for stationary objects. Field curvature issues are overblown as far as landscapes are concerned; your DoF is huge anyway. And if you're taking shots closer in, esp. at f/2.8, your corners are likely out of focus anyway. Lastly, the lens is popular enough that I expect to be able to sell it easily at a reasonable price.

That last part pushed me over the edge: resale value. The best place to skimp is on the camera body, which depreciates quickly, hence why I got the D5100 instead of the D7000. (Any lower than the D5100 and I think the hit to quality isn't worth the savings.) Lenses depreciate slowly, so as long as you can front the money and don't damage the lens, you should be able to resell. You might even have a net negative or zero expense, if you bought the lens at a good price--maybe you bought it used, too!

Does this mean OP should buy a 17-50 OS too?

Not necessarily. It depends on how much he values convenience and money, among many other things. I agree w/ you that, given his stated needs (wide angle, low light, midrange focal lengths), he may be better served by a dedicated UWA zoom + kit zoom for stationary low-light objects + 35/1.8 for moving objects in low light and to act as a portrait lens in a pinch (despite perspective distortion problems).

On the other hand, that's a lot of lenses to carry around, since "hiking" was one of his needs, which implies that he'd be interested in portability. UWA + kit + 35/1.8 is a lot bigger and heavier than a single 17-50. Furthermore, since he has a tripod (and presumably a head capable of panning), he could simply stitch his way to wider angles. If he has an L-Bracket or GigaPan, he could also do vertical stitches almost as easily as horizontal stitches. And he retains the convenient 17-50, constant f/2.8, and stabilization.

I agree that there isn't a linear relationship between price and performance. We see this in everything from camera gear to video cards to automobiles where every little step up costs more and more. I also agree that oftentimes people get recommended stuff that might be overkill, especially if they are on a budget. So it's a personal decision as far as how much one is willing to front on lenses, because even if lenses didn't depreciate at all, they still costs a lot of money up front.

Everything is a tradeoff. Price vs performance, size/weight of two lenses or more instead of one (hence why superzooms are popular).

I think between you, me, and everyone who replied, and online references, OP should have enough information to make a decision by now. :)


Personal preference on the wide angle lenses, but I have owned a couple UWA lenses (Sigma 10-20, Samyang 14mm on full-frame) and I did not find that extra width to be significant.

I've owned 3 copies of the Tamron 17-50 (non-VC), plus the Tamron 28-75 (for 5D), and the Sigma 17-50. And I have the 18-55 VR now. I compared shots I took wide open with the f/2.8 lenses to the wide open shots I took with the 18-55, and there is little difference even when viewing at 100%. In many cases the shallower depth of field negates any resolution advantages. Maybe the f/2.8 lenses are sharper when stopped down to f/3.5, the max aperture of the 18-55 (2/3 stop), but that's not a fair comparison.

I'm not saying the 18-55 VR is as good as the Sigma 17-50 (of course not), but it's not a big jump in image quality as reviewers on the net would lead you to believe. The Sigma and Tamron lenses have quite a bit of field curvature so the corners wide-open are not much better than the kit lens. And yes, the f/2.8 lenses are better for portraits than the kit lens, I'm not debating that.

It's a testament to marketing that every photo forum site on the net tells new DSLR owners that their kit lens is crap and they need to upgrade to a 'much sharper' piece of glass. Yet photos taken with the kit lens by experienced photographers shows that the difference becomes really negligible compared to the lighting, composition and post-processing skills of the photographer.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Thanks for all the advice guys. I finally got a couple pictures uploaded to Flickr. Let's see if this works:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/76216978@N05/6991835573/in/photostream

I'm still learning so please tell me what you think I might have done to make it better. I thought the light fall off on the outside border was pretty high. At the time I took these I hadn't fully learned how to adjust the ISO. I think my ISO was too low during this shoot. I really want to go back with the new things I learned about ISO this week just playing around with the camera.

Also, the guy I bought the D7000 from yesterday just so happened to have a 16-85 for me to try out, and it turns out he is selling it too. I got to test out the camera with that lens, and I took home the shots and was really impressed by the sharpness of all the shots. Pictures were clean, and it's pretty obvious this guy took really good care of his stuff. Can I ask what is a fair price to offer him for it?

And back to the topic at hand about the 16-85 versus the Sigma 17-50. My conclusion is that I'm going to end up with both one day. The 16-85 seems like it'll be my favorite hiking lens when the lighting is great and wider range, and the Sigma can be there for everything in between like indoors or portraits.

Imho $500 is fair. $450 would be a decent deal if it's in good condition. If it gets significantly higher than $500, like $550, I'd consider buying on new on a sale when stock becomes available.

Of course, modify the above by how much risk you want to take that they won't come out with an updated 16-85mm this year like what rumors say, which would probably hurt the original 16-85's resale value.

Remember that you can stitch photos together to get extra-extra wide if you want, since you have a tripod (and presumably know how to properly stitch). So it is not absolutely necessary to use a wideangle if all you want is a wider view. Wideangles give you special effects, though, with their perspective distortion, and that is one reason why some people like them. Stuff in the middle of the frame appears to be more distant than they really are.

If you shoot RAW, corner light fallout can be corrected in software; you can also correct for exposure to some extent, especially under-exposure. You can set the d5100 to auto-bracket shots if you are uncertain about proper exposure or want to create HDRs or something, but use a tripod to keep the framing constant.

I think the framing is a bit off with your flickr photo; the previous photo in the series had better framing. Less tree clashing with the bridge in a dark mess.