Are there any significant improvements with a Nikon 16-85mm compared to an 18-55mm?
I've been searching for reviews all over the internet on the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G and there are a number who suggest that the Image Quality is similar to that of the kit lens 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR. They say that the only advantage of this 16-85mm is the slightly wider end, longer telephoto, and metal mount. Is that really true? Is it pointless to upgrade my kit lens (18-55mm) to this one?
What you have read is probably true.
If you are planning on replacing the 18-55 mm, look instead at the 18-200 mm lens. It is the single lens solution for many photographers
The 16-85 mm lens costs $700. The 18-200 mm only costs $850 and has a much longer reach.
The 18-200 mm is great for shooting sports and action during the day.
Fotoace hit the nail on the head. A 16-85 will not give much benefit other than its slightly longer reach.
Consider the 18-200mm just like Fotoace. Or, you can also consider buying a lens called a 35mm f1.8 DX. It has a wide open aperture which means it can blur backgrounds and allow you to shoot in low light situations.
- Are there any disadvantages of the Sigma 150mm macro compared to the Nikon 105mm macro?
- Is there a significant difference in lens quality between the Nikon d3000 and Nikon d3100?
- Is there a significant difference in image quality between an entry and a professional level dSLR?
- Nikon Lenses: Any significant difference with those 'special labels' like N, ED?
- Nikon 24-85mm VR or Nikon 16-85mm VR?