Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SpikeyLemon" data-source="post: 497093" data-attributes="member: 25328">Out of the three you listed, let's see...18-140: can't comment. I never used it. To me it feels like a middle-ground between a 18-55 kit and a 18-200 super zoom. But have heard good things about it, not hard to find review on this lens. 16-85 vs 18-105:I had a 16-85 which I used for years, that was broken in an accident and I bought a 18-105 as a cheap temporary replacement. Slightly disappointed in built quality in the 18-105 being plastic everything but for its price you really can't complain. It is noticeably less sharp and a bit more distortion compare to the 16-85. I miss the 2mm at the bottom end more than the extra 20 on the tele side. I eventually sold that 18-105 and gone for a 17-55. It's almost night and day in terms of everything except for the weight. I don't mind having no VR on it, but the build quality really is excellent. Used price for not much more than a 16-85, if you can afford it and prepare to carry that weight (it is HEAVY for such a small focal range), definitely get the 17-55. Money no object, I would give the new 16-80 f/2.8-4 a serious consideration seeing that has a gold ring which might mean Nikon is replacing the 17-55 with this as the new DX King. But if I had to buy a lens out of your three would be the 16-85</blockquote>