Upgrade 18-55 vr to 16-85 or 18-105

[salman_uk]

Hi,

Thinking of upgrading my 18-55 primarily for slightly longer reach but also for a better image quality if possible,

Torn between the 16-85 and the 18-105.

Tried a friend's 18-105 on my D5100 and image quality was allright but did feel a little unbalanced on the D5100.

have heard that the 16-85 is more compact.

Also online reviews seem do suggest that while sharpness is very similar for both of them, the 16-85 has much better colour rendition and contrast which are probably just as important as sharpness.

Anyone got any views on this?

 

[Horoscope Fish]

I think you'd be happy with either. I've shot the 16-85mm and it's a great lens; it's also about half again as expensive as the 18-105mm which is also a great lens. I did not notice any difference in color or contrast between the two, but then I shoot RAW primarily. Both color and contrast are almost always going to get tweaked in 'post so for me that wouldn't be much of a consideration.

 

[salman_uk]

thank you Horoscope Fish.....

I shoot both RAW and JPEG at the same time and only dabble in RAW for the photos that didn't quite turn out OK. My life is too busy to be going through the RAW workflow for all photos,

 

[kirbfucius]

I honestly don't think I'd buy either of those if I still had my 18-55 VR. The 18-55 is a pretty great lens. If it wasn't offered as a kit, it'd probably sell for not much less than the 16-85. You could save a four hundred dollars by picking up a 55-200 and get much more zoom and just as high quality shots.

I don't like the 16-85 because it doesn't replace anything and I feel I don't get $600 worth of improvement in image quality or convenience. It doesn't get wide enough to be wide-angle, and it doesn't have enough reach to replace a tele lens. For the price, I'd much rather get an 18-200mm. I may be biased though because that's exactly what I did.

Edit: Ken Rockwell actually did a shootout between the 16-85 and the 18-200. Nikon 16-85mm VR vs. 18-200mm VR

 

[Rick M]

It really depends what you like to shoot. Lanscapes, I'd get the 16-85 without a doubt. Shooting mostly people I'd get something faster (2.8) for seperation. General walk around and want more on the long end, the 18-105 or 18-200. I prefer wider angles so I really liked the 16-85.

 

[Michael J.]

I am happt that I bought the 16-85. Take a look here in this forum, you'll lots of pics taken by 16-85. Just last week I didn't have that much space to use my Sneakers-Zoom. What should I say the 2mm more were great. BTW, the photos were important too, it was the day my daughter did her Ballet-performance.