nikon 16-85mm, AFS G VR ? | Nikon Lenses | Photo Forum

Welcome to a new Easy Exposure Photo Forum! I hope you will enjoy new features. It is still work in progress, so please be patients. Thanks!


Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register sp_MemberList Members

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
nikon 16-85mm, AFS G VR ?
Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 (0 votes) 
September 27, 2012
11:48 am
Avatar
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 278
Member Since:
August 10, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Is this lens a good choise for my new D7000?

October 1, 2012
9:11 pm
Avatar
Oporto-Portugal
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 131
Member Since:
July 25, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If you are shooting landscape, large buildings and interiors, the 16mm would be great, they are equivalent to 24mm on 35mm film format. The 85mm could be good for details and portraits, but that lens you are refering to is F3.5-F5.6…in that range if the 16mm is not important, you could get an all-around lens of 18-105mm or even a 18-200mm. The problem with lenses is the F number, the lower the F number is, the glass is better because let’s more light into the mirror. That’s why the F2.8 lenses at all range of zoom are more expensive. In the 16-85mm you have 16mm with F3.5mm but you zoom to 50mm you will get a F4 for instance, and with 85mm you will get a F5.6. What do I mean by this? I mean if you are in low light situation for instance and you want to shot with 85mm zoom, you will not be able to put your F-stop in F3.5 for instance…and then or you use the flash or you bump your ISO higher. The result is adding some noise to the picture and less sharp image.

October 2, 2012
10:04 am
Avatar
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 278
Member Since:
August 10, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Quote from danielaportela on October 1, 2012, 21:11
If you are shooting landscape, large buildings and interiors, the 16mm would be great, they are equivalent to 24mm on 35mm film format. The 85mm could be good for details and portraits, but that lens you are refering to is F3.5-F5.6…in that range if the 16mm is not important, you could get an all-around lens of 18-105mm or even a 18-200mm. The problem with lenses is the F number, the lower the F number is, the glass is better because let’s more light into the mirror. That’s why the F2.8 lenses at all range of zoom are more expensive. In the 16-85mm you have 16mm with F3.5mm but you zoom to 50mm you will get a F4 for instance, and with 85mm you will get a F5.6. What do I mean by this? I mean if you are in low light situation for instance and you want to shot with 85mm zoom, you will not be able to put your F-stop in F3.5 for instance…and then or you use the flash or you bump your ISO higher. The result is adding some noise to the picture and less sharp image.

Thx. for the answer daniela. I have purchased this lens and i think it is a ok lens.. Not the most expensive but ok.
Do i need to bump the ISO higher when i use a tripod in low light situations. Can`t i just have a longer shutter speed?
I mean f/2.8 lens, can have a faster shutter then a f/4-5.6 lens in the same low light situations. So when you maybe can handhold the camera with the f/2.8 lens , you must use a tripod with the f/4-5.6 lens. Or am i wrong..?

November 2, 2012
5:41 pm
Avatar
Oporto-Portugal
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 131
Member Since:
July 25, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I once experimented a 35mm DX prime and because the lens is 1.8 you can easy handhold the lens at night. With a 2.8 lens I don’t know what happens because I didn’t experimented yet. I have a 105 macro with 2.8 but I only experimented indoor with low light and for handhold and focus perfectly without tripod, was necessary for me to bump my ISO to 1000 or more. In landscape and night photography, I recomend the ISO 100 for very good and sharp images, but even with a 2.8 I’m afraid the the camera meter will ask you for shutter speed lower than 1 second…so the tripod must be necessary because lower than 1 second deppending on the person, we generally shake the camera and lose the focus.

November 2, 2012
5:46 pm
Avatar
Oporto-Portugal
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 131
Member Since:
July 25, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Another thing is the weight of the lens…a better glass lens with 2.8 compared to a 3.5 or 5.6 etc, is much heavier….for instance a zoom lens 18-105mm 3.5-5.6, is half the weight of a 24-70mm 2.8 with less zoom…because of the optical bigger elements, and built quality of the mount and so. If you are not worried in carrying a 1kg or 1,5kg lens…for the benefit of picture, ok. :)

November 2, 2012
8:46 pm
Avatar
Admin
Forum Posts: 2151
Member Since:
August 11, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You are right, Daniela. 24-70mm and 70-200mm are heavy as hell and big too, but so sharp and focus so fast, that you can’t really compare them to a kit lenses. That is why I am going to the gym every day, lol. Need those muscle!
I recently was shooting a theatre performance and managed to juggle two cameras with both those lenses on. 70-200mm was on monopod so. It helped a lot. Next day I felt sore, lol.
I guess it all depends what you want to use camera and lenses for. If you just playing around, it is properly not worth it.

November 2, 2012
9:33 pm
Avatar
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 278
Member Since:
August 10, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

OK.. Learning all the time.. :) Thx.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 118

Currently Online:
28 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Mandrake: 2719

nikonguy: 1594

mscharff: 1054

Muneer: 812

Silky: 554

intekhab0731: 553

sameerfulari: 456

Brian Copeland: 449

ergig: 307

Bjørn (Madman): 278

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 6

Members: 2634

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 14

Forums: 87

Topics: 2762

Posts: 15363

Administrators: easyexposure: 2151

Comments are closed.