18-105 and 16-85

[Peppe]

Hi all

I'm helping a mate get some new Nikon gear.
I myself have the 18-105 and find it a great everyday lens for the price, but thought I'd check out the 16-85 as well, and found that it's over twice the price.

Can anyone please explain why the (as I need to learn)
Nikon 18-105mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX is about $400.00
and the
Nikon 16-85mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX is about $850.00

As I thought they were virtually the same build and everything with a different range.

Pep

[fillum]

I just had a quick look at the specs. (18-105mm (http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_18-105mmf_35-56g_ed_vr/index.htm), 16-85mm (http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_16-85mmf_35-56g_vr/index.htm)). They have different construction:-
18-105mm: 15 elements/11 groups, 1 x ED element, 1 x aspherical element
16-85mm: 17 elements/11 groups, 2 x ED elements, 3 x aspherical elements
I assume that ED and aspherical elements are more expensive to manufacture than standard elements.

The 16-85mm should theoretically perform better than the 18-105mm with regard to issues like chromatic aberration, however I don't know how either lens performs in practice.



Cheers.

[Peppe]

I just had a quick look at the specs. (18-105mm (http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_18-105mmf_35-56g_ed_vr/index.htm), 16-85mm (http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_16-85mmf_35-56g_vr/index.htm)). They have different construction:-
18-105mm: 15 elements/11 groups, 1 x ED element, 1 x aspherical element
16-85mm: 17 elements/11 groups, 2 x ED elements, 3 x aspherical elements
I assume that ED and aspherical elements are more expensive to manufacture than standard elements.

The 16-85mm should theoretically perform better than the 18-105mm with regard to issues like chromatic aberration, however I don't know how either lens performs in practice.



Cheers.

Thanks Fillum (btw, love your name, i know someone who can't say film he has to say fillum!!)

When you put it like that, it makes a lot of sense


If you can find plenty of the folding stuff i'd go the straight 85mm and look at the 17-55mm as well. this would give you two superb lenses that will last a life time. And yes, quality and workmanship cost more.

Unfortunately the "folding stuff" is pretty well accounted for!!!

But this will be a great kit that he can build on in the future once he knows what kind of lens' he'll need:th3::th3:
He may even buy (in the future) a 24-70 and a 70-200 then i can (hopefully) borrow them :D:D

Pep

[arthurking83]

....

Can anyone please explain why the (as I need to learn)....

Why indeed!

2mm at the wide end!! That's why.

I also wanted this lens as an option for my son, but the price is just silly for a consumer grade lens. Build quality does feel better(or did feel better from memory, as I only had a brief play at the store.. no pics, and the $800 price tag put me off anyhow).

Anyhow I ended up getting the 18-105 for my son, I use it occasionally(rarely).

IQ from the 16-85 will be slightly better.. but definitely not double the price worth!

Something I suspect may also happen is focal length shortening as you focus closer at the long end of the focal length range.. which is almost certain to be more prominent with the 18-105mm compared to the 16-85mm.

What happens:
The lens makers specify the focal length range in their normal manner, but that this only has to be true for focus at infinity. So your 18-105mm is 105mm when you're focused a long way away.. say 5meters or so. But as you begin to focus closer the FOV changes and no longer looks like a 105mm lens any more.. and probably more like a 90mm lens.
REMEMBER this is only when you focus closer. It's cheaper to design the lens in this manner than to fool around with more exotic lens formula which then adds a price premium.

I have no idea on how the 16-85 is affected by this focal length shortening, but the 18-105 looks more like a 90mm focal length(just a guess) when you zoom to 105mm and focus close.
This is by comparison to both my 105mm macro and my 70-200 Tamron lenses.

As another point of reference, it's commonly acknowledged(and accepted) that the Nikon 18-200VR looks more like a 135mm lens when at 200mm and close focused.

One thing about the 18-105mm that I really don't like is the way in which the zoom gear is very weak, where if you touch, and place any inward pressure on the front of the lens(eg using filters), you get zoom creep(inwards). I haven't yet seen any normal zoom creep from mine(but I hardly use it) in that when you direct the lens downwards at a short focal length it gets automagically longer by itself!
Only in that sense is where I have reservations about the built quality of the 18-105mm.

having said that the 18-105 is the best value for money Nikon lens currently available! :th3:

[Peppe]

Wow thanks for that arthurking83,
I may need to re-re-read that to fully grasp it, but i get wat you're saying.

And i agree the 18-105 value for money, great lens

Pep

[maccaroneski]

.

having said that the 18-105 is the best value for money Nikon lens currently available! :th3:

I'll see your 18-105 and raise you a 55-200 at half the price....

[arthurking83]

Oh! of course.. another great value for money lens and as you say cheaper too.

But it's really limited starting @ 55mm.

if you had to get only one lens due to budget constraints, the 18-105 offers a lot more 'everyday' usability than the 55-200 does.
(but your point was happily accepted.. my bad was not using the correct context)

If I had the choice between a single 18-200(@ $800) or the drudgery :rolleyes: of swapping lenses, I'd take the drudgery any day.. 18-105 plus 55-200 make for a better alternative(even for travel) I think.

[James02]

Just to add a few things.
The 16-85 also has
1. A metal mount instead of plastic
2. A focal scale window
3. Metal inner barrels instead of plastic
4. Much tighter to zoom or focus
5. Sharper on the edges.
6. New generation vr
7. Focus ring seems to be able to make finer adjustments

There is quite a bit of difference. The 18-105 is excellent for the money and iq is very good. Centre is hard to tell the difference at all. I just don't feel that the 18-105 is near as solid or durable. I own both by the way.

James

[tanalasta]

Only you can decide whether it is worthwhile paying the extra for the 16-85mm.

It is better constructed and generally considered a very sharp, versatile lens. The 16mm wide-angle also gives it an advantage.

Most people will quite happily live with the 18-105mm and if you already have that as part of a kit, I'd probably advise saving your money for a flash or other accessory unless you really want the wide angle. For me? I started with the 18-55mm kit lens and wanted something better and love my 16-85mm and 35mm AF-S as my two most commonly used lens.

Being a slow'ish lens, the DoF meter on the 16-85 is a bit superflous.