Should I do it? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/22/2008 03:28:38 PM · #1

Sell my Tokina 12-24mm for the Nikon 16-85mm VR?
I debating whether of not the 4mm will make that much of a difference.
If I do get the 16-85mm vr, I can always rent a wider angle if need too down the road. Just the sharpness, contrast, vr, and focal range. Has won me over, and driving me nuts! It's sharper than my 50mm 1.8!!
I am just crushed and indecisive and I hope my friends here could help me to choose.

Message edited by author 2008-03-22 15:47:39.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

03/22/2008 03:30:24 PM · #2

Well if extreme wide angle is not your cup of tea then go ahead! It all depends on what you like to shoot.

Greetmir

Nikon D60

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Nikon

03/22/2008 03:35:47 PM · #3

When it comes down to 4mm of focal length, I don't think really that anyone can help you decide ...

You must, yourself decide if the long list of attributes (as you said) is worth the 4 mm (which you said you could rent if REALLY necessary) ...

Sounds like an easy decision to me if you were being open with us ...

Go for what YOU think is best ... simple like that methinks.

option

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

03/22/2008 05:11:48 PM · #4

Think of each extra mm as an "i"... would you rather have a wide lens, or a wiiiiide lens? Those extra 4 i's add a alot of emphasis to the meaning of the word...

Personally, its a no brainer: go wiiiiide! I'd get way more use out of an ultrawide lens than a sharp, slow, normal zoom with VR.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

03/22/2008 06:04:48 PM · #5

Originally posted by option:

I don't think that is the best way to put it. But I were to apply that same logic to my Nikon 18-55 3.5-5.6 than, yes, it would be a no brainer.
As for larger apertures I was going to save up for the Nikon 17-55 2.8 but the edge sharpness is so disappointing unless you shoot at 7.1 or smaller (yes, I did rent it). The same goes with a lot of Nikkor lenses and other 3rd party lenses. But the 16-85mm has edge to edge sharpness at 5.6 through out the focal range.

option

Nikon D200

03/22/2008 06:12:42 PM · #6

Originally posted by ben4345:

Originally posted by option:
Think of each extra mm as an "i"... would you rather have a wide lens, or a wiiiiide lens? Those extra 4 i's add a alot of emphasis to the meaning of the word...

Personally, its a no brainer: go wiiiiide! I'd get way more use out of an ultrawide lens than a sharp, slow, normal zoom with VR.

I don't think that is the best way to put it. But I were to apply that same logic to my Nikon 18-55 3.5-5.6 than, yes, it would be a no brainer.

I'm just sayin... to me, the number of degrees from edge to edge matters more than the number of line widths / picture height.

Anti-Martyr

Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

03/23/2008 02:45:00 AM · #7

Whaaaaaaat... I don't believe that a cheap zoom is sharper than the 50mm f/1.8... Even though it is supposedly rather sharp.

Rodert

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

03/25/2008 05:53:52 AM · #8

Originally posted by ben4345:

Sell my Tokina 12-24mm for the Nikon 16-85mm VR?
Just the sharpness, contrast, vr, and focal range. Has won me over, and driving me nuts! It's sharper than my 50mm 1.8!!

Where exactly did you get these stats from? Especially since the 50mm f/1.8 is quite an amazing lens. Not sure where i've been but somehow i've been completely oblivious to this lens even existing.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

03/25/2008 11:14:20 AM · #9

Yes, to my findings the only way my 50 1.8 get close enough in terms of sharpness is by stopping down to 5.6. I am also liking the color rendition, and contrast a tad better too. There are NO CAs or purple fringing with the 16-85mm vr when connected to a D300. (at least not that I can tell)
But don't get me wrong, I will be keeping the 50 1.8 for the larger aperture maybe getting a 35mm f/2 and a 85mm 1.8 down the road.
I think my lens line up will be: (in the next 2 years)
Tokina 11-16mm 2.8, Nikon 16-85mm vr, Nikon 70-300mm vr, Nikon 35mm f/2, Nikon 50mm 1.8, 85 1.8, Nikon 60mm af-s N Macro and 300 f4.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

03/25/2008 11:15:51 AM · #10

Do it if you want to.

Anti-Martyr

Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro

03/25/2008 11:39:48 AM · #11

Think what you will about the man, but Rockwell's tests are pretty solid. HIS findings show it as only being sharper than the 18-200 VR at the wider end of the lens, and at 85 they're both the same, sharpness-wise.

And there's no way that the 18-200 VR is sharper than a prime 50mm. Here's the link to his direct comparison to the 18-200 VR.

Rockwell's Comparison

I, for one, wouldn't do it. I'm not sold on the 16-85. It's so slow and I'd rather have the all around functionality of the 18-200 VR, were I to invest in a zoom. Right now all I have for glass is the Tokina 12-24 and the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and I'm fine.

Message edited by author 2008-03-25 11:40:57.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/25/2008 11:56:37 AM · #12

Originally posted by Anti-Martyr:

Haha, you go to Rockwells site and trust his reviews?!?! Then you must be ashamed of yourself for buying the D300, because according to Rockwell the Nikon D40 is superior to the D300. The Sb-600 is simply better than a sb-800?! He says that you should use the D300 on Vivid with saturation maxed out?!? He even reviews product that he has never even seen himself! HUH?! WTF?!?
PhotoZone is a better lens comparison site.

dassilem

Nikon D90

03/25/2008 12:03:33 PM · #13

why is it so many threads here ask for advice and then the op disputes the advice they are given??

Hmm..

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

03/25/2008 12:07:14 PM · #14

Originally posted by dassilem:

why is it so many threads here ask for advice and then the op disputes the advice they are given??

Hmm..

I only dispute when their source is Rockwell's reviews.

option

Nikon D200

03/25/2008 08:16:39 PM · #15

Originally posted by ben4345:

Am I the only one that finds your championing of the 16-85 in one post, and bashing of KR in the next, slightly ironic?

Anti-Martyr

Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

03/26/2008 11:59:15 AM · #16

a) I do use the D300 on Vivid with saturation maxed. Not because he said to, though. It makes cool images as long as people aren't your subjects.

b) His site is a great resource for those of us who cannot spend gajillions of dollars on equipment. The SB-600 IS better than the SB-800 on a budget; just tape a piece of paperboard to the top and bam, bounce card (the only worthy difference between the 2 flashes) and you saved $160. His site is common sense for those of us who need common sense to guide our camera purchase decisions. Some people don't need common sense because they've got the money to back it. I don't, and I've relied on his site for several things and not once has it let me down.

c) I agree with option. Besides, I don't see what's really hard to trust about the raw data he presents on each of the 2 lenses (or anything he reviews, for that matter). You could do the tests yourself and get the same results, so I think it's pretty immature to be bashing the man and his reviews.

But hey, I mean, I guess it makes sense to ignore and ridicule the advice and pointers you're given in a topic where you ASK for advice and pointers.

Message edited by author 2008-03-26 12:03:41.