A Big Difference?

[ColColt]

Being relatively new to DSLR's, I'm curious what the IQ would or should be with the D80 and an unknown choice of lens for it (at this point) in comparison to the Canon S5 IS I currently use. Should I be looking at a 20% increase in sharpness and resolution or more? I use the Large?Fine setting on the Canon and it gives pretty good quality but, I assume the D80 with even the 18-55V lens would at least be comparable.

[WestCoast]

In ideal lighting (e.g., a bright, sunny day), the IQ between the two should be similar. In any less-than-ideal lighting situation (a cloudy day, indoors, etc.), the D80's IQ will kick the snot out of the S5. It's not even close. And that's true for pretty much any D-SLR, even with a cheap kit lens.

D-SLRs have much larger (and usually higher overall quality) sensors than compacts, where each pixel is responsible for less data. This results in less noise. And this becomes really important when higher ISOs are used (for shorter exposure times). Most compacts are worthless above ISO 200 and I don't know of any that have good IQ at ISO 800.

[XaiLo]

ColColt, I own a Canon S3 IS and it doesn't matter under what lighting condition I shoot under The D40 out performs the S3 hands down. I used both cameras at an NBA game the D40 kit lens out shined the S3 even cropped. Ended up using the D40 90% of the game. I was at one end of the court 60-80' from courtside and I can make out details shooting at the far basket with the kit lens. But the D40 preforms better in low light than the D80, but I would still expect simular results.

There are a few guys here who have switched from the S2/S3 to the D40... from what I understand from a couple of guys who switched from the S3 to S5 the picture quality was better on the S3, no first hand knowledge there but either way they should be somewhat comparable. Changing was worth the price of less frusration alone.

Edit: Here's a link to the basketball images.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28957&page=9

[K1W1]

The image quality on any P&S camera (and a S5 falls into that category) only looks good until you see the same photo taken at the same time with a DSLR.
It's night and day in most cases IMO.

[ColColt]

The image quality on any P&S camera (and a S5 falls into that category) only looks good until you see the same photo taken at the same time with a DSLR.
It's night and day in most cases IMO.

I sort of figured this but was amazed at the difference between the Kodak Z612 and the S5. Having shot Nikons since the '70's and later when I got serious about photography, I got an M2 Leica but, even though an excellent and well engineered camera, it was still 35mm. I eventually traded it for a Pentax 6x7 and couldn't believe the quality even with ASA 400(I know, that's an old term) film. I did many weddings and portraits with that camera and always had another body and three lens for it. Superb quality but, still a film based camera.

It took a long time to transition over to digital as I didn't like autofocus even before digital came along and stayed a dinosaur for years. I can see quality and sharpness, resolution, contrast in the final product as I've been use to seeing that and now that I've taken a leap in faith into the digital world, I was impressed with the S5 but a nagging feeling crept in and caused me to wonder if I had what I should be shooting with. Thus, the inquisition about the DSLR's and the one I'm looking very hard at...i.e., the D80. I'm just not sure at this point if I want to go with a couple of primes as I mentioned in another thread, or the 16-85 VR lens.

BTW, XaiLo, those basketball game shots for 800 were superb!!

[XaiLo]

Thank you very much ColtColt... The D80 is a very good deal right now! Nice camera too. There's been some grumbling about the 16-85mm VR and it's price performance ratio. It's price approaches that of the 85mm 1.4 which is an awesome lens.

[ColColt]

One thing that always puzzled me from day one is the "crop factor" of DSLR's. To me if you bought a 105 f/2/5 lens from Nikon with film cameras, that's what you got-not something substantially longer. What's the difference in a "full frame" DSLR and one that uses a crop factor and how can you tell from the specs if a given camera has this crop factor or not? I'd hate to buy an 85mm lens that I thought would be about 127mm and in actuality, turns out to be 85mm.

I wouldn't grumble too badly about the price of the 16-85mm VR if it delivered the goods. I'd hate to buy it at the current cost to discover it was softer than desired or gave trouble focusing or vignetted badly. The range is great for whatever I'd want to do.

[Visual Reality]

Basically any lens that you put on a Nikon DSLR that is not full-frame (all of them except the single digit series, like the D3) will have an effective focal length 1.5x longer.

IMO the 16-85 is absolutely not worth the going price right now. Your money would be much better spent on the 18-200 VR.

[ColColt]

Now, I now the difference.Thanks for that info... Well, not to fear-I can't afford a D3 anyway.:) Wish I could but, I've had too many cars that cost less.:D

The 18-200 would definitely be all you need but, as that guy said in Dirty Harry..."My, that's a big one!!" When fully extended it looks a foot long.

[K1W1]

The D80 is a bargain at the moment and so is the D200 if you can find one.
If you are not after the absolute latest, must have product (D300) and it seems that you might not be then either of those would be ideal cameras that will give excellent service. Both are DX (crop factor) sensors.
The D80 is essentially designed for the "advanced amateur" whilst the D200 is the beginning of Nikons Pro range so it does away with some of the amateur features and adds robustness and pro features.
If you are looking at used you should be able to pick up a D200 easily now as plenty of people are swapping theirs for D300's.
Just to add one note of contradiction not everybody likes the 18-200VR. I'd rather have a couple of lenses than only one that is full of compromises. It has it's uses but it's not IMO a must have for most people.

[Visual Reality]

"Full of compromises" is a bit misleading - it is a great lens with good sharpness, and no serious shortcomings except for some softness through the 100-150mm range. At all other focal lengths it is sharp enough for 90% of people. Check the Photozone review and compare it to the famous $1200 17-55 2.8 and you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I only mentioned it because the 16-85 was brought up. For the money, the 18-200 VR is a much better option. Very similar optics yet much more useable reach.

Of course if your not looking for a lens in that price range it doesn't matter but, I thought it should be mentioned.

[ColColt]

They're both pretty much the same price. Selecting lens can be a difficult decision I've discovered. I like the faster 1.8-2.8 primes but, you're limited there and like before, I'd be swapping back and forth a lot, no doubt. I'm still doing some soul searching about this. The 50 f/1.8 and 85 f/1.8 are good lens and with the kit lens(18-55 VR) may be all I'd need. I know the 16-85 is a bit pricey but I do like the range more than all else I've seen. I don't know that I'd need anything beyond a 135mm range(35mm) as for length, however. On what Kodak calls a "cloudy, bright" day, you can shoot 250 at f/8 or 500 at f/5.6 with ISO 100 on average. I can hand hold a 135mm focal length at 250th of a second pretty well. Ah, decisions.

[K1W1]

"Full of compromises" is a bit misleading - it is a great lens with good sharpness, and no serious shortcomings except for some softness through the 100-150mm range.

You do not need to take every post personally and justify your position.
People are allowed differing opinions, you expressed yours and I expressed a contradicting opinion of the lens. It's up to the OP to then take the differing opinions into account when they do their research not you to justify everything you say.

[Visual Reality]

I'm not expressing my opinion. Have a look around the web - you'll find that is the opinion of the vast majority of the sites that have reviewed the lens. There's nothing wrong with your contradicting opinion - but know that you aren't contradicting me, but many professional reviewers.

I'm only reiterating what I have read around the web.

I think you missed my point in my earlier 2 posts...but that's ok, I don't need to repeat myself.

[WestCoast]

I'm not expressing my opinion. Have a look around the web - you'll find that is the opinion of the vast majority of the sites that have reviewed the lens. There's nothing wrong with your contradicting opinion - but know that you aren't contradicting me, but many professional reviewers.

I'm only reiterating what I have read around the web.

This (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-200_3p5-5p6_vr_afs_n15/) review isn't exactly glowing.

[erichlund]

The 18-200 is what it is. It's a very convenient lens that gives decent overall performance for it's intended use. Even the linked review specifies exactly that. I don't use mine a lot, but when I don't what to be mucking about with a whole bunch of kit, it's very handy. It's a great lens for something like a walking tour, where you can't just stop and change lenses, because you have to keep up with the group.

Some people will never want to use it, because there is no time when they will compromise on image quality. This lens is not for them. Wow, I said it and the world did not come to a halt. But, for many people, it's a lens you can put on the camera, throw a spare battery in one pocket, a fistful of memory cards in another pocket, a polarizer in yet another pocket, and you have no need for a bag. Just go out and shoot at will. The ultimate in vacation convenience.

[Visual Reality]

This (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-200_3p5-5p6_vr_afs_n15/) review isn't exactly glowing.
Yeah, but not bad though. DP Review is usually a bit more critical than some. This is a good thing, but you have to keep that in mind.

Thom Hogan (http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm)
Camera Labs (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikkor18200mm/)
Nikonians (http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-18-200/index.html)
Photozone (http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/%20Nikon%20Lens%20Tests/242-nikkor-af-s-18-200mm-f35-56-g-if-ed-vr-ii-dx-review--test-report)

[ColColt]

I've been chewing on this some more since last night and have narrowed it down to these lens selections...

18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR OR...
16-85 f/3.5-5.6 VR

or...
35 f/2D
50 f/1.8D
85 f/1.8D

It's as bad as going down the cereal aisle at the grocery store!!:D

[Visual Reality]

I don't see how there is even a question when deciding between the 18-55 VR and the 16-85 VR. One is $190 and the other is $650. If you were really considering spending $650 on one lens, let's just say you wouldn't be looking at the 16-85. You would be getting virtually the same optics as the 18-55 and a small bit more range but paying 3.5x more.

As for the primes...I'd get one in addition to whatever 1-2 lens solution you choose.

[ColColt]

I don't see how there is even a question when deciding between the 18-55 VR and the 16-85 VR. One is $190 and the other is $650. If you were really considering spending $650 on one lens, let's just say you wouldn't be looking at the 16-85. You would be getting virtually the same optics as the 18-55 and a small bit more range but paying 3.5x more.

As for the primes...I'd get one in addition to whatever 1-2 lens solution you choose.

Those choices aren't in granite-just what I'm looking at. I've handled and played around with the 18-55 VR on a D80 at Best Buy and found I'd like a bit more reach which the 85mm length would give over the 55(127mm vs 77mm). That's the basic reason in a nutshell. I'm still undecided-just speculating. I do like the smaller and faster primes even if you may be changing lens now and then. Never been a great fan of zooms but, the 16-85V did look appealing as a walk around lens covering everything I'd probably be shooting.

Instead of putting $2000-3500 in a body, I'd rather spend a few more bucks on the glass.

[Visual Reality]

But why pay $650 for 16-85 when the 18-200 is $679? That's what doesn't make sense at the moment. Optically similar, between 18-85mm no one would be able to tell the difference in which you used, but then you have 115mm more reach on the long end.

[ssil2000]

Those choices aren't in granite-just what I'm looking at. I've handled and played around with the 18-55 VR on a D80 at Best Buy and found I'd like a bit more reach which the 85mm length would give over the 55(127mm vs 77mm). That's the basic reason in a nutshell. I'm still undecided-just speculating. I do like the smaller and faster primes even if you may be changing lens now and then. Never been a great fan of zooms but, the 16-85V did look appealing as a walk around lens covering everything I'd probably be shooting.

Instead of putting $2000-3500 in a body, I'd rather spend a few more bucks on the glass.

i think you need to relook at the sigma in conjunction with the 85 1.8 and maybe the 50 1.8, i think as far as bang for the buck that will be your best bet, you said originally you didnt want a slow zoom, you are now looking at 1 of 2 slow zooms. if you dont want to spend the money i would not bother with the 16-85 i would get the 18-55 and the 2 primes 50 and 85

costs
sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM + nikon 85 1.8 = ~$870 US
sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM + nikon 85 1.8 + nikon 50 1.8 = ~$970 US
18-55 vr + 50 1.8 + 85 1.8 = ~$660 US
16-85 vr + 50 1.8 = ~$720
16-85 vr + 85 1.8 = ~$980

looking at that if you are seriously looking at the 16-85 in any combination you would be silly not to look at one of the fast glass combinations, but thats just my opinion :)

Sergio

[XaiLo]

Checking some other forums it would seem that owners of the 16-85mm are happy with it. I'm still not thrilled about the price... though the images I've seen look pretty good. They say it's sharp and well built, and it does appear to be sharp.

[scupking]

The 16-85mm should sell for $350 at the most.

[ColColt]

But why pay $650 for 16-85 when the 18-200 is $679? That's what doesn't make sense at the moment. Optically similar, between 18-85mm no one would be able to tell the difference in which you used, but then you have 115mm more reach on the long end.


Mostly because I like the 16-85 concept and it's right where I shoot, so to speak. I don't need a 300mm lens. I like to get close to whatever I've shooting if possible and a 135 is my max for that. I had a Nikkor 200 f/4 once I used with an F2A and I used it makybe three times...sold it.


looking at that if you are seriously looking at the 16-85 in any combination you would be silly not to look at one of the fast glass combinations, but thats just my opinion

You're right and I would get a 35 f/2 or the 50 to go along with it if I got the 16-85. I think it's probably a good lens though admittedly, pricey but, so is nearly everything else Nikon makes. Looked at the price of a D2x lately?:eek:

[Visual Reality]

D2X? How about this guy (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/518490-REG/Nikon_25434_D3_SLR_Digital_Camera.html)...;)

[ColColt]

Jeez!!! I've had too many cars that didn't cost that!! I'd have to put that under my pillow at night...maybe even take it to dinner on Friday nights.:D

[WestCoast]

Yeah, but not bad though. DP Review is usually a bit more critical than some. This is a good thing, but you have to keep that in mind.

Thom Hogan (http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm)
Camera Labs (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikkor18200mm/)
Nikonians (http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-18-200/index.html)
Photozone (http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/%20Nikon%20Lens%20Tests/242-nikkor-af-s-18-200mm-f35-56-g-if-ed-vr-ii-dx-review--test-report)

Dpreview is probably the most reputable of those five sites. Photozone is good as well, but you'll note that they clearly point out the compromise in image quality with this lens. Thom Hogan and, more obviously, Nikonians are heavily biased towards Nikon gear. I'd take what they say with a liberal dose of salt.

Anybody who knows anything about photography will tell you that all lenses have "sweet spots." Any lens with a long room range will have softness/distortion/vignetting/CA issues at certain focal lengths. That's the price that one pays for an all-in-one lens.


I don't see how there is even a question when deciding between the 18-55 VR and the 16-85 VR. One is $190 and the other is $650. If you were really considering spending $650 on one lens, let's just say you wouldn't be looking at the 16-85. You would be getting virtually the same optics as the 18-55 and a small bit more range but paying 3.5x more.

While the specs are not terribly different, you're comparing a kit lens to a very good prosumer lens. The optics are not the same. On top of of the longer focal range, the 16-85 is MUCH sharper than the 18-55. I also believe that its front element doesn't rotate, making it more useful with accessories such as polarizers and different lens hoods.

However, I do agree with you that the 16-85 is way overpriced. And that's too bad, because the reviews I've read have all been extremely positive.

[Visual Reality]

18-55
http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1855_3556_II/mtf.gif

16-85
http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1685_3556vr/mtf.gif

Doesn't look "MUCH" sharper to me?

[WestCoast]

18-55
http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1855_3556_II/mtf.gif

16-85
http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1685_3556vr/mtf.gif

Doesn't look "MUCH" sharper to me?

That's the older lens, not the VR version. The optics are different...

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-55_3p5-5p6_vr_n15/

Here's a review of the 16-85 mm VR, from a reputable site...

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1177/cat/13


Conclusion
The 16-85mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 is an admirable lens; excellent sharpness and chromatic aberration results, marred only by some distortion and vignetting issues. However, I'm happy to see Nikon engineers giving sharpness the top priority, as this is the one factor that you can't really correct for in post-processing. The lens is a definite improvement over its predecessor, the 24-120mm, a lens which provided an excellent platform for a wide range of photographic styles. With the release of the 16-85mm ƒ/3.5-5.6, the bar has been raised.

There's a reason that slrgear.com throws superlatives at this lens and doesn't even bother reviewing the 18-55 mm VR. There's also a reason that the former costs $450 more than the latter (although I agree that it's probably not 3.5 times better).

The two reviews that I've seen of the 18-55 VR basically say the same thing: It's pretty nice for a kit lens. But like all kit lenses, it has drawbacks.

You're not going to convince anybody here that a kit lens (even a relatively nice one like the 18-55 mm VR) has similar optical performance to a good prosumer lens.

[ColColt]

Looks good enough for me. It appears from the test that f/5.6 is going to be the sweet spot.

[Visual Reality]

I realize it was the non-VR lens but they don't have the VR version to compare with. I hear they are similar, though the newer one is slightly better. I just wanted to find a way to compare them head to head from the same reviewer.

I still stand my ground in saying no 3.5-5.6 lens in that focal range should cost that much. I think it should be $300 tops. That's something we seem to agree on at least :)

[WestCoast]

I realize it was the non-VR lens but they don't have the VR version to compare with. I hear they are similar, though the newer one is slightly better. I just wanted to find a way to compare them head to head from the same reviewer.

Speak of the devil, slrgear.com just published their review of the 18-55 mm VR yesterday (despite their Nikon zoom lens page still saying "No Reviews")...

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1154/cat/13


Sharpness
The 18-55mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 won't win any prizes for sharpness, but it's not bad, either... In summary, for the money, it has more than acceptable results, especially for a plastic kit lens.


Conclusion
The chances are, if you bought a Nikon D40x or D60 in 2008, you already have this lens. I can't see a compelling reason to buy this lens separately unless you're really strapped for cash; there might be some on the used market as people upgrade to the more capable 18-200mm or 16-85mm VR lenses. Optically it's alright, maybe even better than alright if you get a good copy, but to get the best results you have to stop down to ƒ/8. Fortunately, the addition of VR does make that possible. In the final analysis it's a good lens, not a great lens, excellent for the beginning photographer.

Compared to the 16-85 mm...


Nikon 16-85mm ƒ/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX ~$650
At over three times the price, you'd expect the 16-85mm to be better, and you'd be right. Sharpness, CA are hands-down better; vignetting is about the same, but distortion is a bit more complex. Also has VR.

In other words, it's a typical kit lens.


I still stand my ground in saying no 3.5-5.6 lens in that focal range should cost that much. I think it should be $300 tops. That's something we seem to agree on at least :)

I could see the 16-85 mm VR going for $450 (the non-VR 18-70 mm ED that was sold with the D70 retails for ~$300), but I agree that $650 is a joke.

[dcrist]

Colcolt,

You mentioned getting the 35mm f2 in addition to a zoom. I was considering this myself just recently. But after checking out where I shoot most of my pictures (church) I realized it wasn't wide enough, since it works out to 52mm with the crop factor.

I'm also wrestling with getting the 16-85 -vs- a couple of primes. But I think one of my primes would have to be 24mm f2.8. And that makes me think that maybe the Sigma f2.8 zoom plus the 85mm f1.8 might be a better combo.

Decisions, decisions!
Good luck with yours.

P.S. - I have to add a D300 to my signature. That's why I'm looking for a new lens.

[ColColt]

You may want to go below a 24...perhaps the 20mm would be best shooting groups like what you mentioned. Someone mentioned the 24 wasn't the best choice as far as IQ is concerned. I had thought of this one myself but...I may opt for the 35, 50 and 85 if I decide not to get the 16-85 I've looked at. It is a trifle expensive for what it is and I do like faster lens. I don't mind interchanging lens as I'm well adjusted to that.

BTW-I'd love to have a 300 if I could afford to. I'd rather spend some extra bread on a better lens, though.

[XaiLo]

dcrist, congrats on the new camera :)