nw

I had the Nikon Nikon 24-85, 28-300 and Sigma 24-70 2.8 for my Nikon D600. I am thinking about the get an additional lens for my Nikon D7000. Should I get the Nikon 16-85 or Sigma 15-50 2.8 or any suggestion?

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

The 16-85 is a fine lens: no experience with the Sigma

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Do you mean Sigma 17-50? I don't believe they make a 15-50 f/2.8.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Correct. Here is the data on the 17-50:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/17-70mm-f28-4-dc-macro-os-hsm-0

bgl Loc: Brooklyn,New York

I think you should include the Tamron 17-50 2.8 in your considerations, it's a very good lens. All these lens have been reviewed so you can read about their pluses and minuses. How about a visit to the camera store and trying them out? Good luck!

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

I have the 16-85, and it is one of the sharpest lenses that I have. (and probably my favorite). I Keep it on the D7000. While I love my Sigma lenses, I don't have that one, mine is 18-50 2.8, a very good lens. Both are DX lenses!

RON 11 Loc: Pittsburgh

The 16-85 is my main lens on my D7000. Could not imagine using another lens for that particular focal lengths. The wide end is as wide as I ever need and at 85mm it captures 90 percent of what I would ever photograph.

cthahn

You do not mention what type of photography you do or what you are interested in talking pictures of, or do you just want to buy another zoom lens. Try a 35mm f1.4 prime lens. You might like it.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The Nikon 16-85 is a great lens - for less money look at the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 .

CSI Dave Loc: Arizona

Can't anyone get the specs right so we know which lens to discuss? Your post says 15-50, you correct it to 17-50, and your link is for the 17-70. And at least one of the replies is for an 18-50, which is an older version.

I currently own the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 and the Nikon 16-85. I have owned the Sig 17-70 f/2.8 - 4.0 in the past.
Mogul, I've shared your dilemma, I wanted to decide between the 17-50 and 16-85. Unfortunately, I couldn't make up my mind, so right now I have both :)

I truly did love the 17-70, and I'm not quite sure why I sold it. It was a little soft at 70mm wide open, but otherwise a very nice lens. I got the urge to get a constant f/2.8, which is why I now have the 17-50. It's exceptional, one of my favorites. The 16-85 is newer to me, I've owned it for only a few months but so far it's also been excellent. For me, it comes down to the application. For events and situations where I need the wider aperture, I go with the Sigma. For hiking and landscape type photography, I'm more inclined to take the Nikon.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

It's sad; I know. The worst cases of G.A.S. are those in which we are faced with a decision between two similar, well-built pieces of gear. As most of us who suffer from G.A.S. (especially the terminal stages) know, the only possible solution is to acquire both pieces of equipment and develop justification for having done so. You appear to be a master of such justification. You have my undying admiration! 8-) 8-) 8-)

CSI Dave Loc: Arizona

LOL! Yes, I have a serious case of GAS sometimes. Before I had the 16-85, I had the 18-105, which made it easier to justify the 17-50 purchase. Then I had to have the 16-85 instead of the 18-105, justified by "better image quality" and "metal lens mount".

nw

Appreciated for all the comments. I will try to get the 16-85. Thanks