I've picked up a 70-300 lens, and now I need the lower range ens to replace my kit lens for a Nikon D5100.
I've found a 24-70 and a 16-85, both for under $400. Both are VR lens, and both are 3.5-5.6.
I'm leaning towards the 16-85 because of the 16, and that it would/could? Be a better walk around lens.
Any reason I should stay away from either?
Thanks
Steve
Sneidley wrote:
Sorry.
Both Nikon
The 24-70 is not very wide on a 5100.
The only 24-70 I'm familiar with is a 2.8 non- vr.
You will probably be happier with the 16-85, a very good performer on a DX camera.
GoofyNewfie wrote:
The 24-70 is not very wide on a 5100.
You will probably be happier with the 16-85, a very good performer on a DX camera.
It's not the 2.8, it's a 3.5
Pepper
Loc: Planet Earth Country USA
I agree with GoofyNewfie I think the 16-85 will give you more flexibility at the wide/short end.
Pepper wrote:
I agree with GoofyNewfie I think the 16-85 will give you more flexibility at the wide/short end.
I have a 16-85 and it is a verrry good lens.
Light-weight and sharp.
Thanks for the help. I did make one mistake, it is a 18-70 3.5- lens.
I went with the 16-85.
I would go for the 16-85, very good lens and it compliments you 70 - 300 range wise.
Bret
Loc: Dayton Ohio
Do you plan on going to a full frame body anytime soon?
I have both 70-300 + 16-85 and both are my carry@ lens(es)
Try the Sigma 17-70. Great lens
IBE wrote:
Try the Sigma 17-70. Great lens
I agree - controls barrel distortion at the wide angle end very well.
Hi l am looking at 17- 70 sigma does this works on full
fram as for now l have D90 but may be in future l might go for D600 l would like some input
Thanks in advance
The one I have will not work on full frame sensors
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.