Nikon 16-85 vs. Tamron 17-50 (Page 2): It's funny how we get so OCD about the little things isn't it! I am the same way. The Sigma is a nice lens that is sharp with good color and...

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

kb6kgx wrote:

Yes, it helps, thanks. br br With the Sigma, you... (show quote)

It's funny how we get so OCD about the little things isn't it! I am the same way. The Sigma is a nice lens that is sharp with good color and contrast. I have not had to correct for CA and when I apply the lens correction there is very little correction that happens. The focal length is perfect for me- it's what I most often use. I have not noticed any rattling. Until the price dropped it was a 699.00 lens. Now you can pick it up new for 369-399.00. I would still consider it a good lens at full price. I can not personally compare it to your other choices.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

kb6kgx wrote:

I'd love the 17-55mm f2.8, but better condition ones are more than I care to pay at this time.

Yes, Nikon gear can be pricey, but there are good alternatives.

Tamron, Tokina, Sigma

Bill Gordon

I have used the Nikon 16 - 85 dx lens for about 8 years, first on my D300 and for the last three years on my D7100. This is my walk - around lens. I couldn't be more satisfied. Image quality and resolution on the 7100 are very good. I can't compare it to your other options, but I recommend it without hesitation.

steve Loc: Iowa

I too have a 16-85. Love it. I studied all the specs, & that convinced me. I mount it on a D7000.

pcolatide Loc: Pensacola, FL

kb6kgx wrote:

Looking (still!) for good "walk around" for a D7100. Pretty much decided on the 16-85mm f3.5-5.6.

But now I'm thinking maybe the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8? The constant f2.8 would be nice, but I'd read that the Nikon is sharper, has les distortion and better VR.

I'd love the 17-55mm f2.8, but better condition ones are more than I care to pay at this time.

Comments?

I own the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and I highly recommend it. I've never shot with the Nikon 16-85 but would find it difficult to believe it will outperform the Tamron for sharpness or lack of distortion.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

DavidPine wrote:

The best walking-around lens I have found is the Nikon 24-120.

Me, too.

dmeyer Loc: Marion, NC

kb6kgx wrote:

Looking (still!) for good "walk around" for a D7100. Pretty much decided on the 16-85mm f3.5-5.6.

But now I'm thinking maybe the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8? The constant f2.8 would be nice, but I'd read that the Nikon is sharper, has les distortion and better VR.

I'd love the 17-55mm f2.8, but better condition ones are more than I care to pay at this time.

Comments?

If you shoot on tripod and the VR is optional, I have a literally new 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron listed to sell for $250. I bought it just before getting a full-frame D610 and ended up not using it. Here is a link to DXOMark with additional information: http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Tamron/SP-AF-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-LD-IF-Nikon-mounted-on-Nikon-D5300---Measurements__919

Grandpa Pete Loc: Western Finger Lakes (NY)

kb6kgx wrote:

Looking (still!) for good "walk around" for a D7100. Pretty much decided on the 16-85mm f3.5-5.6.

But now I'm thinking maybe the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8? The constant f2.8 would be nice, but I'd read that the Nikon is sharper, has les distortion and better VR.

I'd love the 17-55mm f2.8, but better condition ones are more than I care to pay at this time.

Comments?

Don't overlook the 24-85 Nikon, especially the newer VR. Fairly light, sharp as a tack and FX if you want to have one for full frame (or in my case an F100 with no trade in value when I bought my D7100 to replace the D90 I gave to my son.)