What are the practical differences between Nikon 18-105mm vs 16-85mm, and 55-300mm vs 70-300mm zooms?
Asked 2/12/2012
4 views
2 answers
0
I'm comparing two pairs of Nikon zoom lenses and want to understand what the extra cost buys you in real-world use.
First pair:
- Nikon AF-S DX 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
- Nikon AF-S DX 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
Second pair:
- Nikon AF-S DX 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G
- Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR II
What are the main differences in focal range, build quality, autofocus/manual focus handling, stabilization, and overall image quality? Why does the 16-85 cost much more than the 18-105, and how does the 55-300 compare to the 70-300 in practice?
Originally by 50ndr33. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
50ndr33
14y ago
2 Answers
8
It is important to note the correct full model names:
AF-S Zoom-Nikkor ED 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR
AF-S Zoom-Nikkor ED 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR
The biggest advantage to the 16-85 is that you get those crucial extra 2mm at the wide end. It doesn't seem like a lot, but that can make the difference between making the lens a true walk around lens and a lens that needs to be paired with an additional wide angle or super wide angle lens for capturing some types of photography.
- The 16-85 has a metal mount, which the 18-105 does not.
- The 16-85 has VR II and an active mode, the 18-105 does not.
- The 16-85 has manual focus override, the 18-105 does not.
- The 16-85 has rubber sealing for weather and dust, the 18-105 does not.
Overall the 16-85 is just a better built more professionally oriented lens. Neither lens is bad, and neither lens is perfect. But you do pay more for the additional features of the 16-85.
Originally by user4892. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user4892
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
The main reason to choose the 16-85 over the 18-105 is the wider 16mm end. Those extra 2mm matter a lot on APS-C and can make it a more useful walkaround lens for landscapes, interiors, and travel.
Based on the community answers, the 16-85 also offers more premium handling/features: metal mount, better sealing, smoother rings, manual-focus override, and more advanced VR. The 18-105 is the more budget-oriented option. Image quality does not appear dramatically better on the 16-85 in every case, so the higher price is mostly about wider coverage and more refined construction/features.
For the telezooms, the 70-300 is described as the better-built lens, with smoother zoom/focus rings and faster autofocus. The 55-300 is more consumer-oriented and its AF may feel slower. The 70-300 also has VR and is generally regarded as the more polished lens overall.
In short: if you want better build, handling, and the widest possible standard zoom, pick the 16-85; if value matters more, the 18-105 is still attractive. Between the telezooms, the 70-300 is the more robust and responsive option.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why does the Nikon 70-300mm AF-S VR cost much more than the 55-300mm AF-S DX VR?
Nikon DX telephoto zooms: AF-P 70-300mm VR vs AF-S 55-300mm VR
Will my current Nikon lenses be sharp enough on a 24MP DX body vs 16MP?
Should I keep my Nikon 18-55mm if I buy the 16-85mm for a D5100?
Which budget telephoto lens is the best fit for a Nikon D5100: Nikon 70-300 VR, Nikon 55-300 VR, or Tamron 70-300?