# Nikon 16-85 VR + 70-300 VR Vs. 18-300 VR



## timarp000 (Aug 16, 2013)

I can get the 70-300 VR + 16-85 VR for $945
I can get a 18-300 VR for $997

Which one should I buy? which one will provide better images?

I shoot landscape and wildlife. so i need wide angle and telephoto.


----------



## goodguy (Aug 16, 2013)

Do you really have to ask ?

The 18-300mm VR is an ok lens but not very sharp, price you pay for having such a flexible lens.
On the other hand the 16-85mm VR is from all the feedback and reviews I read a very sharp lens and the 70-300mm VR is from personal experience a sharp lens so I don't see any comparison.
Get the 16-85mm VR+70-300mm VR

Almost the same combination I have the 24-85mm VR+70-300mm VR

Good luck


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 16, 2013)

goodguy said:


> Do you really have to ask ?
> 
> The 18-300mm VR is an ok lens but not very sharp, price you pay for having such a flexible lens.
> On the other hand the 16-85mm VR is from all the feedback and reviews I read a very sharp lens and the 70-300mm VR is from personal experience a sharp lens so I don't see any comparison.
> ...


is the 24-85 wide enough for you?


----------



## goodguy (Aug 16, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really have to ask ?
> ...


I have already replied to a former post of yours asking which lens to get the 24-85mm VR vs the 16-85mm VR.
I have stated there that the 24-85mm VR is very sharp and I use it for almost all my needs, most of my other lenses get little use.
For almost all my needs the 24-85mm VR is wide enough and if I still need extra wide then I have my Sigma lens 18-35mm
For me its the prefect lens, I love landscape and I very rarely use my Sigma lens.

I think you are too dependent on other peoples opinion, its good to collect information on what interest you but eventually your needs are your needs and no one can really know what is best for you as well as you.
I chose the 24-85mm VR because I plan on moving to an FX body in the future so all my lenses are FX, the only DX lens I had I traded (18-105mm VR).
If I didn't see myself moving to an FX body in the future I might have bought a different lens so for me the 24-85mm VR is the right lens.
I think FX body for many is the natural progress in photography, I also think the market is moving more and more to FX body cameras and in time they will become more and more popular.

So think what you need and want and then go for it both the 16-85mm VR and 24-85mm VR are good lenses but each has its pro and con
You choice of 70-300mm VR is the correct one, fantastic lens good for both DX and FX bodies.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 16, 2013)

Im thinking ill need the wide angle as I cant afford a separate wide angle lens like the 10-24 or 12-24...
Ill go with the 16-85 VR. Thanks for helping me clear that up 

I saw a detailed review on the 18-300 VR on youtube and it looks like you can see color fringing with that lens. Does the 16-85 VR and 70-300 VR do the same?


----------



## sashbar (Aug 16, 2013)

I have both 16-85 and 70-300, these are two lenses I use most of the time. Both are very good, consistent performers. I would not even consider  18-300, because with such a wide focal range there is an inevitable drop in image quality. The choice is simple, if you do not want to bother changing lenses, ready to carry a heavy lense all the time, do not mind a slower AF, and image quality is not your priority and you can live with zoom creep then go with 18-300. If you want sharper images, faster focus, with less distortion and you are ready to pay for it by  carrying two lenses, then 16-85, 70-300 is an obvious choice. Then again, it all depends on what kind of photography you are after. For most cases 16-85 enough.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 16, 2013)

sashbar said:


> I have both 16-85 and 70-300, these are two lenses I use most of the time. Both are very good, consistent performers. I would not even consider  18-300, because with such a wide focal range there is an inevitable drop in image quality. The choice is simple, if you do not want to bother changing lenses, ready to carry a heavy lense all the time, do not mind a slower AF, and image quality is not your priority and you can live with zoom creep then go with 18-300. If you want sharper images, faster focus, with less distortion and you are ready to pay for it by  carrying two lenses, then 16-85, 70-300 is an obvious choice. Then again, it all depends on what kind of photography you are after. For most cases 16-85 enough.


I have no problem carrying 2 lenses... Actually ill need to carry 3 now... 16-85 VR, 70-300 VR and an 85mm VR macro lens...

It looks like that im leaning towards the 16-85 VR + 70-300 VR now that you stated all the numerous flaws with the 18-300 VR... Yikes


----------



## Solarflare (Aug 16, 2013)

Whow, I would definitely go for the 16-85mm and 70-300mm any day in this comparison.

The 16-85mm is the best dark standard zoom for Nikon DX.

The 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR is the cheapest zoom thats good (i.e. fast) enough for serious sport photography.

The 18-300mm is a convenience superzoom. Good if you dont want to change lenses. Image quality is surprisingly good for a superzoom, build is okay, price is high, and of course its yet another dark zoom.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 16, 2013)

by dark do you mean the higher min. f stops?


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Aug 16, 2013)

+1 for the 70-300mm VR.  Excellent lens.  The 16-85 will complement it nicely.  The versatility/convenience you gain from the 18-300 you give up in photo quality.  Decide what's more important to you, and for some people legitimately the convenience factor will sway them for the all-in-one lens solution.  For me, changing lenses is a small price to pay to gain improved IQ.  My friend won't take the 18-200 off his camera and is happy with the quality of his pics.  To each their own.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 16, 2013)

This is what I plan to buy.

All from B&H


----------



## PaulWog (Aug 16, 2013)

A few things to note about the purchase you plan to make:

1) Is the 85mm for macro photography? Take a look at the 85mm 1.8G, which would complement everything you're starting with better. The 85mm 1.8G is widely regarded as one of the best value for the money lenses on the market.
2) If you're picking this all up at once, take a look at the 35mm 1.8G and/or the 50mm 1.8G to go with everything. Both are excellent lenses. Prime lenses are wonderful to have.
3) Consider picking up two 16GB SDHC cards right off the bat, or two 32GB SDHC cards. Your camera accepts two at once.
4) Have you researched your tripod? If you have, good. If you haven't, make sure it's good. I don't know much about tripods, but I know bad ones can be a huge disappointment.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 16, 2013)

PaulWog said:


> A few things to note about the purchase you plan to make:
> 
> 1) Is the 85mm for macro photography? Take a look at the 85mm 1.8G, which would complement everything you're starting with better. The 85mm 1.8G is widely regarded as one of the best value for the money lenses on the market.
> 2) If you're picking this all up at once, take a look at the 35mm 1.8G and/or the 50mm 1.8G to go with everything. Both are excellent lenses. Prime lenses are wonderful to have.
> ...



1) Yes, the 85mm is for macro photography so i require it as i take alot of macro shots
2) Yes, I am picking all this up at once. My relatives are coming from USA to india(where i live) Im getting the products from them as India prices are crazy high. D7100 body costs $1700!
3) B&H is offering a free sandisk 16GB Extreme SD card for free with the camera.
4) I have seen several reviews on youtube. The reviews are positive. It also supports upto 1.5Kg and the max i will reach is 1.2Kg


----------



## goodguy (Aug 16, 2013)

1196$ for the D7100 ?

I got my new D7100 less then a month ago for 1050$


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 16, 2013)

goodguy said:


> 1196$ for the D7100 ?
> 
> I got my new D7100 less then a month ago for 1050$


But im getting $300 off on the lenses...


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 16, 2013)

The two lenses... not "the one".


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 16, 2013)

shadowlands said:


> The two lenses... not "the one".



Yes, i understand that. Hence i used the word "lenses" and not the word 'lens'


----------

