Nikkor 16-85mm

[mocha2204]

Hi all,

I am searching about this lens in the forum but couldnt find any thread about it.
So if anyone has any input for this lens, please share :)

some backgroung: I am using a D90 and 35mm f1.8 (my first body and lens).
During my first trip bringing this camera to Gold Coast, I noticed that some flexibility in zooming would be nice.
So my 2 choices are nikkor 18-200mm VRII or 16-85mm
Also, can anyone recommend any good online retail besides ebay?

I had a look at kenrockwell and thomhogan review, they seems allright.

Thank you all in advance :D

[davros]

I can't comment on either lens specifically, but the 18-200 has been mentioned in a few recent posts - I believe in the review section. As for online retailers, I've purchased a lens through camerasdirect.com.au before has was happy with their service. They seem to have the best online price, most of the time, and everything comes with Aus warranties - non grey market lenses.

[kiwi]

very different lenses in my opinion. If "zooming" is what you need then the 85mm on the end of the 16 is not going to be a dramatic improvement if you need length

The 18-200 is very versatile but will not have quite the IQ or speed of the 16-85

[wolffman]

I've got one and its not bad. I mainly got it for the 16 end rather than the 85 mm end as I thought that would suit my photography more. I also thought the image quality would be better than the 18-200.
Its got some weird distortion at 16mm, and is very slow at 85mm at 5.6. I have the D90 as well and struggle to use the lens indoor, but its great outdoors or in good light. The VR works well, but won't help with moving subjects. Its certainly sharp enough if its used on a tripod and stopped down, like most lenses, but its a little soft wide open. the 35mm lens I have as well, and its heaps sharper with better colour rendition.
I took these images on it. Its a pretty good zoom range for wandering around. I don't use it much since I got a 10-24 and 70-300 and the 35.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4154/5042380636_3295d466cb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_wolff/5042380636/)Brighton Jetty - Empty (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_wolff/5042380636/) by Chris Wolff (http://www.flickr.com/people/chris_wolff/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4148/4843617042_f762809279.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_wolff/4843617042/)DSC_1166_1520 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_wolff/4843617042/) by Chris Wolff (http://www.flickr.com/people/chris_wolff/), on Flickr

url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_wolff/4843000043/]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/4843000043_ed76767260.jpg[/url]DSC_1171_1525 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_wolff/4843000043/) by Chris Wolff (http://www.flickr.com/people/chris_wolff/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4110/4843595772_db7109ed4e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_wolff/4843595772/)20090924-DSC_0021sml (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_wolff/4843595772/) by Chris Wolff (http://www.flickr.com/people/chris_wolff/), on Flickr

[kiwi]

sorry, Im having a bad day, i thought you were referring to the 17-55 for some reason

KR has a review here for what it's worth

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm-vs-18-200mm.htm

[wolffman]

One other thing, I reckon you will get a more image impact between 16mm and 18mm compared to 85mm and 200mm. you can crop or walk closer to make 85mm look more like 200mm, but you can't add extra pixels around the edge of a 18mm image to get it to 16mm.
Decide whether you like wide angle or up close images

[arthurking83]

Further to wolffman's comments, I think you should save your money and go for something like a 18-105VR + 70-300VR lens.

16-85VR looks to be(by all accounts) to be an excellent lens for what it does, but it's a damned expensive one at that. Same with the 18-200VR.
18-105VR is cheap, and from what I see out of my lens, IQ can be as good as many pro lenses from only a few years back.
Chances are that when you want to use a focal length roughly approximating 200mm, you'll find that 200mm is not quite enough anyhow, and that you will inevitably wish you had 300mm instead.
Subsequently you then crop the resulting 200mm image(heavily) to compensate, and IQ can suffer just a touch as a result.. so best practice would be to have something more like a xx-300mm lens instead, the IQ @ 200mm is going to be (a lot? :confused:) better... and you always have the option to zoom in even tighter.
I realize that this isn't a single lens option, but generally, you will eventually know whether you want/need a lens that reaches 100-300mm, or whether you'll need an 18-20mm lens for a given application.

[ziph]

I have this lens and it lives on my D90. Seems to cover most of my usual focal lengths.
It does show barrel distortion at 16mm, but easily corrected, if needed.

[mocha2204]

Hi All,

Thank you for all the input, appreciate it.

I have not tried wide angle photography before so I am not buying this lens 16-85mm for the 16mm but who knows I might get hooked into it once I tried.

Now I am really in doubt from what wolffman said about 35mm being sharper and better color as image quality is quite a priority for me
and also the fact that this lens will not work with moving objects because one of the main reason I want a zoom lens is to capture my dogs running in the park metres away from me

hmmmm..very confused now :confused013

[N*A*M]

the 16-85 is over priced for what it is
18-105 VR or 18-70 are better value imho
either of them will be quite good
and i agree on adding a 70-300 VR later

of course the 35mm will render nicer as it is a fairly fast prime with new optics and coatings
but you won't find any IQ issues with any of nikon's glass... apart from some CA and distortion (they seem to have made a compromise on these two defects)
the modern lenses all render lovely colour with good contrast

[flashpixx]

whether the 16-85 is over priced is a moot point. what it is however is the best DX consumer zoom available from Nikon. IQ is better than the 18-105, 18-70 abd 18-200. It has vrII, so while slow at 85mm VR can save it to some degree. So if you are looking at Nikon only, it is the best zoom lens under $1,000.

I have just undertaken some extensive research before ordering a 16-85. I should have it next week and will be happy to report back.

[mocha2204]

I am looking to buy the lens by Dec/Jan the latest. Do you guys think that Nikon will produce a new zoom lens within this range?
My other main purpose in getting this lens is that I can take one lens with me that is versatile for a holiday trip.
so I wont be carying my 70-300m with me for holiday if I have it.
but yes I agree that 16-85 is overpriced compared to 18-105mm but I thought that difference in price lays in quality so its quite worth it.
and what is CA is you care to explain it to me?

I am currently looking at Nikon lens only as I trust their quality, but if someone has suggestions of 3rd party lenses, i am happy to take them into account.
oh congrats flashpixx for your new lens!
cant wait for your to report back on it. appreciate it very much
did you get it online?

thanks :)

[flashpixx]

the 16-85 has finally arrived. had a near miss on flea bay, fortunately suffered no loss. Very impressed with the build quality, smooth zoom and focus rings. Still to take some serious pics, a few taken with the flash inside this evening appear to show the lens is sharp enough. More testing over the weekend.

[arthurking83]

I think the 16-85 is over priced too.. by about $100-200, when compared to the 18-200 lens at least.

If you're going to be 'chasing dogs' even at close range, I think the extra reach of the 18-105 will help, and at half the price of the 16-85 represents the best value of the current Nikon consumer/kit lens range.

Even the 18-200Vr at about $50 more seems to be better value than the 16-85.. even if you only stick to shooting at 135mm.

Generally the longer the focal length you choose for a zoom lens, the more rapidly IQ declines from that lens. More zoom ratio usually equates to lower IQ overall too.
if you get a more super superzoom lens, then purposely sticking to focal lengths lower than the max available will give you slightly better image quality.

ie. if you think you'll be shooting your dogs at the park at 70-100mm focal length, then the best lens for that purpose would have to be the 70-300mm VR lens.

[mocha2204]

Hi Flashpixx,

Good to know your lens has finally arrived. Did a search but couldnt see any thread by you of that lens.. cant wait!!! :)

Hi arthurking,

thanks for your input. and yes I do agree that 16-85mm is overpriced by 100-200. its currently listed on ebay around 600 if its 400, it would have been sweet!!