Has anyone had any experience with this new lens? I recently purchased a D300 and was thinking of adding this lens to replace my 18-70mm kit lens from my D70.
I rented a 24-70 2.8 this weekend to try out and see if I liked it. After getting over the shock of the added weight, I found I really liked the lens but it may be just too much. I was trying to see what it would be like to prepare for an eventual move to full format which I'm really not sure about now. I really like working with light and easy. (I used to shoot with an OM-1 in my film days.)
So after all that, what do you think about the 16-85mm? Thanks for any thoughts!
I've had my 16-85 VR for a few weeks and like it very much on my D300. The resolution is very high for a zoom and I think it's the best lens in this range of focal length if you want to go light. Here a shot at 62mm, F11 and 1/320s.
24-70mm, 14-24mm, 70-200mm, 58mm/1.4, 50mm/1.8, 85mm/1.4 and the 16-85mm
Each are special in their own way for certain things and I love using them all but the 16-85 (and I confess the 58mm) have been spending the most time on my D300.
I really like the lens and as I play and learn NX and CS3 better, using images taken by all the lenses to practice and play with, I'm amazed at what the 16-85 can do when compared to the others. It's even more of a keeper now.
Yes, it's a great lens in its class. I use mine when I need the high IQ, and portability in a small package. It gives up almost nothing compared to my 12-24 DX at the same focal lengths. The other focal lengths have very good IQ but the downside is the small aperture from 50mm and above (f5.6), which is undesirable if you wish to isolate a subject.
The VR and 16mm focal length is the killer combination, IMO. You can shoot static low light (and at not so high ISOs) hand held.
A Richmond, B.C. Nikonian - FM2n, F100, D300, D800
I replaced my 18-70 with the 16-85 and it is a far superior lens. I am very happy with it. My main general purpose lenses are: 12-24DX, 16-85DX, 70-300 VR. I find this makes a good basic collection. I think you will be very happy with it.
Sun 11-May-08 01:20 AM | edited Sun 11-May-08 01:21 AM by expresso100
Just bought mine today.
1) The lens seems slow if I'm using it with a D70 in Shutter prefered at all shutter speeds, even 300+. I notice even a 2 second delay sometimes. But that may just be the settings on my D70 because as soon as I switch it to Auto mode, it's fast for the same type of picture so it must be a setting on my D70 causing the slowness obviously
2) Sharp, yes. For sure. 3) Very very quiet.
I would post a sample picture but I'm not paying to post pictures on Nikonians especially when there's Picasa.
Hi, I bought an 18-70 with my D200 in Nov of 2006 and used it as my basic walk around lens. I found it short on the long end, and sharp enough for my applications. I recently bought a D300 and the 16-85mmVR I really like this lens. It appears sharper than the 18-70 and has less barrel distortion at the wide end. It's the right weight, smooth, etc. If if were to be improved, I'd want to see f4 carried through only for isolating a subject somewhat better than f5.6. The lower noise of the D300 helps compared to the D200 in this type of lens as well. That's my thoughts. //Del
I have 30K+ images with the excellent 18-70, and about 5K so far with the much better 16-85. The 16-85 is extremely sharp, if you get a good sample. My first sample was decentered, the second was near perfect. My luck with the 18-70 was similar. Be demanding.
At f5.6 the 16-85 is as sharp as any Nikon lens, including the 17-55. The VR works great. Build quality is much better than the 18-70. Overall, I would buy several, testing each carefully, and returning poor samples.
The lens is not perfect. It flares, so be careful. It vignettes, and there is moderate distortion, but overall, it is a joy. Destined to be a Nikon classic.
You can also get a superb 18-55 VR for only about $200 if you are willing to go through 3 or 4 samples, if necessary, to get a good one.
May i ask what does decentered mean? What are the visible symptoms of this problem? Asking it because i bought this lens and suspicious about that it is a faulty piece. On 16mm it creates completely unsharp pictures. On 50mm or 85mm seems perfect (close to the 50/1.8), but on 16mm it is generally unsharp. Rarely creates slightly better shots, but usually the result is very poor and unacceptable. Not relatively but absolutely, i think.
I read back over this topic about the 16-85 and find it makes no sense to me to have to reach into an apple cart, so to speak, hoping you'll find the best one of the bunch out of hundreds. If someone makes a product with a name like Nikon on it, the one I may buy today should be just like the one you bought last month. There shouldn't be any variation to the point of having to pick and choose and throwing one back to look for a better one. If QC is where it should be, this shouldn't be happening.
My goal in life is to be the person my dog already thinks I am.
>I read back over this topic about the 16-85 and find it makes >no sense to me to have to reach into an apple cart, so to >speak, hoping you'll find the best one of the bunch out of >hundreds. If someone makes a product with a name like Nikon on >it, the one I may buy today should be just like the one you >bought last month. There shouldn't be any variation to the >point of having to pick and choose and throwing one back to >look for a better one. If QC is where it should be, this >shouldn't be happening. > > > >
I've been reading many reviews about the spotty QC of Nikon lenses. Especially the DX line. I'm in the market for a new DSLR and the D90 with the Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f/3-5-5.6G ED VR DX was one of the set-ups I was looking at. Although everyone raves about the D90, the reviews of DX lenses go from horrid to good. With 90 years of history, I would think Nikon would have better engineering and QC than what I've been reading.
>With 90 years of history, I would think Nikon would >have better engineering and QC than what I've been reading.
If one believed everything one read on the web about lens quality, one would probably never buy anything...! All the major brands suffer from this same incorrect perception from time to time. No brand has 100% reliability, but Nikkors come closer than many others
That sounds like an excellent combo to me. I own that lens with a D80 and am very happy with it. I am no expert on optics so I went to my local camera store, found the guy who personally shoots with Nikon, we both talked about the lens and he demonstrated it to me and we both agreed the sharpness and function of the lens were very good. I love this lens and my next lens will probably be the 12-24mm DX.
I like the D90. The weight and size is perfect and the features of the camera fulfill most of my wants and needs. I do wish the D90 had a lower native ISO like 100, a bit faster/higher continuous FPS and 1 level higher shutter speed... but overall, it seems like a fabulous kit! Lenses other than the 16-85 DX that I would want to get are the 12-24 DX and the 70-300 VR along with a MB-D80 and a SB 800.
You shouldn't be too concerned about getting a bad sample of the 16-85 or any Nikon lens for that matter. On this site, I have seen only a single report of a bad 16-85 out of probably thousands who bought one. That one report (from SoCalMan) has been repeated many times.
I also went and over-tested my Nikon lenses at times, sometimes going so far as to try multiple samples of the same lens. Go ask the nice people at San Jose Camera about the crazy guy who came now and then with tripod, test charts etc and tried out different samples from their stock. All I ever found was that all samples were exactly the same. Each lens shows specific characteristics, in which conditions it is sharpest etc, and about which I was often concerned about. But I have found these characteristics to be the same among different samples. OF course bad samples can exist but would be rare. When I did my own testing, I was partly laughing about myself, doing some primitive tests after Nikon had already tested that same sample with much more sophisticated equipment after it was manufactured.
Maybe testing at home is definitely more primitive than Nikon can do in the factory, but it worth the time, because after it i felt myself nearly sure that my copy is a faulty one. So i sent it back and Nikon replaced without any comment. It was a bad copy. It is rare but from my point of view it was simply a bad Nikon lens. Now i have the replacement lens and after a month of normal usage (no testing!) i am suspicious that it produces back focus on my D80. I will test it at home (yes, at home with very primitive methods), and if the result will show me that it is really another bad one, i will sent it back too, like the first piece.
I remember back in the late'70's a friend assured me his Nikkor 105 f/2.5 was sharper than my Series I Vivitar 90 f/2.5. We ran test after test, shot the same scenes, used slides as to not be influenced by mechanized printing equipment and both of us came to the same conclusion...neither was particularlly sharper than the other center or edge but, the 105 did have a bit more contrast than the Series I. A lot of wasted time and money over nothing. Go out and shoot some real life scenes of the kids in the living room, the dog in the back yard and just enjoy your purchase.
My goal in life is to be the person my dog already thinks I am.
As i wrote "after a month of normal usage (no testing!)...", so yes, i was out in the real life, in the backyard, but the quality of the results are not enjoyable. I have three other lens without any problem on the same D80 body. So real life shooting is a testing process too, and what a simple one compared to Nikon laboratories! But you can't see backfocus on every shot (by nature), so it is just a strong suspicion. This is why we need testing.
If you spent a lot of hard earned money and got anything doesn't work properly, it is really impossible to enjoy that purchase.