AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

[Saycheese78]

so may i know of here, have any user to use 18-105 VR kit lens?
is nice & sharp?
cause my colleague just bought it D90 with kit.
if your have any good photo just show show hehe, i also consider it lens for my next travelling.
cause the price is still chaper too.

Bro, 1 sincere advice for u.
1) What is your budget?
2) Any idea what you intend to shoot?

Do cater for $1k after your purchase for further upgrades in next 12 mths. I think a lot of people into at least one of the categories below.

1) Model Shoots. Basics = 1 X 50F1.4 ($400-$500) + 1 X Flash ($300 - $6/700)
2) Landscape. Basics = 1 X tripod ($500 for carbon) + Filters ($100+) + Wide Angle Lens (Good to have)
3) Street photography = 70-300 VR will be good. 55-200VR managable
4) Sports photography. Good luck ($10k min?)
5) Shoot birds.. (min 70-300VR)

And remember, its a lot on skills than equipment. Of course, for things like sports photography, no equipment, dun bother.

 

[Saycheese78]

Most of the time go shooting it is always the 16-85mm + 70-300mm + 50mm with my D300. Together with the SB600.

If I want to travel light, it is just the 16-85mm + 50mm f1.4

If I know I got indoor then I will bring the tammy 17-50mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.4.

So in the end, it boils down to what I am doing. If you are after light weight, please stick to D40/D40x/D60 with kit lens.

Haha light weight.. Forget the D40/D60 combi... spend a bit more and hoot the Leica M series compacts. I think weight is critical factor. If I were to carry whatever you carry in the 1st 1-2 mths I started, I think I give up liao.

 

[rain5533]

i already have sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM 3rd party lens.
but i still have to find another mid level lens.
for good to go travelling also.
but in 16-85mm it's not consider cheaper price leh, friend.
so i just want to know about 18-105VR maybe it's good lens.

 

[thenomad]

Well, the thing is, if that 16-85 was like a 3.5-4.5, it would be a no brainer to get, but from some comments in DPR forums, you are practically better off with a 18-200mm if you were to get a 16-85 and 70-300 combo. Images look great for the 18-200, and the 16-85 pictures look good too, but only marginally in some comparison shots.

This is the only reason why I'm still confused on my option. Is the 70-300 VR's 200-300mm range that bad?

I have read numerous reviews that the >200mm range on the 70-300 VR is the main weakness of this lens. Some even suggested not to use this range if you can help it. But actually, to be honest I really don't see any major weakness in this range for this lens. I even tested shooting at 300mm wide open (f/5.6), and compared it with 200mm also at f/5.6. Well, if you really pixel peep or zoom, you can see a very slight difference, but it really is not as bad as what most people say. There is an issue with vignetting and slightly darker image at 300mm f/5.6, but if you just over-expose a bit, the image will turn out nice. Maybe there are good and bad copies, so be sure to test it before buying.

Hmm why don't you ask, is the 70-300 VR, the 70-200 range really that good?

The 16-85 weakness is at 85mm.

I do have a 55-200. the lens is really great, especially 85-100+mm.. 130mm onwards, well I try not to use that. Due to this, I seldom fit my 55-200mm after I got the 16-85mm unless I die die must nail the 85-120mm range.

My point is that you can use the 70-300 as a 70-200mm lens and it may just work out to be great! (of course, talk is cheap and I do find it a hassle to keep changing lens!)

Do consider the weight too.. Carrying a 1kg bag + 2kg of equipment + 2kg tripod + 1kg for umbrella + water bottle around town without a car... You just try a and tell me! Thats where the 70-300mm VR + 16-85mm + SB900 + D90 + Lowe-Pro Bag + Magnesium tripod is a back breaking combi..

Actually, the lenses that we've been mentioning are considered fairly compact and light lenses. Compare them with those pro 2.8 zooms, like the 70-200 VR, or the Canon 70-200 IS. And people are carrying them with bodies like D300, D3, 1DMkIII, etc. Plus other lenses also. Dunno leh.. I think it's a matter of getting used to it, or personal preference.

 

[Vulpix0r]

I have read numerous reviews that the >200mm range on the 70-300 VR is the main weakness of this lens. Some even suggested not to use this range if you can help it. But actually, to be honest I really don't see any major weakness in this range for this lens. I even tested shooting at 300mm wide open (f/5.6), and compared it with 200mm also at f/5.6. Well, if you really pixel peep or zoom, you can see a very slight difference, but it really is not as bad as what most people say. There is an issue with vignetting and slightly darker image at 300mm f/5.6, but if you just over-expose a bit, the image will turn out nice. Maybe there are good and bad copies, so be sure to test it before buying.

Your current combo in your signature is probably my most ideal, and I'm very tempted to go ahead. I do not need any bright lenses as I have a LX3 to supplement that requirement, but the only thing stopping me from getting a 16-85mm is the level of sharpness.

If it's as said on the 'net that the sharpness is not significant enough to justify the price, why should I bother? I've seen shots of the 16-85, and to my eyes they do seem better than the 18-200 if we were to compare corner sharpness. Mind sharing your justification for getting your current setup instead of the easy to use 18-200?

 

[proteonXPR]

16-85 is sharper than 18-200, with less distortion, and the sharpness is there even without stopping down.

i reluctantly sold my copy as i dont have time for photography.. nowadays a simple point and shoot is ok for me for the wides.

 

[AbangR]

this lens is very sharper and wide angle as 24-127.5mm is mid range.
it lens have VR II some more.
before i get the f2.8 lens and my friend also prefer me.
only aperture at 3.5-5.6 only is normal for me.. so end up i never consider it lens.
but still good for traveling used.

sorry.. but exactly are you trying to say.. I got lost :dunno:

 

[AbangR]

I have this combo: D90 + 16-85mm and found it perfect for traveling in terms of weight and balance with D90 body, wide-angle vs. tele trade-off, and IQ.
I owned 18-200mm before and I notice that I don't use >100mm very often. You need to find out about your shooting habits first.
For me, 16mm vs 18mm advantage is more important than 85mm vs 200mm loss.
Also, 18-200mm is not as sharp as 16-85mm as others have pointed out.
If you print 5x7, you can shoot 85mm and crop later.

BTW, I bought my 16-85mm used. So, the price difference with the 18-200mm used was quite significant.

 

[gnohz]

I have this combo: D90 + 16-85mm and found it perfect for traveling in terms of weight and balance with D90 body, wide-angle vs. tele trade-off, and IQ.
I owned 18-200mm before and I notice that I don't use >100mm very often. You need to find out about your shooting habits first.
For me, 16mm vs 18mm advantage is more important than 85mm vs 200mm loss.
Also, 18-200mm is not as sharp as 16-85mm as others have pointed out.
If you print 5x7, you can shoot 85mm and crop later.

BTW, I bought my 16-85mm used. So, the price difference with the 18-200mm used was quite significant.

One of the ways to find out about your own shooting habits is to buy a long zoom and see which range most of your photos fall into or else if buy a short zoom, you wont know for sure if you require longer focal length since there's none for you to use ;p

 

[bomby929]

Last time was also choosing between 18-200mm and 16-85mm.. in the end choose the 16-85mm due to

1) Already have the 70-300mm
2) Zoom creep of 18-200mm
3) Price cheaper than 18-200mm
4) Better iq in the more usable range
5) Wider

Tough choice as the 18-200mm is more versatile in terms of range, but the visible distortion was the main reason that kept me away.

 

[thenomad]

Your current combo in your signature is probably my most ideal, and I'm very tempted to go ahead. I do not need any bright lenses as I have a LX3 to supplement that requirement, but the only thing stopping me from getting a 16-85mm is the level of sharpness.

If it's as said on the 'net that the sharpness is not significant enough to justify the price, why should I bother? I've seen shots of the 16-85, and to my eyes they do seem better than the 18-200 if we were to compare corner sharpness. Mind sharing your justification for getting your current setup instead of the easy to use 18-200?

I get the feeling that you are testing a not-so-good copy of a 16-85, vs a good copy of a 18-200. In general, 16-85 should be more than noticeably sharper. Plus it has better contrast and colour. Numerous reviews seem to indicate so, and I have seen it myself. I don't know where you read on the net that says the 16-85 price is not justified because it's not so sharp. All of those that I've read actually says it is sharp. And like somebody mentioned, it is sharp wide-open, though I still tend to stop down a bit.

My reasons for choosing it are because: 1) image quality, as above. 2) the extra +2mm wider. 3) the 16-85 does not zoom creep like the 18-200 does (I personally find this quite annoying :bsmilie. Can be a problem when walking around with it, or when using a tripod to shoot up or down.

 

[szeping]

One of the ways to find out about your own shooting habits is to buy a long zoom and see which range most of your photos fall into or else if buy a short zoom, you wont know for sure if you require longer focal length since there's none for you to use ;p

This might be a bit misleading sometimes IMHO. I have seen some people tend to zoom in more (since they have longer zoom) instead of making few steps ahead, which can save some mm range.

I personally own a 18-200mm, but seldom use the tele-end.

 

[gnohz]

This might be a bit misleading sometimes IMHO. I have seen some people tend to zoom in more (since they have longer zoom) instead of making few steps ahead, which can save some mm range.

I personally own a 18-200mm, but seldom use the tele-end.

I see. That might be true too. So up till what range do you mostly use for 18-200?

 

[Vulpix0r]

After thinking long and hard, I decided to go with a 18-200 after comparing samples from a 16-85 and 18-200 that I took at a shop. The difference to me is too miniscule (corner slightly sharper) for me to sacrifice the 85+ range which I do use frequently. Oh well.

 

[Dan003]

I have used my 16-85 for abt a month and its sharp enough for me.. hardly need to use the VR though..

since you have already made up your decision..have great fun with your 18-200:angel:

 

[blackdrakes]

Most of the time go shooting it is always the 16-85mm + 70-300mm + 50mm with my D300. Together with the SB600.

If I want to travel light, it is just the 16-85mm + 50mm f1.4

If I know I got indoor then I will bring the tammy 17-50mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.4.

So in the end, it boils down to what I am doing. If you are after light weight, please stick to D40/D40x/D60 with kit lens.

hi, won't your nikon 16-85 and tamron 17-50 overlap each other in range most of the time?
Why keep both?

 

[bomby929]

hi, won't your nikon 16-85 and tamron 17-50 overlap each other in range most of the time?
Why keep both?

One is f2.8 while the other is normal. 16-85mm allow me to reach further and I used this more for outdoor. Indoor is was the 17-50mm more due to its f2.8. But now.. both lens are sold. :sweatsm:

 

[Nenjia]

on MTF data 16-85 is the best so far

 

[Nenjia]

on MTF data 16-85 is the best so far

 

[jimbok]

Yeah, but depends on what situation using the lens. 17-50 2.8 is great for low light shooting compared to the 16-85.