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

[alvin]

@OP: Its a good lens, I use it most of the time if I "travel". However like some of the other posters have mentioned, you need to figure out your shooting style. When I went on tour with my kakis, one was purely using 10-20mm (sigma) for street shooting, I was with my 16-85, another kaki was using I think 35-70 (canon).

If I go out shooting my usual wildlife park, I don't even bother to bring it along; 300mm/4 and 55mm/2.8 are the lenses of the day.

@Vulpix0r: I think the 70-300 @ 300/5.6 is fine for the price. IMO, it does not stack up against say, 300mm/4 or the 80-400vr (own the former, rented the later) when pixel peeping, but for the price I have no regrets. My photo net gallery - most of the shots are taken with the 70-300. It's a bit soft wide open definitely - no way I am able to stop down, but it is adequate for 8x12 prints. If you live near/around jurong I can show u some 8x12 and 12x18 prints done with the 70-300 and the 300/4. Apart from the look of the faster lens I think the 70-300 does very well, especially if you have a newer body to compensate the 1 stop slower zoom. Bokeh of the 70-300 is quite harsh against the wrong type of background, but can be liquid smooth if the conditions are right. No comments on the range below 300 as I seldom deviate from 300m.

 

[bigpond]

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

Guess i had a not so good copy of the 17-50 -- i hesitate to use it at 2.8, so to me it is effectively an f4 lens, not a great advantage compared to the 16-85 vr.

 

[kylelam77]

Hmm. Interesting that the thread starter only had 1 post while the replies from everyone else were more.

I think many of us here hv this dilemma, between 16-85 and 70-300 or 18-200 or 17-55 etc. I hv a 16-85mm myself and sometimes, it is quite troublesome to change to the 70-300mm, esp if travelling with children. I am somewhat skeptical of the differences in IQ between 16-85 and 18-200mm, at least i don't believe the difference is obvious unless u pixel-peep. I thought i wldn't change lenses so much as well with the 16-85 but as i progressed, i got to shooting wide angle (16mm is not wide enough for those great perspective shots) and when i needed to drill in, i had to change to my 70-300. All in all, quite a lot of lens changes. The 18-200 is undeniably attractive and now, i' d wished i had gone for the 18-200 for a walkaround. Still beats the 16-85mm for range, at least for me.

 

[gnohz]

Hmm. Interesting that the thread starter only had 1 post while the replies from everyone else were more.

I think many of us here hv this dilemma, between 16-85 and 70-300 or 18-200 or 17-55 etc. I hv a 16-85mm myself and sometimes, it is quite troublesome to change to the 70-300mm, esp if travelling with children. I am somewhat skeptical of the differences in IQ between 16-85 and 18-200mm, at least i don't believe the difference is obvious unless u pixel-peep. I thought i wldn't change lenses so much as well with the 16-85 but as i progressed, i got to shooting wide angle (16mm is not wide enough for those great perspective shots) and when i needed to drill in, i had to change to my 70-300. All in all, quite a lot of lens changes. The 18-200 is undeniably attractive and now, i' d wished i had gone for the 18-200 for a walkaround. Still beats the 16-85mm for range, at least for me.

That's true, from what I know 16mm and 18mm is only just a step's difference ;p so for wide angle, it would be much better to get a separate lens instead of relying on that 2mm difference.

 

[tkbonz]

That's true, from what I know 16mm and 18mm is only just a step's difference ;p so for wide angle, it would be much better to get a separate lens instead of relying on that 2mm difference.

I agree with the 2mm thingy...best to get another separate dedicated UWA like the Sigma 10-20mm.

 

[kaikibbler]

A question, if I may...

If convenience is a big factor, what are you doing with a DSLR?

In addition to having a larger sensor and more fine-tuning features, the benefit of using different lenses is having one that is best suited for what you intend to shoot in terms of IQ. Of course it would be hell to carry a prime for every 10mm difference in focal length, so there is a balance between having a suitable lens for different focal lengths (e.g. 1 that excels in medium range, one in tele, one in wide), and carryability.

18-200 is certainly convenient but not without compromises. Some shooters can live with them, others can't. It's up to personal preference.

IMHO, having a DSLR but focusing on convenience rather than IQ are contradictory goals.

 

[bomby929]

A question, if I may...

If convenience is a big factor, what are you doing with a DSLR?

In addition to having a larger sensor and more fine-tuning features, the benefit of using different lenses is having one that is best suited for what you intend to shoot in terms of IQ. Of course it would be hell to carry a prime for every 10mm difference in focal length, so there is a balance between having a suitable lens for different focal lengths (e.g. 1 that excels in medium range, one in tele, one in wide), and carryability.

18-200 is certainly convenient but not without compromises. Some shooters can live with them, others can't. It's up to personal preference.

IMHO, having a DSLR but focusing on convenience rather than IQ are contradictory goals.

:thumbsup: I just find that it is funny when ppl say heavy this and heavy that... IMHO.. if you are into SLR.. you can forget about light weigh.

 

[Saycheese78]

A question, if I may...

If convenience is a big factor, what are you doing with a DSLR?

In addition to having a larger sensor and more fine-tuning features, the benefit of using different lenses is having one that is best suited for what you intend to shoot in terms of IQ. Of course it would be hell to carry a prime for every 10mm difference in focal length, so there is a balance between having a suitable lens for different focal lengths (e.g. 1 that excels in medium range, one in tele, one in wide), and carryability.

18-200 is certainly convenient but not without compromises. Some shooters can live with them, others can't. It's up to personal preference.

IMHO, having a DSLR but focusing on convenience rather than IQ are contradictory goals.

Why not?

Go tour carry 18-200mm
Go shoot models bring 50F1.4b SB900.
Go botanic garden bring 105mm micro
Go Sungei Budoh shoot bird, bring 300mm
Go orchard take street shot bring 70-300mm
Go party bring 30F1.4
Go shoot scenary bring 10-20mm
F1 bring 70-200F2.8 or smuggle longer lens

Ok what. Quite convenient, fit all purpose. Minimum change of lens, light weight, spend more time thinking of how to shoot than change lens.

 

[gnohz]

I think practical convenience is what matters. To me, it does not mean that having a dslr and convenience cannot come together. It's more of give and take. Some pple prefer to have the best IQ for every photo they shoot so they carry everything with them, but some are willing to sacrifice some IQ for the convenience of one lens. In any case, you already get better IQ than PnS no matter what lens or lenses you use so it doesnt matter

 

[rain5533]

Why not?

Go tour carry 18-200mm
Go shoot models bring 50F1.4b SB900.
Go botanic garden bring 105mm micro
Go Sungei Budoh shoot bird, bring 300mm
Go orchard take street shot bring 70-300mm
Go party bring 30F1.4
Go shoot scenary bring 10-20mm
F1 bring 70-200F2.8 or smuggle longer lens

Ok what. Quite convenient, fit all purpose. Minimum change of lens, light weight, spend more time thinking of how to shoot than change lens.

wow~~ you have it type of lens. hehe
so many of your collection. :bsmilie::bsmilie:
but this is good idea.

 

[guanyu158]

Hmm. Interesting that the thread starter only had 1 post while the replies from everyone else were more.

......

i read replies everyday. thanks for everyone who replied. your opinions are valuable.

 

[Xiao_shin]

Quite a good performer to me but price a bit steep.

 

[Daoyin]

I considered the 16-85mm and the 18-105mm before settling on the Tamron 17-50mm because of the flexibility provided by the f2.8. The reasons were much the same as outlined in previous entries. The fact it was smaller didn't hurt either.

 

[thenomad]

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.

Well, since you've already made your decision and bought the lens, have lots of fun with it! What's important is to go out and shoot more.

 

[Saycheese78]

Hi Bros

Any1 with any suggestions on a good wide angle to add on after you purchase 16-85mm? F2.8 is not a need and also not a want at the moment.

 

[TheChef]

Hi Bros

Any1 with any suggestions on a good wide angle to add on after you purchase 16-85mm? F2.8 is not a need and also not a want at the moment.

Nikkor 12-24mm or Tokina 11-16mm.

 

[poseidon61]

That's true, from what I know 16mm and 18mm is only just a step's difference ;p so for wide angle, it would be much better to get a separate lens instead of relying on that 2mm difference.

16mm + a few steps = 14mm
18mm + many steps = 14mm

;p

 

[rain5533]

16mm + a few steps = 14mm
18mm + many steps = 14mm

;p

haha, yaloh i think so 16mm is very near from 14mm.
but how is 17mm?
i only have 18mm for my wide angle lens, i have now.
:bsmilie:

 

[AbangR]

16mm + a few steps = 14mm
18mm + many steps = 14mm

;p

What if you hit a wall taking that "many steps" :bsmilie:

 

[Saycheese78]

Alamak

Actually I was just wondering, anyone of u guys with this lens bought a wide angle and which one u guys bought... End up got use or not cos 16mm is relatively wide liao..

I actually prefer my 55-200mm at 85mm but most of the time, I cannot be bothered to change lens. (lens are never best at extreme ends)