Do i really need a 16-85mm VR?

[chanjyj]

Which 18-55mm are you referring to? Version 1 (D50), 2 (D40/x) or 3 (D60, VR)?

If you are referring to the D50 or D40 kit lens I beg to differ when you refer to sharpness and CA. the 18-55mm is sharp, real sharp. So sharp I bought it as a backup (of course, price factored in).

CA wise, I do not believe it lags behind the 16-85mm by much either.

Better optical quality - what do you mean by this? Sharpness or CA?

Btw, better coating i.e. SIC in your case, does not mean better quality, in all seriousness. So you cannot look at that factor at all. If you want to compare the 2, then you would have to compare on the points of coma and flare instead. Not the coating.

As for the rest of your points, I'd agree with you.

The 16-85 is much better than the 18-55.

• Better built
• Sealed
• Has distance markers
• VR II
• Metal bayonet
• Longer and wider reach
• IF (lens not expanding during focus)
• Front element does not rotate during focus
• Better optical quality
• Better coating (SIC)
• Almost no CA
• Rounded aperture blades creating nice bokeh
• Hood is included

I have probably missed some advantages over the 18-55. On the negative side, it is however:

• Larger
• Heavier
• More expensive
• Minimum focus distance is 0.38m instead of 0.28m

As far as I am concerned, there are no other disadvantages with the lens.

If you think the 16-85 is only marginally better that's fine, but it is wrong. I would not consider the 18-55 as an alternative to the 16-85, possibly I would consider the 18-105 is almost as good but only almost.

 

[alan choo]

you already have 17-55. why bother look at 16-85??

I got my 17-55 mm years ago. Then I bought my D300 that came with 16-85 mm. Maybe its my style of shooting, I began to get attached to this len.I find that the zoom range is good for walk around and moreover I don shoot often at 2.8. In the end I sold my 17-55 and till now never regret.

 

[r0n1n]

you already have 17-55. why bother look at 16-85??

I got my 17-55 mm years ago. Then I bought my D300 that came with 16-85 mm. Maybe its my style of shooting, I began to get attached to this len.I find that the zoom range is good for walk around and moreover I don shoot often at 2.8. In the end I sold my 17-55 and till now never regret.

TS already got his 16-85 way back in March maybe he still kept his 17-55

 

[daredevil123]

I got my 17-55 mm years ago. Then I bought my D300 that came with 16-85 mm. Maybe its my style of shooting, I began to get attached to this len.I find that the zoom range is good for walk around and moreover I don shoot often at 2.8. In the end I sold my 17-55 and till now never regret.

The key point is about needs. I do not understand why some people buy the 17-55/2.8 when all they do is shoot F3.5 and smaller apertures all the time. And selling a 17-55 and replacing it with a 16-85 is not a wrong move. If one do not need fast apertures, the 55-85mm range boost is a god-send. And plus, you will save some money too. The thing is, if you know about your needs earlier and got the 16-85 directly instead, you would have saved even more money.

So my advice is to know your shooting style and understand your needs. And purchase accordingly. Do not follow blindly.

 

[chanjyj]

The key point is about needs. I do not understand why some people buy the 17-55/2.8 when all they do is shoot F3.5 and smaller apertures all the time. And selling a 17-55 and replacing it with a 16-85 is not a wrong move. If one do not need fast apertures, the 55-85mm range boost is a god-send. And plus, you will save some money too. The thing is, if you know about your needs earlier and got the 16-85 directly instead, you would have saved even more money.

So my advice is to know your shooting style and understand your needs. And purchase accordingly. Do not follow blindly.

Some people buy a 2.8 lens and shoot at f/3.5 because they want optimum sharpness. Stopping down the lens.

If they buy a lens that starts at f/3.5 instead the sharpness is lost.

 

[daredevil123]

Some people buy a 2.8 lens and shoot at f/3.5 because they want optimum sharpness. Stopping down the lens.

If they buy a lens that starts at f/3.5 instead the sharpness is lost.

That one I understand. These people do it specifically because they have total understanding about their needs.

I am referring to people who say things like:

"your 17-55 is better than 16-85, why bother looking"
"I bought 17-55 because people say good. Later I sold it because I seldom shoot at F2.8 and got the 16-85".

Like I said, in the end, the key point for folks should be to be clear about their shooting style, and needs. And proceed with their purchases according to their needs.

 

[narofx]

Some people buy a 2.8 lens and shoot at f/3.5 because they want optimum sharpness. Stopping down the lens.

If they buy a lens that starts at f/3.5 instead the sharpness is lost.

one thing that i realised, once i started to shoot at f2.8, there's no turning back to variable aperture zooms.. hahahaa.

 

[mysimba]

Has anyone using 1.4x teleconverter with the 16-85..

 

[chanjyj]

Has anyone using 1.4x teleconverter with the 16-85..

for? :bigeyes:

I am not even sure it can autofocus at telephoto end

 

[TheChef]

Has anyone using 1.4x teleconverter with the 16-85..

Not compatible.

 

[Blitzkriegh]

Has anyone using 1.4x teleconverter with the 16-85..

i believe teleconverters are designed for f/2.8 lenses only.

 

[Treetrunk]

i believe teleconverters are designed for f/2.8 lenses only.

OT a bit. Teleconverters are not limited to 2.8 lenses. There are telezooms with F4 that can utilize it too.

 

[johnmateosong]

the 50 f1.8 and 1.4 have a worlds difference in price... but the optic quality is really different. I did notice though that not all 50 1.4 are made the same. some have angelic blurring at 1.8 and bigger and some not as much. but this is a worth it lens...

how much is the 16-85? i presume its not for full frame right?

 

[Blitzkriegh]

OT a bit. Teleconverters are not limited to 2.8 lenses. There are telezooms with F4 that can utilize it too.

i stand corrected. thanks!

 

[mondocheesemonster]

Depends, sometimes it's wiser to get a good tripod and/or a good flash than a new lens!

 

[OlyFlyer]

Hi all, after reading all the posts on this forum, i have decided to get a nikkor 16-85mm VR as my walkabout lens. I need your opinions to see if i have made a decent decision based on my needs. Here goes:
What i like to shoot and improve on: Urban Landscape, architectural, abstracts (basically things tat do not move) esp during sunrise and twilight
What i do not shoot: People (still shy to 'sneek up' on ppl). But in the 'long' future when money allows,hahhaha, i plan to get a 50 f1.4 for portraits. Have tried and sold my 50 f1.8. But meanwhile i really hardly shoot portraits.
I only shoot indoors during friends' gatherings so i intend to get a SB600 to solve the low light issue and to try out flash photography.

Have considered 18 - 200 but more expensive and rather use the extra money to get a SB600. Also read in this forum tat 16 - 85 offers better IQ over the 18-200 and less distortion. I value sharpness and clarity over the extra zoom that a 18-200 offers.

Have considered tammy 17-50(very tempting) but read tat it offers equal IQ as the 16-85, cost slightly more if i want the version 3, n i dun really want to sacrifice the 35mm.

So conclusion is, did i make a good decision based on what i need? haha gonna cost alot so i really wanna seek some opinions from everyone here. thanks!!! N i do not mind any other suggestions!

I think you made the right decision. I also have this lens, along with the 50/1.4, the Nikon 105/2.8 macro and the Nikon 70-300, which I just bought a few days ago. I like the 16-85 a lot for what it is, a fairly light zoom lens with very good VR and very useful range. I bought it to be used on my travels. At home I mostly use my primes, both indoors and outdoors, but if I could only have one lens it would be the 16-85.

 

[OlyFlyer]

OT a bit. Teleconverters are not limited to 2.8 lenses. There are telezooms with F4 that can utilize it too.

Both yes and no. With TC you lose a stop or two light and the cameras AF are made to focus at minimum f/5.6. If you try to use a TC on a slow lens you may pass that f/5.6 and the camera will stop AF but should of course continue to work in MF.

 

[wmayeo]

I think you made the right decision. I also have this lens, along with the 50/1.4, the Nikon 105/2.8 macro and the Nikon 70-300, which I just bought a few days ago. I like the 16-85 a lot for what it is, a fairly light zoom lens with very good VR and very useful range. I bought it to be used on my travels. At home I mostly use my primes, both indoors and outdoors, but if I could only have one lens it would be the 16-85.

Well said, Nikon would be very glad reading this.

I went ahead with my first lens: 16-85. Nothing else was on my mind when I got my cam with it. The reason: it's a quality piece of glass for walkabout, travel, outdoors & some landscape. :lovegrin:

 

[gnohz]

Well said, Nikon would be very glad reading this.

I went ahead with my first lens: 16-85. Nothing else was on my mind when I got my cam with it. The reason: it's a quality piece of glass for walkabout, travel, outdoors & some landscape. :lovegrin:

I agree with that. To me the extra 2mm at the wide end actually makes quite a bit of a difference if you have space limitations

 

[OlyFlyer]

Wats the best recomended filter for 16-85...

The air filter. I mean, no filter at all. I stopped using filters some time ago indoors but now I completely removed from my bag and all my lenses. I just bought a new lens, the Nikon 70-300VR and for the first time in my life did not buy a filter with it. I never had use for any UV filters except for the sake of removing UV light, which is no longer necessary. For protection I use the hoods on all my lenses. Of course, they are designed against flare, but works well to protect the lenses as well.