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

[Wizard1500]

I have a D3200, and have no desire to switch to full frame....I currently have the Nikkor Micro 40mm, which I like....I also have 2 kit lenses which leave a lot to be desired.....I'm concidering purchasing the 16-85mm lens....Any and all feedback would be appreciated, greatly.....

TIA....

 

[goodguy]

Well optically its a great lens and highly recommended but it is a very slow lens, I would say try to look at something that has roughly same range but in the f2.8 range, maybe third party lens.

 

[Wizard1500]

Well optically its a great lens and highly recommended but it is a very slow lens, I would say try to look at something that has roughly same range but in the f2.8 range, maybe third party lens.

My main purpose for this lens will be landscapes, sunrises/sunsets and such....of course on a tripod.....would I still be better off with a faster lens?....thank you.....

 

[Mr.Photo]

The Nikon 16-85 is what is known as a "kit" lens as well. It was/is sold with camera's like the D600/610 as a kit. Nikon's so called kit lenses are actually quite good for what they are. What is it about your particular lenses that you feel is lacking?

While I've upgraded my "kit" lens to the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (merely for the wider aperture which isn't typically required for landscape photography) I still have and use my Nikon 18-55 VR lens that came with my D3100. For most of my shooting 2.8 is not required, and the slightly smaller size/weight can be welcome at times.

 

[greybeard]

I have this lens and in its' range and speed, it is probably as good as it gets. I bought it to replace the 18-105 that came with my D7K. The build quality of the 16-85 is much better but the IQ is only marginally better. For what you are wanting to use it for, it should do a great job.

 

[greybeard]

The Nikon 16-85 is what is known as a "kit" lens as well. It was/is sold with camera's like the D600/610 as a kit. Nikon's so called kit lenses are actually quite good for what they are. What is it about your particular lenses that you feel is lacking?

While I've upgraded my "kit" lens to the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (merely for the wider aperture which isn't typically required for landscape photography) I still have and use my Nikon 18-55 VR lens that came with my D3100. For most of my shooting 2.8 is not required, and the slightly smaller size/weight can be welcome at times.

I've never thought of the 16-85 as a kit lens but more of a step up lens from the 18-55 that comes with the D3K-5K cameras, or the 18-105 that comes with the D7K. It has a metal mount with gasket, VR , window distance scale, and a firm solid feel. The D600/610 usually comes with a 24-85 3.5-4.5 FX kit lens, the 16-85 is a DX lens.

 

[Mr.Photo]

I actually just realized it as I saw this comment I confused this with the 24-85, my bad.

However I still stand with my comment regarding the 18-55 VR being a decent lens that in the right hands can and will produce some absolutely stunning images.

 

[Wizard1500]

I have the 18-55 and the 55-200, and neither lense is able to produce sharp images....it's almost as like shooting with a soft focus filter on.....just not pleased with those two lenses....my 40mm Micro, on the other hand, produces images that are sharp....

 

[goodguy]

Well optically its a great lens and highly recommended but it is a very slow lens, I would say try to look at something that has roughly same range but in the f2.8 range, maybe third party lens.

My main purpose for this lens will be landscapes, sunrises/sunsets and such....of course on a tripod.....would I still be better off with a faster lens?....thank you.....

I would guess for landscape on tripod this lens will be a good lens

 

[goodguy]

I have the 18-55 and the 55-200, and neither lense is able to produce sharp images....it's almost as like shooting with a soft focus filter on.....just not pleased with those two lenses....my 40mm Micro, on the other hand, produces images that are sharp....

Nikon 18-55mm is a very good sharp lens, there is no reason for it to create soft pictures, I have this lens and while I hardly ever used it and now that I have an FX body I am not sure if I ever will, the times I used it (mostly for landscape) it was excellent!
Is it as sharp as my Nikon 24-70mm ?
Probably not but honestly I am not looking so deep to find the differences.
Before running to buy a different lens I would stop and try to see why its not working for you.
Many times its the operators fault but it also could be the lens needs fine tunning which sadly your camera is not capable to perform.
I used to own a Nikon 50mm 1.8G which is considered very sharp and all my lenses were far sharper then it so everntually I sold it.

 

[greybeard]

I actually just realized it as I saw this comment I confused this with the 24-85, my bad.

However I still stand with my comment regarding the 18-55 VR being a decent lens that in the right hands can and will produce some absolutely stunning images.

Yes, I agree the 18-55 does a descent job for not a lot of money. Nikon really has it together with their inexpensive plastic mount lenses.

 

[Mr.Photo]

Taken with the 18-55 VR on a D3100.

 

[Mr.Photo]

Also taken with the 18-55.

The Nikon 18-55 VR lens is a decent lens when used properly. Depending on what you're trying to accomplish the lens can have some limitations, but overall the Nikon "kit" lenses are without equal in their price range.

One other thing I wanted to ask the OP is if he is shooting his landscapes on a tripod? If so are you shooting with VR on or off?. If you're leaving it on it can certainly contribute to soft/blurry images. The VR in this particular lens is not designed for use on a tripod. With exception to a handful of expensive telephoto lenses Nikon recommends turning VR off when either shutter speed's are high or when shooting on a tripod as it can actually interfere with the ability to get sharp photo's.

 

[WayneF]

The Nikon 16-85 is what is known as a "kit" lens as well. It was/is sold with camera's like the D600/610 as a kit.

You are seriously confusing something, because the 16-85 is DX lens, and the D600/610 is a FX camera. That would not make any sense. Also the 16-85 sells for about $600+, a strong step above the kit lenses. It would be better if f/2.8, but what is? It is a very important lens, one of the better ones.

I have a 16-85, and I was very impressed with it as a general purpose solution. I vote +1.

 

[JimMcClain]

I have a D3200, and have no desire to switch to full frame....I currently have the Nikkor Micro 40mm, which I like....I also have 2 kit lenses which leave a lot to be desired.....I'm concidering purchasing the 16-85mm lens....Any and all feedback would be appreciated, greatly.....

TIA....

I bought that lens last July and it was a very nice lens. You can search for topics I have started here to see some of the pictures I've taken with it. I recently went to full-frame and am selling that lens now, if you are still interested: FS: AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR | Photography Forum

Jim