Little mention of the Nikon Nikkor AF-S 16 mm - 85 mm F/3.5-5.6 VR DX ED G Lens here.

tenthumbs · Mar 15, 2012

This seems like a decent lens and the price is "reasonable." However, I've performed a basic search and haven't found much discussion in this forum. I don't know if that's a red flag or not.? Does anyone here have experience with this lens?

Thank you

analog.universe · Mar 15, 2012

To begin with, the search function on this forum _barely_ works at all, never mind trying to find something so specific... You can try just going to google, and following your query type "site:thephotoforum.com", and you can often get more reliable results than the built in search.

I've not used the lens in question, but I would say make sure you know what you're getting into with a variable aperture zoom. This lens will struggle in low light situations.

Derrel · Mar 15, 2012

I would check Thom Hogan's Nikon-specific web site for his review of the lens. Okay, here, I Googled it for you. He rates it a four-star lens in all four categories.

16-85mm AF-S DX Lens Review by Thom Hogan

tenthumbs · Mar 15, 2012

Derrel said:
I would check Thom Hogan's Nikon-specific web site for his review of the lens. Okay, here, I Googled it for you. He rates it a four-star lens in all four categories.

16-85mm AF-S DX Lens Review by Thom Hogan

Thanks for Googling Derrel! I promise I've done my own Googling but I found it odd that there was little talk about the lens in this forum. It's easy to find a review of a lens but I appreciate the expertise and varying opinions of the people in this forum.

480sparky · Mar 15, 2012

Funny thing about searches:

This thread is only 2 hours old, and it's already first in a Google search.

xyphoto · Mar 15, 2012

I had this lens about 3 years ago used with D300. It produces sharp photos in ideal condition. However, it is terrible in low light and the focus speed is slow. If you don't care about low light performance and slow focus speed, it is a good lens. I sold it to get 24-70mm.

Trever1t · Mar 15, 2012

Likewise I had one on my D300s and almost all my shots from Vietnam and Cambodia were with it. It felt to me like a real nice bump up from the kit lens, versatile focal lengths.

NikonRookie · Mar 15, 2012

This is a nice sharp lens that produces very nice contrast and color to my eyes. Really is a nice piece of glass if you don't mind smaller variable aperture lenses. Mine stays on my camera most of the time unless I want to snap photos of the kids in action outside. Then the 85mm 1.8g goes on

I wouldn't hesitate to buy another 16-85. The VRII works great, and the range for me is ideal.

On another note, did I read a rumor about this lens getting updated to a fixed f/4 aperture? That would be on the short list for sure!

tenthumbs · Mar 16, 2012

Thank you for the replies. The reviews all seem positive and your comments have been very helpful.

ZapoTeX · Mar 18, 2012

I have it, together with the 70-300 and 50 F/1.8.

I confirm it is really really sharp and the VRII is great, I have a high success rate of sharp photos at 1/15 shutter speed, 85mm focal length, including panning shots.

A reliable all-rounder, great for sightseeing and (if you have a flash) parties.

Ciao!

ecolnago · Mar 18, 2012

I'd done a fair amount of online research before acquiring this lens a couple years ago. As I recall, other than for it's lack of speed, no one ever had a bad word to say about. In my couple years with it, I can only agree with the masses. With good light, this glass performs quite well. It's marginal in low-light. The VR certainly helps if your subject is static, but good luck if it's moving or you're panning. I have since acquired the 17-55 (for it's speed)and as much as I it, I'll still opt for the 16-85 when heading out for a day-long trek (when I know I'll have good light). It's range suites my needs well (love it's 16) and it's size/weight are far more suitable to lugging around for multiple hours.

Todd

zamanakhan · Mar 20, 2012

the 16-85 is Great my only gripe with it was that its a little over priced, i would rather have the 18-55.

I have neither of these lenses but have owned both at one time. Now i pretty much have no midrange zoom instead a 35 1.8 and a 10-20. I have been thinking about getting a 17-55 2.8 nikon but i would rather save for a fx body and 16-35.

lemonart · Mar 20, 2012

This was the first lens I owned with my first body (D90). I didn't know much back then (still learning!) but I am, to this day, very happy with the lens even after my D7000 upgrade. I do eventually want to replace it with the 24-70 when I go full frame. But the 16-85 is an excellent all rounder for DX. Very useable range, sharp, and excels in travel/outdoor photography situations.

My only piece of advice is to buy it used. I got it $500 INCLUDING a 3 yr warranty at my local Henry's. To me, that's a much more reasonable cost for this lens and it was in fantastic condition. If you can find a deal similar to this I'd jump on it in a second!

Lem

jklingenstein · Mar 20, 2012

+1

It is a very good lens.

I have the same lenses as ZapoTeX and they are a great combination.

ZapoTeX said:
I have it, together with the 70-300 and 50 F/1.8.

I confirm it is really really sharp and the VRII is great, I have a high success rate of sharp photos at 1/15 shutter speed, 85mm focal length, including panning shots.

A reliable all-rounder, great for sightseeing and (if you have a flash) parties.

Ciao!