Nikkor 16-85 vr review.

passerby · Mar 8, 2008

Is anyone have seen the full review of the newest nikkor 16-85mm vr? It is already available at the shops with pricing more than the 18-200 vr in one of the online shop. I just saw it today at this place (Australian site). Please let me know if / when there is an extensive review for it. Thanks. http://www.dirtcheapcameras.com.au/store/browse.asp?idCategory=9&brand=4

Mike_E · Mar 8, 2008

OK, but are you sure that you want 85mm at f/5.6?

I know it's got VR and I'm a Nikon shooter and all but come on, f/5.6 @ 85mm? Usually a shutter speed of 1 over your focal length will be fast enough to freeze most anything into clarity (if you're at 60mm {/equivalent} then shooting 1/60th @ISO 100 will give good results). Good technique will help a great deal too! Anyway, VR at the shorter focal lengths isn't really that much of a plus, imho.

It seems to me that you would be better off with an 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S and an 85mm f/1.8. The first one used and the second new should still leave you plenty of money for dinner for two and a case of beer (you are Australian, right?

).

Best of luck to you

mike

passerby · Mar 9, 2008

Mike_E said:
OK, but are you sure that you want 85mm at f/5.6?

No not really, especially for that price.
I read a review from individual this morning where he post quite number of photos taken with his newest lens. Everyone who saw the photos said that the lens produced vignetted pictures. If no one mentioned that I would have not notice the vignetting. I can't recall the site but I got it from google, like page 3.

Oh btw I am kind of different aussie breed, no drink no smoke no drug. They are thinking to swap me with any other overseas creature that yes to everything. I am Mr No

.

Mike_E · Mar 9, 2008

That's ok, I've given up everything but the wife and she won't go away.

Do give the 18-70mm and 85mm f/1.8 combo some thought though. If you do a lot of low light you could also get a 50mm f1.8. The 18-70mm is fast enough at the short end that with good technique you can use it in fairly low light.

Antithesis · Mar 9, 2008

People over at dpreview are talking up that lens, saying it's extremely sharp. I couldn't justify the price for a plastic bodied lens.

sabbath999 · Mar 10, 2008

It is plastic, expensive and slow.

Somebody please explain to me why Nikon even introduced this lens?

Antithesis · Mar 10, 2008

sabbath999 said:
It is plastic, expensive and slow.

Somebody please explain to me why Nikon even introduced this lens?

I think to have something in the line up to match the Canon 17-85 IS, for whatever reason. You'd think maybe they could release an affordable 400mm f5.6 prime or a 70-200 f4, but no, they release some random oddball lens.

passerby · Mar 10, 2008

Antithesis said:
People over at dpreview are talking up that lens, saying it's extremely sharp. I couldn't justify the price for a plastic bodied lens.

Thanks Antithesis, I went there and I read as much as I could find. The more I read it the more I respect my 18-55 kit lens and I am more inclined toward the 18-200 vr. Even the 2007 picture of the year was taken with 18-200 according to one of the post (which I read).

The comparison used by one of the poster who own 18-55 vr and 16-85 vr was clear. Nothing different is visible from those two lenses except in large print. But it is still analysis by two users so far, couple months to go.

Antithesis · Mar 10, 2008

Did you check the Nikon Lens forum at dpr? I've seen atleast a couple full scale user reviews in the forums.

But yeah, if I were going to spend that much money on a consumer lens, it would probably be the 18-200 VR. If your going for a walk-around lens, why pay more for something with less versatility?

Sw1tchFX · Mar 10, 2008

Antithesis said:
You'd think maybe they could release [...] a 70-200 f4

If Nikon made an AF-S 70-200 f/4 VR, i'd sell mu 80-200 to get it in a heartbeat. I don't really need f/2.8, and the 70-200 f/2.8 is way too expensive, but everytime i use the 80-200 in portraits, the focus motor on my camera puts the subject on the edge.

sabbath999 · Mar 10, 2008

Sw1tchFX said:
If Nikon made an AF-S 70-200 f/4 VR, i'd sell mu 80-200 to get it in a heartbeat. I don't really need f/2.8, and the 70-200 f/2.8 is way too expensive, but everytime i use the 80-200 in portraits, the focus motor on my camera puts the subject on the edge.

Brother Sw1tchFX, you need a D300. Every single lens I own, including the notoriously picky 105 VR, focuses perfectly on it.

Sw1tchFX · Mar 11, 2008

sabbath999 said:
Brother Sw1tchFX, you need a D300. Every single lens I own, including the notoriously picky 105 VR, focuses perfectly on it.

No no no! Focusing is fine, it's the NOISE!

It's the grinding and mashing of the focus motor that makes them uncomfortable.

Narna · Mar 12, 2008

I never liked the 18-70, it always seemed soft to me, maybe mine is a dud? I will check out the 16-85VR at a local store today and its likely I'll be upgrading. When your a landscape photographer, usually on a tripod and using f16, speed isn't an issue.

And I doubt I'll ever buy an 18-200 (even though I convinced my mother to get one). I don't like its bokeh especially at the long end.

I agree on the 70-200 F4. I have an old 70-210 F4 D - its slow to focus and grinds and rattles so loud it turns heads. But I love its colour and bokeh, and size/speed compromise, even if its soft at the long end. Bring on its AFS VR replacement! Can it be a zoom-micro lens too? Please? I hope thats not asking too much....

Sw1tchFX · Mar 13, 2008

My 18-70 is just as sharp as my 17-55 was. You must have a bad copy then.

I used a 16-85 today when I was at the local camera store, The zoom ring is SUPER tight, and it's smaller than the 18-200.