 Great Everyday Lens |
| Review Date: May 21, 2008 |
| Reviewer: d80shooter, |
I have both the 18-135 and the 18-200, yet this lens has become my everyday go to lens for most of my photography. The 18-200 has tremendous versatility and I have made many great photos with it. However the softness and CAs around the edges is quite pronounced and definitely shows in larger prints of 12x18 and larger (I could have a poor copy). My 18-135, on the other hand, is tack sharp throughout the frame and is a great lens. However, the lack of VR is a limiter for using the lens as an everyday lens where low-light, hand held shots are often required.
Now to the 16-85VR: As I shoot mostly landscapes and outdoor shots, the 16mm wide end was particularly attractive to me. Only 10% or so of my shots are beyond 85mm, so I don't think I'll miss the 85-200 range. The build quality is about like the 18-200 without the zoom creep. I conducted informal tripod tests of this lens against my sharp 18-135 and the 16-85 actually exhibited better sharpness and contrast all across the frame from 16mm-50mm at all apertures, with the sharpest apertures being f8 and f11 (no surprise there). However, wide open is sharp as well, with very little light falloff at the corners, even at 16mm. In the 60mm - 85mm range, the 18-135 was usually just a bit sharper (except at f-11, where they were equal) for both the center and edges (you have to look really hard and pixel peep at 100% to notice the slight difference). Given the great sharpness (especially in the 16-50mm range), VR, and almost total lack of noticeable CAs, I can highly recommend the 16-85 for a general purpose, on-the-camera-all-the-time lens. |
Switching to 16-85mm +70-300mm from 18-200mm
|
| Review Date: May 30, 2008 |
| Reviewer: Photobug, Boston |
As an avid landscape photographer, I have been pleased with the convenience of the Nikkor 18-200VR on my D300 (which I absolutely love!). But I have been hoping to get sharper images and greater focal range by switching over to the new Nikkor 16-85VR paired with the 70-300VR. Overall I am very pleased with the 16-85. My initial observations:
- I noticed a significant improvement in the exposure of landscape shots (not as dramatic on indoor shots). Outdoors, I regularly shot with a -.7 adjustment as images tented to be slightly over-exposed with the 18-200. With the 16-85 lens the images came out with much improved exposure. Images just look better to the eye and as noted in comparative histograms from many test shots.
- Ditto with improved color accuracy. I was pleasantly surprised to see how much better colors were captured with this lens. Again, this is most noticable in outdoor images.
- Improved image sharpness was not as pronounced as hoped but at least equalled or exceeded 18-200 in most instances with a shutter speed of at least 1/20 sec. Surprisingly my initial test shots revealed that between 1/6 to 1/20 the VR was just comparable or in some instances not quite as good as the 18-200 across all focal lengths from 18-85. I often end up shooting at slow speeds and have been impressed with the ability to shoot so low with VRII in the 18-200 and the 16-85.
- Balance is better with 18-200. Perhaps this is a minor nit, but for handheld shots, the D300 seems slightly better balanced with the larger 18-200 than with the 16-85. Perhaps this allows for a steadier hand at slow shooting speeds. (note: I realize this may be simpily a matter of having become so comfortable with the feel of the 18-200 on a D300 and this nit may go away the more I use the 16-85.)
- The extra 2 degrees of wide angle is nice and looks like it will mean not having to switch over to my 12-24mm zoom quite as much.
- The lens action is comparable to the 18-200 - but NO barrel creep. Shooting with the lens barrel angled down in no problem with the 16-85.
Overall this is a nice lens which I plan to keep because it delivers such noticeable accuracy improvements in exposure and color...plus the extra 2 degrees and no barrel creep.
p.s. I just got the 70-300 yesterday so don't have much comparative testing but overall the image quality in the 70-200 focal range seems to be slightly better than the 18-200, and you have the longer focal length and NO barrel creep. |
Finally, short focus lens with VR
|
| Review Date: March 28, 2008 |
| Reviewer: Alex, |
I missed one. 70-300 VR is great, but 70mm is often too much and 18-135mm lens has no VR, so "no flash" in museums, aquariums etc. usually means no pictures.
Most Nikon fans probably wonder if this new lens is a worthy alternative to 18-200 VR. 18-200 VR lens covers the range of this lens almost completely, adds plenty on telephoto end and costs about as much. So optical quality of 16-85mm VR lens better be very good. Not many reviews and test results are available on the web at the time of writing. I spent hours searching for test data and found only one French site that had detailed test results.
The major weaknesses of 18-200 lens - bad distortion and corner softness are clearly addressed in this new lens. Distortion is about half of what you get with 18-200 lens, and sharpnes is on par with 70-300mm VR. The only weakness is relatively harsh bokeh - out of focus background blurring.
My personal experience with the lens is pretty much in line with formal tests. The lens is as sharp as it gets. Tansitions between two objects of different color are usually one pixhel wide. Distortion, noticeable at 16mm is not very bad and quickly disappears as you increase focal length. VR works like a charm. This lens is not fast, but professionals should have incentive to pay 3 times as much for their toys. I think 16-85mm VR and 70-300 VR lenses is probably all amateur like me needs, with light and compact 16-85mm VR lens mounted on camera most of the time. |
Best-kept secret for DX users
|
| Review Date: January 3, 2009 |
| Reviewer: Glenn Carpenter, Golden, Colorado |
I chose the 16-85mm over Nikon's other basic DSLR zooms (18-xx/xxx) primarily due to its wider zoom capability on the short end, and I have been extremely satisfied with my choice. A 2mm difference doesn't seem like much, but it is very nearly equivalent to the difference between 24mm and 28mm lenses on a 35mm-sized camera. That is a very noticeable difference and enough to make the 16-85 a useful wide angle lens. The 16mm setting is great. It gives a perspective that is striking enough to produce interesting images but close enough to normal to avoid looking unnatural. An ultra-wide still has its place, but 16mm (24mm equivalent) is such a useful focal length to have that it puts the 16-85mm in a category, for me, that is one notch above the 18-xx/xxx lenses.
It helps that by most accounts the 16-85mm is optically the best of these lenses. I'm not really equipped to evaluate the lens' technical qualities in great detail, but those who have done so tend to note that this lens addresses most of the minor flaws found among the rest of Nikon's basic DSLR zooms, making it likely the sharpest and least flawed of a good lot. I can confirm that it produces strikingly colorful photos that are exceedingly sharp and mostly free of undesirable effects. Mine does produce some ghosting when shooting photos with the sun actually in the frame, which I often do. I wouldn't fault it too heavily on that basis.
The 16-85's toughest competition is probably the 18-200. I didn't really consider the 200 because Nikon seems to have had to give up just a bit too much in terms of optical quality to get the zoom range. Still, many buyers will compare the two, as they are similar in cost and quality and perform similar functions for most users. I'm actually a bit surprised how infrequently I need to go beyond 85mm on a DSLR. 85mm is a good, useful telephoto range that provides a fair measure of distance compression and allows me to get the perspective I want in the telephoto range for most subjects. The 85-200mm range, for me, is really mostly useful for special conditions photography - shooting distant subjects that I have no way to get closer to. For that type of purpose I don't mind having to switch lenses, and the bonus here is that the 70-300mm VR becomes a reasonably affordable complement to the 16-85mm (2/25/09 note: I have since purchased, used and reviewed a copy of the 70-300 VR zoom and found it to be quite mediocre, although it may have been a below-average sample). That combination, although more expensive, provides usefully greater range at both ends than the 18-200mm without quite the optical compromises the 18-200mm seems to require. Nikon's 28-200mm "G" lens could be another very useful complement to the 16-85mm as it has a reputation for optical excellence, good macro capabilities and is light and fairly inexpensive.
The bottom line is that the 16-85mm is a no-excuses basic lens that serves very well for quite a broad scope of basic photography. I feel confident when I use it that I am getting very close to the best image quality possible. The only thing the lens gives up is speed, and that is surely by necessity. Any combination of fast lenses that would approximate this range you would need to get both Nikon's 17-35mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 at a combined cost of $3k, and would still need to add either a 70-200 or an 85mm prime at the long end. VR makes the lack of speedy apertures acceptable for basic shooting. I love my 16-85.
Other Lenses:
I've had the opportunity to own and use many different Nikon lenses and have posted my impressions of some of them here on Amazon. For those interested, here are short summaries. I have used all these lenses on Nikon DX-sized DSLRs, most recently my current D90. Refer to the full reviews for further detail.
Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AF-D: *** Competent, sharp lens is a good fit as a bargain DX "normal" prime. Slow f/2.8 max aperture poor. Very inexpensive in used market.
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM: *** Poor focusing consistency and below average large-aperture acuity combine for disappointing real-world performance. Fast max aperture, very capable if used with appropriate care.
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-G: ****1/2 Terrific lens at a bargain price. Not without flaws, but excellent in all important respects. A pleasure to use.
Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D: **** Sharp, especially at large apertures, moderate contrast. Classic "normal" lens for DX but consider new 35mm f/1.8 AF-S instead.
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-D: *** My sample was unacceptably poor at large apertures. Perhaps a below-average sample. Focal length not ideally suited to DX.
Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AF-D ****1/2 Very good short-to-moderate telephoto on DX. Acceptable at large apertures, very sharp stopped-down, moderate contrast. Potentially excellent for portrait use.
Nikon 28-200mm AF-G *** Of two samples, one was excellent and one poor, so watch for sample variations. Very good contrast. Not ideal hand-held due to lack of VR. Not ideal for tripod use due to design.
Nikon 55-200mm VR **** Very good lens, very good sharpness and contrast, no fatal flaws. Cheap feel and feature-challenged, but has effective VR. A bargain.
Nikon 70-300mm VR *** My sample had very poor performance above 200mm, good to very good elsewhere. Good contrast, generally very good focus performance. Good sports/action lens. Not good where critical sharpness is desired. Possibly a below-average sample. |
|
No video reviews found for this product.
