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

[matthiasmesser]

Hi Folks,

my fist port here, so apologies if I screw up technically.

I recently got the 16-85 with my new D300 together with the
70-300 VR instead of just the 18-200 for the following reasons:

- longer max focal length
- less distortions
- better sharpness over the entire range

Well, the latter point was more a good guess since there are
not so many reviews out there on the 16-85. Sharpness was
my main concern, since it's the only thing you can't correct for offline.
I would really appreciate any comments, be they however devastating.
Here we go:


Berlin, April 2008
Camera: NIKON D300
Lens: NIKKOR AFS DX 16-85mm 1:3.5-5.6 VR
A: 3.5
FL: 16mm

Here's one 100% crop:



Same as above, but
A: 8
FL: 35mm

100% crop:


There will be more as soon as I can find the time for some more meaningful tests.

Cheers,
Matthias

[Bob Andersson]

Hi Matthias,

May I wish you a warm welcome to the CameraLabs forums.

Great to see you immediately up and running with a contribution to our Lens Gallery. Thank you.

Bob.

[Kenneth Skou]

It sure looks like this lens can create so nice crisp shots, confirming what all the reviews say about this lens.

That's a nice combo with the D300.

Cheers

[grahamnp]

Looks like a sharp lens Matthias. Do you have any experience with other lenses that start at 18mm? I'm interested to know if the extra 2mm makes much of a difference in practice.

[matthiasmesser]

Hi Graham,

I don't have any hands-on experience with a NIKKOR 18mm, but if you
look into Ken Rockwell's Review ( where the choice of the 16-85 got quite
some bashing, by the way), you'll see a few sample shots showing that
the difference is, as to be expected, tiny.
I hope Gordon forgives me pointing you to the "competition" ,
but I'd gladly send you the URL if you dopn't have it already.

Cheers,
Matthias

[grahamnp]

Thanks Matthias. No need for the URL, I've actually seen it already I just forgot lol.

[matthiasmesser]

Dear all,

thanks for all the feadback so far. Any chance of reading from another
owner of this lense, hugh?
As you've read above, I am mostly after judging sharpness, so here's
another batch with that focus:

Location: Tiny but picturesque little town of Kettwig, Ruhr area, Germany
Aperture: F/11
Shutter: 1/500s
ISO: 250
Focal length: 68mm
DEFAULT SHARPENING in the jpg processing. According to my few little
tests that means some loss of "impression" of sharpness -- +2 is probably the best choice with the D300.

So looking at the numbers above, one should think that this is it: the
vanilla area of performance of such a lense.
See for yourselves:

full but reduced:


100 % crop:


Cheers,

Matthias[/img]

[thestig2010]

Hey matthiasmesser!

Thanks for the review! I am currently shooting with an 18-135mm on a D80 (pretty standard, i know) as my general purpose lens. I like the new 18-105mm VR prospect, and I wouldnt mind upgrading to the D90 in the mid/near future.

However, I REALLY like the wider angle, and I dont end up shooting at my telephoto end that often with my 18-135mm (thats what my 70-300 is for)! Would you recommend me bumping up to the 16-85mm VR? Or would it really make that much difference?

[matthiasmesser]

Hi thestig2010,

I think I've written it somewhere already: For a comparism
btw. 16 and 18mm you may want to look at Ken Rockwell's
review of the 16-85. Read with a little care though: The guy is
brilliant, no doubt, but when he DOES form an opinion it can get
rather subjective and he gives the old 16-85 qute a bashing in
his review.
I just love that lens and I would buy it again. I also have the
70-300 and I do find myself swapping those two a little more
often than I would have thought before. So you may want to
consider the 18-200, or even the Tamron super-zoom (was it
18-270?).
I'll see if I can post a few comparisms betw. 16 and 18 with my
lens lateron.

Cheers,
Matthias

[thestig2010]

hey matthias,

Thanks for replying back to me!

I, too, have a 70-300 lens (soon to upgrade to the VR instead of the G model), so getting an all-around super-zoom lens isnt really a big deal for me. I like the Nikkor 18-200mm, but I find when I shoot at the long end (which isnt often), its for a purpose, like an air show I attended this summer. For the telephoto, I'd just grab my 70.

I dig the range on my 18-135, but I'd gladly trade the extra length for not only the extra 2mm on the wide end, but also the VR! I, too, am a frequent Rockwell reader and had to sift through the 16-85 review. I was impressed with the quality of the samples and build quality (probably on par with the 18-200 by the looks of things).

Thanks for your opinion, i really appreciate the input!

-TheStig

[jTg829]

D90
16mm
1/1250 sec
f/3.5
ISO 100

[sqjam]

on the walk with a friend of mine

[oldCarlos]

85mm
1/100th
F5.6
iso 100


100% crop

[maxjj]

I read Rockwell review on the 16-85, and as usual with all his reviews take them with a grain of salt, but the only negative seems to be the price as its the same as the 18-200.

He is suggesting that he would buy the 18-200 because it covers more, but the 2 mm at the start of the lens is often more important than the other end of the zoom. He has access to the 12-24 at the wide angle, but you may not.

The 16-85 is sharper at the wide end and has better VR and less distortion than the 18-200. I am sure if it was cheaper he would recommend it.

I went through similar things with the 15-85 for the canon and for a general purpose zoom lens its awesome. For what its worth you have made the right choice in my opinion.

[oldCarlos]

Hand held from a couple of feet away. Shooting towards the light.

72mm
1/30th sec
F7.1
iso 720