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

<p>This lens has been back ordered for a while. Anyone know the status or an equivalent lens?</p>

The Nikon 18-105 and Sigma 17-70 OS are the closest substitutes. You won't see an image quality difference

between those three lenses anyway so I always thought the 16-85 too expensive. If you're a bit flexible on focal

lengths, the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS is also cheaper than the 16-85 and is better.

<p>The 24-85 2.8-4.0 is available and I understand it is comparable to the 16-85 in terms of IQ but lacks VR. It is , however faster on the long end. I owen the 16-85 and I love it despite it being a bit pricey.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<p>If you're OK with the plastic lens mount, I'd go for the 18-105VR. The 16-85VR is a better lens (also optically) and the extra 2mm wideness are very convenient, but for less than half the money, the 18-105VR is the best bargain out there, in my view. A second-hand 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 is also a solid choice (but no VR).<br>

The 24-85 f/2.8-4 does not have that great a reputation, as far as I know, and 24mm on a DX camera might be a bit restrictive.</p>

<p>I had the 24-85mm f2.8-4 D Macro with a D70s and it was pretty good over all. I really liked that it has 1:2 macro, which I used often. When I started doing more band coverage in small dark clubs, I moved to a D300s and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Be sure to note that the Sigma 17-70 is f/2.8-4, not a pure f/2.8.</p>