Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens

[david_palethorpe]

I'm very interested in this new lens but can't find diddly squat of a review

or sample image.

 

Personaly I'd welcome the extra width over the 18-200mm version. 24mm f/3.5

and VR will come in handy for photographing the crowd at concerts. Although

buying one will depend on the image quality.

 

I'm hoping that the 16-85 will be an improvement over the 18-200mm at the

wide end otherwise the extra 4mm alone won't be enough to make me put my hand

in my pocket. I have a Sigma 20mm 1.8 which is a very good lens. So the Nikon

will need to be a very good lens for me to buy it.

 

Has anyone gone out and purchased this lens? If so what about a mini review

and/or a few sample images?

 

Thanks David

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

Do you need that extra 2 DX mm (or 3 FF mm)? if "Yes" than buy it.

 

If "No" then don't put the hands in your pocket.

 

Buy if you definetely need an extra wide angle to cover whatever your need is, they (Nikon) do provide a better solution with the D3 and 14-24. But again, all comes to what you need (or want) and what you can afford.

 

Also that you seem to be happy with what you already have ?

 

 

For me, I don't see any obvious advantage over the 18-200. But that's my personal penny

[ilkka_nissila]

Omega, have you used the lens?

[Peter_in_PA]

The lens better be pretty GREAT considering the price. And I doubt it is still f3.5 at 24mm.

(Omega, thanks for offering a solution that's ten TIMES the price.)

 

The 18-200 is a great lens, I own one. If I were buying today, I'd rather have the 85-200

range than the 16-18, considering that they cost the same. I suspect neither will be that

good at a concert. I think you need fast glass for that.

[ronald_moravec1]

10/20 Sigma is a decent performing lens. 12/24 Nikkor is better

[rolubich]

I have linked a review in this post.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OgY6

[david_palethorpe]

Omega thanks for the input.

 

I'm dying with laughter at Peter Hamms hilarious responce to Omega re price.

 

Thanks Robert Lubich.

 

Peter Hamm. The 18-200mm is very good for concerts due to the 4 stop VR function. You have to be more patient at a concert as any movement will blur but you can get some very good images at concerts with the 18-200. This Concert I snapped using a Fuji S5 Pro & 18-200mm. Every shot is taken at 2500 ISO. http://www.flickr.com/gp/8910339@N05/T9okdF

[Peter_in_PA]

David, glad my words could entertain.

 

I've used my 18-200 at concerts. I'd call it good, but I wouldn't call it "very good".

 

However, I have also gotten some useable images. But even then, I took a LOT of shots past

85mm, so I think the 16-85 (upon further reflection) would be much inferior to the 18-200

at a concert.

[eigtball]

These samples are from a DPreview post - http://www.pbase.com/julianprice/inbox

 

Heres the post http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=27142696

[User_276104]

"24mm f/3.5 and VR will come in handy for photographing the crowd at concerts."

 

I believe this comment referred to 24mm being the 24x36mm equivalent, not the 24mm marking on the 16-85mm lens.

[bob_trabucco]

I just puchased this lens with my brand spankin' new D300 last night. I chose it over the larger lenses because of the type of stuff I expected shoot. I only forsee 3 lenses in my immediate future (this, the 70-300 VR, and the 50mm 1.4)

 

Like I said I only received it last night but initial impressions are very good. Great size - perfect "carry around" lens. Build quality looks very good. Only took a few images under less then optimal conditions and was pleased with the results.

[eajames]

I purchased a 16-85mm VR last FRI and returned it on MON. My motivation was to find a

decent WA for DX packaged in a small and light-weight "travel lens". Early reports suggested

that the 16-85mm displays little distortion at the wide end. (The French Review that's

floating around and the Rockwell "review".) My testing was certainly not exhaustive - I simply

evaluated a handful of tripod-supported images taken at the wide end and decided that the

images were not up to my standards. Distortion is significant - circles were rendered as

ovals with high eccentricity. I threw up my hands and invested in the 14-24mm lens.

[david_palethorpe]

Erick Sande - I mean 24mm on the S5 Pro, as in 16mm on the lens.

 

"I purchased a 16-85mm VR last FRI and returned it on MON" OUCH!

 

Sean Leslie, thanks for the link. Between yourself and Eric James you've killed this lens lol. No, actuly its not "lol" as I'm extremely disapointed. The Image of the park on pbase (exif 1/800s f/6.3 at 16mm iso200)is pants. Complete rubbish. I'm so disapointed!

 

As we're aware Canon have produced a 24-105mm f/4 IS. So thats ?1,800 when mounted upon the full frame 5D. I was really hoping that this latest offering from Nikon would make the grade but it looks like a waste of ?400.

 

36mm isn't wide enough so the expensive 24-70mm 2.8 isn't really an option. Besides, I already have the Sigma version and apart from struggling with flare its a very good lens.

 

Looks like the 17-55mm 2.8 for me.

[david_palethorpe]

oh yes, lol. Eric James re Ken Rockwell. I think Mr Rockwell just enjoys having a website. He "reviewed" the D300 before he'd even seen one. He went on to copy a picture taken with his 5D and attached it to the LCD screen of the D300. No Ken, NO! NO! NO!

[dan_brown4]

BTW folks, I Babble-Fished that French review, which showed the really low distortion

figures. Apparently, the D300/16-85 combo is designed to include some special software

in the D300 that detects THAT lens, and applies distortion correction in-camera, and the

figures published in the French review are after the images has been processed in the

D300. Cool feature, it correct.

 

Or, I could be wrong about this.

[roland_vink]

<i>Distortion is significant - circles were rendered as ovals with high eccentricity. I threw up my hands and invested in the 14-24mm lens.</i>

<p>

That's what you will get with any rectalinear wideangle lens, including the 14-24. In other words, if a wideangle lens can render straight lines as straight (such as a horizon or sides of a building) it will also render off-center circles as ovals. The effect gets stronger with wider lenses, which is why the 16-85 is "worse" than the 18-200.

<p>

The only way to cure this type of wideangle distortion is to introduce a high level of barrel distortion, such as you get with fisheyes (although most fisheyes over-compensate and squash circles near the corner of the frame).