Considering a Nikon 16-85 VR Lens

[stank]

<p>I am considering purchasing the 16-85mm Nikon lens. Presently, I am using a D70s with a Nikon 28-105 and like the range for most of what I do. It is a nice balance between image quality and not having to swap lenses a bunch. However, it is showing age and I need something that goes wider. I have nothing wider at the moment. For the longer end I have a Nikon 70-210 AF-D.</p>

<p>I want to replace the 28-105 and have considered the 18-105 but lean toward the 16-85 for the wide end and build quality. What other lenses should I consider?<br>

Thanks<br>

Stan</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>if the slow variable aperture of the 16-85 doesnt bother you, then that sounds like a good choice. in that price range i would also look at the tamron 17-50 VC which gives you constant 2.8 but loses much of the long end.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Tamron 17-50mm/f2.8 VC is a great lens for a crop camera. It will offer you the possibility to shoot in low light which is a great advantage. Also the bokeh and background separation helps a lot to get nicer pictures. VC of Tamron is at least as good if not better than VR from Nikon.</p>

[pictureted]

<p>I have the 16-85 and an very happy with the lens. The zoom range means never changing lenses for street shooting and the optics are excellent. I'm using a D90 and I never mind the slower apperture. The combination of VR and great ISO performance really surpassed my expectations.</p>

[zoltan_varro]

<p>I have a D90 and use it with the 18-105 VR for everyday photography. I did purchase a 16-85 a while back thinking I'd see a step up in image quality, but was disappointed in the lens and returned it. I simply did not see any gain in sharpness, in fact I think the 18-105 has superior sharpness. Vignetting and CA I thought were similar. Only weakness I see of the 18-105 compared to the 16-85 is distortion. The 18-105 has quite prominent barrel distortion at the wide end. This I can live with as I don't shoot a lot of architecture or straight lines. Anyway, overall I think the 18-105 has better image quality, and it's also helpful to have an extra 20 mm reach. Oh, another thing, people sometimes emphasize that the 16-85 is wider, but come on, if you're after wide, get a true wide angle lens like the 10-24. So, just my 2 cents, these experiences were not scientific tests, just my observations, but I have seen posts on dpreview that describe formal tests with similar findings.</p>

<p>best of luck with your lens choice,</p>

<p>Zoltan</p>

[larry_felix]

<p>I've recently purchased a 16-85 VR lens for a D300s and coming from full frame Nikon film cameras (an F2) with a 24mm f2.8 Nikkor lens, I didn't want to give up the view provided by that setup. So I went for the 16-85 mainly for the short end of the stick, so to speak, and haven't been disappointed. The longer reach is appreciated as well, and I'd love to have a 10-24 mm but I can't justify that (much) higher price even for a serious hobby. BTW, the 24mm now works nicely at 36mm on the D300s. It's ancient (like me) but one reason I went for the D300s is the ability to use my older Nikon lenses.</p>

[wayne_murphy8]

<p>I sold my 17-55/2.8 (too heavy for me) and bought a 16-85. The loss of quality was huge and I don't think the 16-85 is better than average. Slow and not cheap either. Seems overpriced to me. But worse, I and others have experienced VR failure. Mine occurred after 15 months and less than 50 shots, and Nikon refused to repair under warranty. They told me that the internal data cable had worn through due to excessive use. That was a straight lie. I wouldn't buy this lens and I wouldn't trust Nikon again.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If you are looking for a walk-around lens, it can't be beat from all reports. The 16-28 range will be awesome, and you won't even notice the lack of the 85 - 105 range.</p>

[steven_p]

<p>When carrying light, that's the lens I like to use. If it were faster at the long end, it would be larger in both size and price. Decent sharpness and focuses pretty close too.</p>

[jan_nielsen]

<p>If price is an issue, you could also go for a used AFS 18-70 mm DX. After what I have read it has the same optical and build quality as the 16-85. The 18-70 doesn't have VR though.</p>

[munim]

I have 18-55VR, 16-85 and Tamron 17-50. I have to get rid of one or two, but can't make up my mind yet. If you don't mind

the depreciation, the Tammy is sharper than 16-85, lighter and has bokeh on demand. I can't seem to blur the background

enough on the 16-85. I also have 70-300 and I don't notice the 50-70 gap.

[carl_becker2]

<p>I had a 28-105mm with my D200 and was real happy with the lense. Heavy but very well built and excellent quality. You might consider adding a wider zoom like a 12-24. If you don't need the longer reach then the 16-85mm can give you a better wide end but I don't think the lense will be any sharper, probably less flare and maybe less CA.</p>

[nick_baker]

<p>I used the 16-85VR for 18 months with a D300 and was satisfied with it. Recently I moved to full frame with a used 28-105. I compared the 28-105 and 16-85 directly on the D300 before making the switch. I think the 28-105 is a step up optically, as might be expected from its smaller zoom ratio. The 28-105 seems both sharper and more contrasty than te 16-85, and I have not yet missed the VR, given the ISO capabilities of the D700 I now use with the 28-105. There is no doubt that the 16-85 focuses faster. In summary, be prepared to pay for the greater range with a small reduction in optical quality. Not that the 16-85 is bad though, I'd still buy it again if I went back to DX. Two minor complaints with the 28-105 are that I miss the manual focus potential that the 16-85 has, and also that I am getting some vignetting at 28mm with a polarizer mounted. Presumably this will not be an issue on DX.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>I use a 28-105 with a polarizer on a DX body (D200) and no vignetting problems at all. No corner softness either. I recognize that DX lenses are newer and more modern, but I use FX lenses exclusively now. I've owned the 16-85 and a couple other DX lenses and sold them. Not that they were bad, I just prefer full frame lenses on DX bodies (28-105, 50 1.8, 80-200 2.8 are my main ones).</p>

[nick_baker]

<p>Stan</p>

<p>To answer your original question directly (what OTHER lenses should I consider?), I have not used any standard zooms except the 16-85 and 28-105 and I won't repeat what the reviews say about other lenses, you can read them yourself. My point was that even the 16-85 may be a tad weaker optically than the 28-105. I am guessing that any 5:1 zoom you consider is going to be worse than any 4:1 or 3:1 zoom. The advantages of the 16-85 (aside from the different range) are VR, focusing speed, and being able to grab the lens to focus manually. No optical advantage, and not much smaller or lighter either.</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>I just returned from a 4 day tour of Athens with 3 lenses, 16-85VR, 24mm 2.8 AF-D and 70-300VR. The 16-85 was the mainstay of the trip, only popped out the 70-300VR twice to get some detailed closedups of architeture. 24mm was used at night, and when I wanted to be more discreet.<br>

Unless you need the speed of 2.8 to stop motion - the 16-85VR has a nice wide fov, has image stabilization for static subjects in low light, and is good and sharp wide open. The main dislike, if I could actually call it that, is the undeveloped, boring bokeh. Not bad. Just boring due to the slow aperture.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Alvin</p>