Customer Reviews

Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VR Nikkor Wide-Angle Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon DSLR Cameras

5 star:		(64)
4 star:		(22)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

A great lens for a day walking around your favorite city (a walkabout)..at 16mm great for wide shots..getting in an entire doorway or unusual window. At 85..not a lot of telephoto but enough to get you by. I bought this lens to replace a wonderful 18-55 I had..this gives me just a bit more width and 50% more telephoto. VR works great in low light situtations to let you drop your sutter speed and still handhold at dusk, or a back dark alleyway in London or Venice.

Becareful reading reviews--there is a Negative review floating about in which the buyer states he got this lens with his D80 and complains the lens mount is plastic and broke...Sorry but this lens has a METAL lens mount and is NOT available as a "kit' lens with the D80. I feel sorry for the guy-broke a 'kit' lens but he is reporting and complaining about the wrong lens (I suspect he broke the $199 18-55 kit lens which has the plastic lens mount --part of why it only costs $199)...again, this lens has a metal mounting plate.

I've now taken well over a 1000 pictures with this lens and a D300 body. I've used it in the desert, in snow fields, in Las Vegas at night, in heavy overcast sky and indoors at a wedding without a flash. The results are easily up to professional standards - sharp, no chromatic aberrations, low distortion.

The VR makes it easy to hand hold down to 1/5 of a second. This, to some degree, makes up for the lens' relatively slow speed. The plus side of the trade-offs this lens design makes is that you get a much greater focal length range than the much more expensive, much heavier, faster glass - while retaining great performance.

Build quality is great with no lens creep. It feels like the two front extension tubes are metal (I don't know that for a fact). There is only minimal wobble at the front of the lens when it is fully extended. This movement is about the same as found in any fixed focal length Nikkor lens.

It's a bargain at $650.

Dec, 2011 -- After several years of use and tens of thousands of pictures: This lens is super sharp. It easily outperforms the 16 MB sensor in the D7000. It is capable of 24x30 inch prints with pro level results.

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.

This a very sharp lens. You might be looking at this review, having a 18-55 kit lens, or a 18-200. This is as sharp as either, if not sharper, and it has some improvements. There's a nice firm focusing ring on this one, not like the 18-55, where you have to twist the barrel. The focusing is internal, so if you have a filter on this, like a circular polarizer, you don't need to readjust every time you focus. The VR is great.

If you really want to nitpick, there is minor, MINOR barrel distortion on the wide end, and a little vignetting.

I will say this: the lens is long, and big. Please take note when using this lens. I use this on a D40, and the AF Lamp is slightly obstructed. I also recommend using a speedlight instead of the on board flash. If you try taking a flash shot at the wide end, expect a nice shadow on the bottom of your picture, cast from the end of the barrel. At tighter zoom levels, this isn't apparent, but still.

It's a quality lens. Not too heavy, very good all-around performer

I bought this to supplement/replace an 18-200 VR Nikon lens that I have used very extensively, but have often wanted a sharper, more contrasty walkaround lens. I use them primarily on a D300. I shoot around 30,000 images a year at this point.

The 16-85 is sharper than the 18-200. 16mm is significantly wider angle than 18mm, and I have found the extra wide angle more important than the zoom range I lost in going from the 18-200. The 16-85 is also significantly smaller and lighter than the 18-200, and the lens extension is much tighter, as well there is no zoom creep. My 18-200 creeps to full zoom if you point it down even 45 degrees. I don't think the 16-85 will develop that trait. There is significantly less image distortion at the wide end with the 16-85. BTW, my 18-200 is an early one, made in Japan, so likely a better than average sample. I believe all 16-85 lenses are made in Taiwan.

The one downside is simply that it's a slow lens. But, no slower than the 18-200. The VR on my sample is not really any better than that of the 18-200, but it's not worse either. I can get sharp images down to 1/8 to 1/15, depending on the zoom, with probably a 50% hit rate to be acceptably sharp. When shooting that slow, I just take 2 or 3 images at a time and one of them is usually sharp. Combined with the high ISO capability of the D300, I can live with the speed of this lens for my shooting. I do use the D300 battery grip, so have a bit of weight which helps with steadiness, too. I find the ability to shoot landscape or portrait with the grip far outweighs it's bulk. I never take it off the camera when handholding.

I do notice at the wide end when handheld with VR the images have an edgy character when zoomed to 100% that I take to be a characteristic added by VR. It could also be that it's approaching the resolution limit of the sensor and I'm expecting more from each pixel than can be provided at 16mm by a D300 12 MP sensor. I never noticed this with the 18-200. Neither do I notice it on my 12-24 at that focal length. I don't see it zoomed to anything less than 100%, and I'm far more pleased with having the 16mm shots than I'm bothered by this characteristic.

I was hoping for absolute sharpness, in the same vein as my 70-200 VR, and this lens is close, but not quite as sharp. But it's noticeably sharper than the 18-200, most especially at 85mm, and when looking past the center of the frame. At f8 and above, the center of the images between the 16-85 and 18-200 are fully the same sharpness. Past 85mm, the 18-200 becomes less useful due to loss of contrast and sharpness, again making the loss of that zoom range less bothersome.

I also considered the Sigma 17-70, but with no VR, that lens while faster would be much more limited. It's much cheaper, though, and has a pseudo-macro capability, and most are reportedly sharp, so you might consider that lens also. I shoot a lot of low light scenes, mostly street scenes at night. I don't mind some blurred people - it simply lends life to the image. I can easily handhold street scenes at night of lit storefronts etc with sharp images of static objects - all I can ask for.

My alternative was the 24-70. I know I would have been happier with that lens on an absolute basis, in terms of sharpness, build quality, and overall image quality. But the size and lack of VR of the 24-70 would limit my satisfaction and given the zoom range, it would be a much more limited lens. I have achieved close to the level of sharpness, with less weight and cost. Overall, this lens will add more to my photography than the 24-70, and for less than half the cost. When I get a D700, I will also add the 24-70, but not before.

I own other lenses with good to very good Bokeh. The 50 1.8, 70-200 2.8 VR, and Tamron 90 2.8 that I have all have very good Bokeh. Neither the 18-200 or 16-85 do. Just to say, it's very helpful to have at least one lens with very good background blur characteristics in your kit for portraits or closeups. The 16-85 is not that lens at most focal lengths.

In short, I'm happy with the purchase, and would purchase again. I will rarely use the 18-200 now that I've purchased this lens.

Note 1: this is an updated review.
Note 2: if you are an amateur, I think the last bit will make you happy.

===========================
Bottom-line
===========================

* For the amateur that cares about IQ:
* ------------------------------------
- If you care about image quality, use primes instead (for a little bit more money)
- 24mm f/2.8D + 35mm f/1.8G + 50mm f/1.8D) > 16-85 VR

* For the amateur that cares about flexibility
* --------------------------------------------
- If you are an amateur/enthusiast and **need** the flexibility, go with the 16-85 VR and ditch the primes (try to keep the 35 f/1.8G though)

* Pro Vs Amateurs
* ---------------------------------------------
If you are a pro (you shouldn't be reading this), the 17-55 f/2.8 is your definite choice -but you already know this.


===========================
Details
===========================

I have had this lens for about 11 months now.

It is a very competent zoom and an excellent choice when you want the convenience of a mid-range zoom without breaking the bank. The built quality of the lens is superb for the price point. It also Handles very well; focuses very fast (for a consumer lens). It balances perfectly on my D90. VR works wonders.

It is very, very, sharp for a zoom in its price point. Has very little CA.

Now, this is the updated part of the review.

* --------------------------
* Compared to the 18-105 VR
* --------------------------

I take the 18-85 without major hesitations. Why? In my view the 16-85 is sharper but there could be some sample variability -the 18-105 is very sharp as well.

Where the 16-85 wins clearly is in CA and distortion.

However, I consider that the deal-breaker are the extra 2mm on the wide side: Those extra 2mm will make you far happier than the extra 20mm of the 18-105.


* --------------------------------
* Compared to collection of primes
* --------------------------------

I have the 24 f/2.8D, 35 f/1.8G and 50 f/1.8D. There is absolutely no doubt that each one of these lenses is better than the 16-85 at the corresponding focal length. I'm all for image quality so I prefer the primes in 9 out of 10 potential situations. The one case were the 16-85 trumps this line-up of primes is when you need to move along the focal length range very quickly. Otherwise, the image quality given by that combination of lenses is far superior to that obtained by the 16-85.

Without a doubt, if you have to pick just one from all of them (16-85, 24, 35, 50) take the 35 f1.8G without even thinking about it.

If you need to move along substantially different focal lengths very quickly pick the 16-85 (whatever you can get with it will be better than missing the shot).


* ---------------------------------
* Compared to the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8
* ---------------------------------

I seriously considered breaking the bank and go for the 17-55 f/2.8. But before jumping into such big decision, I went to 3 photography stores and asked them to let me do some test shots along my 16-85. I'm very, very happy that I could do that.

To put it clear: the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 is a professional lens and to really take advantage of it you have to use it professionally.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is excellent from f/2.8 to f/4 which are the apertures that wedding photographers and concert photographers would want to use. Corner sharpness is excellent at those apertures (and so is centre sharpness).

However, from f/5.6 onwards, there is virtually no difference with the 16-85 VR and sometimes the 16-85 is clearly better. Given the VR, the 16-85 is a much better choice to shoot at f/5.6 - f/11 (leaving other considerations aside).

Really, I have pixel-peeped shots taken at 16, 17, 24, 35, and 55mm taken at f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8 with my 16-85 VR and three (3) different copies of the 17-55 f/2.8 and the results are always the same: there is no clear advantage in IQ from f/5.6 onwards.

The images of the 17-55 at f/2.8 are very, very good. If you need those apertures (weddings, concerts, photojournalism) then there is no discussion and you should buy the 17-55. But beyond that (f/5.6-f/8), don't kid yourself: the IQ of the 16-55 is largely on par with that of the 17-55 and you get the additional advantage of the VR.

Additionally, the built quality of the 17-55 is professional all the way: it's a tank (if you are a pro, then you will abuse the lens). The AF speed is also superior in the 17-55. But then again, I'm not a pro. I cannot justify 3 times the price for 1 extra stop (professionals can) of good image quality.

* ----------------
* Round-up
* ----------------

If you are an amateur/enthusiast that cares about IQ, then I suggest that you spend a little bit more and get the 24 f/2.8D + 35 f/1.8G + 50 f/1.8D.

If you are an amateur/enthusiast that wants flexibility and decent IQ, then get this 16-85 VR (but please try to get the 35 f/1.8). Rest assured that the IQ from f/5.6 is largely on par with that of the 17-55 f/2.8.

If you are a pro, well, you know you don't have much of a choice between this and the 17-55 (but you know that, that's why you are shooting at f/2.8)

I am happy to have purchased this lens and would do so again. I wanted to add a lens to my bag that took me through the wide-angle range without losing the image quality I was used to from my prime lenses. Reviews of this lens that I read before purchasing set my expectations very high. I am happy to report I have not been disappointed. Sharpness is excellent. Color fidelity is excellent. Exposure is excellent. I was worried about distortion and lens flare and neither have been an issue. VR helps out as expected.
Build quality of the lens is good. The rings for focus and zoom are tight and responsive without being sticky.The buttons for manual/auto focus, VR on/off, and VR active/normal are all nicely placed. The barrel extends pretty far at 85mm and I haven't had any creep or wobbling at all.

I am very happy with this purchase and I think you will be too.


edit/update: October 28th, 2009:

* I've now taken thousands of photos with this lens. It is never off the camera for long. If light is plentiful and I can stop down to f/8 or f/11 I get captures that give me goose bumps.

* This lens isn't a low light lens. Especially at 85mm where your max aperture is f/5.6. If you want to shoot in low light there a myriad of 50mm primes to choose from.

* If you are walking around with the lens pointed down the barrel will extend on it's own. I get nervous walking around with it like that so I'm putting a battery grip on my D80 to balance it back up.