New Nikkor AF-S 16-85 f3.5-5.6 VR !!

[Freedolin]

Then you had a bad sample. The 18-70 is not a bad lens at all.

-- Markus

 

[Freedolin]

Can't the rant wait until we know a little more about this lens than just two crappy pics? Like, an announcement, for example?

That could shed some light if the lens really is f/5.6 "through the most of the range" (which I doubt).

But then, you loose 2/3 of stop when compared with the 18-70 and you
probably get 1 stop from the VR. No big advantage is it?

Why just 1 stop advantage with VR?

-- Markus

 

[Br33z3]

Fritz,

Sure I will, but maybe not tonight (it's at night here in Bangkok)

Actually, he did post some comparison shots between this new lens vs 18-70DX.

The original post can be found here.

http://www.pantip.com/cafe/camera/topic/O6172432/O6172432.html

The page written in local language but the samples may help you to get some ideas about this lens.

Would you please post some 100 % crops taken with the lens if you
visit him?

I hope this lens is better than the old 18-70. My sample wasn´t very
good. The 18-55 Kit lens easily outperfomed it.

Regards
Fritz

 

[EricDH]

because this is the 24-120 for the DX format.

I have hesistated very long to migrate from film to digital, mainly because there was no equivalent to my 24-85 lens. All DX lenses started at 18mm (18-55, 18-70, 18-135, 18-200) where I wanted a lens that started at 16mm.

So, I hope this lens is true. It is exactly what I wanted. Makes me extra happy, because I have ordered a D300 body recently.

Eric.

 

[aroundomaha]

I think there is a trade off being made between quicker glass and the marketing buzz words "image stabilization".

Many people will be excited about the progressive use of VR but miss the issue of the glass being sooooo sloooowwwwwwww.

I wonder if Nikon has figured out an economy of scale that makes it cheaper to produce VR than to make quality glass for its lenses?

Good catch on your part to call them out on this. VR could start to become a gimmick as much as a useful tool.

Assuming this exists ---- What is it about OEM lens makers which
stops them from making F3.5-4.5 lenses anymore ? - they all seem to
have a stiffie for horrible F5.6 apertures - only the 18-70 broke the
mould with F4.5 at the long end.. I know F5.6 = cheaper but not that
much and F5.6 (which it'll be through most of the range like the
18-55) has just totally turned me off that lens and I'll keep
battling on with the 18-70 and 18-135 for light duties .. they've
being doing this for years, the 24-120s are both Crappy F5.6 as was
the Canon 28-135 --- both makers made compact 35-135s which pulled
off F4.5 at 135mm !! .
They should have made the 18-135 F4.5 at 135 and put VR and Ring AFS
in .. the 16-85 is a great range but F5.6 is a deal killer for me,
it's even slower than the damn R1 lens which it mimicks ..
Lets face it - if this is a fake then it's an ingenious one as no one
but Nikon or Canon (or Pentax or Oly or Sony or Tamron etc) would be
lame enough to dream it up with F5.6 at 85mm - a faker would wishful
think F4.5 !!

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist



P880 E1 - The Colourmeisters

--
-----------------------
Aroundomaha
http://aroundomaha.smugmug.com

 

[RAL131504]

It's not just slightly different than the 18-70, the focus ring is in a completely different place.

 

[rainer_g]

Don't think so. I've got the 18-200mm and it easily gives me sharp images at shutter speeds 3-4 stops slower than without VR, meaning for everything except action shots it gives me "steadier" results than my Sigma 50-150 at 2.8

So, by comparison to the 18-70 you lose 2/3 stop at the long end but get 3-4 stops in regards to usable hand-held shutter speed - a fair deal IMV.

But let's first wait and see if and when the lens comes out. Must be a prototype being used by a Nikon test engineer.

 

[Talkontar]

Don't think so. I've got the 18-200mm and it easily gives me sharp
images at shutter speeds 3-4 stops slower than without VR, meaning
for everything except action shots it gives me "steadier" results
than my Sigma 50-150 at 2.8

Try shooting something that moves with your fabulous 18-200vr...

So, by comparison to the 18-70 you lose 2/3 stop at the long end but
get 3-4 stops in regards to usable hand-held shutter speed - a fair
deal IMV.

Yes, but You miss worse AF and harder to stop motion. It's NOT a fair deal at all...
--
----------------------------------------------------------Talkontar
D 4 0
1 8 - 5 5 f 3 . 5 - 5 . 6 n i k k o r
5 0 - 1 5 0 f 2 . 8 s i g m a
3 0 f 1 . 4 s i g m a
S B 4 0 0
If You don't have anything better to do, please view my galleries:
http://picasaweb.google.pl/witosz

 

[photoguy5]

What purpose would this lens serve? I would take the 18-55 VR over this. If this was a FX lens, it would be much more interesting.

 

[rainer_g]

Yep, that's why I wrote "except for action shots". That 18-200 VR is indeed fabulous, provided you know its limitations and use it accordingly.

BTW the Sigma also has some limitations - at 150mm and 2.8 its corners are soft like a shot from a lensbaby, no problem for portraits but a show-stopper for landscapes until stopped down to f/8.

 

[rainer_g]

I would!

An FX 16-85mm ? ya right.

 

[Talkontar]

Yep, that's why I wrote "except for action shots". That 18-200 VR is
indeed fabulous, provided you know its limitations and use it
accordingly.

Sorry, I didn't notice... But in fact I don't use this range for anything other then moving subjects. It's too long for landscapes and too short for wildlife. That's why I didn't go for 18-200 - with my style of shooting I didn't find VR to be much useful in this range and fast glass is only solution.

BTW the Sigma also has some limitations - at 150mm and 2.8 its
corners are soft like a shot from a lensbaby, no problem for
portraits but a show-stopper for landscapes until stopped down to f/8.

Mine is already quite sharp at f/4 and 18-200 is not that good at 100-200mm also.
--
----------------------------------------------------------Talkontar
D 4 0
1 8 - 5 5 f 3 . 5 - 5 . 6 n i k k o r
5 0 - 1 5 0 f 2 . 8 s i g m a
3 0 f 1 . 4 s i g m a
S B 4 0 0
If You don't have anything better to do, please view my galleries:
http://picasaweb.google.pl/witosz

 

[BasilG]

What purpose would this lens serve? I would take the 18-55 VR over
this. If this was a FX lens, it would be much more interesting.

If the image quality is good, I guess that a lot of travel and landscape photographers would love it for that extra bit of wide angle coverage... so, I would.

BG

 

[EricDH]

What purpose would this lens serve? I would take the 18-55 VR over
this. If this was a FX lens, it would be much more interesting.

If the image quality is good, I guess that a lot of travel and
landscape photographers would love it for that extra bit of wide
angle coverage... so, I would.

BG

Same for me. I never understood why Nikon had so many 18-.... lenses (18-55, 18-70, 18-135, 18-200), but no single 16-.... lens. That didn't make sense to me. So, although this can be fake, it would make perfectly sense for Nikon to launch this lens. Actually, they are a few years late.....

Eric.

 

[gskmeva]

Sorry but I wanna say it's a fake.

Micheal

 

[eieio]

I will!!

If it really launch, I will trady my 18-135 for this baby.

18 (EQV 27) is not enough for me and I don't want to carry 3 lens.
(currently I have 10-20 Sigma, 18-135 and 70-300VR Nikkor)

 

[lightp8nter]

I have no way of knowing, but in regards to the similarity to the 18-70, I just took receipt of the real 24-85 3.5-4.5 (the one that has been discontinued), and it has the exact external diminsions as the the 18-70 FWIW.
--
http://lightp8nter.smugmug.com/

 

[Freedolin]

Just to name a few advantages over the 18-55 VR:

• starts at 16 mm (24mm equiv)
• better build
• non rotating front lens
• metal mount
• better VR, active mode
• faster AF

I always hoped for a 18-70 with VR, this one is even more than I wanted
On the other hand, the cheapo 18-55VR never tempted me.

-- Markus

 

[sudirdjo]

Many people will be excited about the progressive use of VR but miss
the issue of the glass being sooooo sloooowwwwwwww.

I'd consider ourselves slightly lucky not being offered 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS and soft to boot. ;-)

Imho sigma is very clever in getting 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 out with macro distance that rocks. Even without VR I think this should be 'the' standard zoom, and if sigma remembered to put VR on its 50-150 then it could've practically owned the DX crowd.

 

[MagicNikon]

awesome.
--
If you like what I can do with cards, wait til you see what I do with the limes.