Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
Zachawry said:
Yeah, I'm sure that Nikon developed and released this lens under the
radar, and gave it to just one guy in Thailand.
Click to expand...
Or maybe it's a lens that's in production but hasn't been released yet. PMA is only about a month and a half from now. If Nikon wants to make the new cameras and lenses they're going to announce at PMA available immediately, they have to be in production today. I think that Photoshop is the most likely explanation, but it's plausible that somebody who works at Nikon's Thailand factory- where consumer DSLRs and kit lenses are made- grabbed an early production model and is showing it off to his friends.
--

As with all creative work, the craft must be adequate for the demands of expression. I am disturbed when I find craft relegated to inferior consideration; I believe that the euphoric involvement with subject or self is not sufficient to justify the making and display of photographic images. --Ansel Adams
 
photoguy5 :

Those, are my exact thoughts, :-)

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)


photoguy5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Compare the physical construction of this 16-85VR to the 18-200VR.

Except for the 67mm filter vs the 72mm filter, these lenses mechanically appear the same.

It appears we know where Nikon got the basic parts to build this!
 
When the D3 came out, everyone screamed that it proved that DX was dead and that Nikon would never again make a new DX lens. Now that they have (assuming this is real), everyone's complaining that it not being FX is a deal killer. How many of those photographers are buying a $5000 D3?

Nikon just upped their production on the D3 to a total of 120,000 units a year. The U.S. and Europe will each get about 40,000 of those. That works out in the U.S. to about 100 cameras per day.

I suspect this lens (if real) is a kit lens. Nothing to get excited about either way.
 
First of all, I think this is (if real) a kit lens. But even if not, I think with the trend towards lower noise at high ISO (even though it hasn't reached the D40/D80 level as yet and the D300 only a little) speed of lenses is going to be less of an issue.

I traded in my mid-priced zooms when I was still shooting film for the 28-70mm and 70-200mm 2.8s and I've always loved those lenses, but those are lenses priced for pros, not consumers. It makes much more sense for consumers to up the ISO to 800 or 1600 or shoot a stop wider and shoot with a slower lens.

And so yes, it looks to me that we're going to see VR in every lens because it's a marketable buzzword. Consumers don't know what a 2.8 or 5.6 lens means - half of them probably think 5.6 is "better" but they know they want some kind of vibration reduction.

The mystery is that if VR has become so inexpensive to produce, why Nikon didn't include it in the 14-24 and 24-70mm lenses.
 
Thank goodness its not yet another 18-xxx lens. The extra 2 mm on the wide end will be huge for a lot of people like me who don't want to spend $900 on the 12-24 or $500 on one of the 3rd party versions but do want to get a bit wider. If they price it at say $500 which I think will be reasonable, I could hopefuly sell the 18-70 and get this for around $300 out of pocket so I'd seriously consider it. On the down side, on the long end of the 18-70 I'm usually shooting things that move, and the VR can't really offset the slower aperature in those situations.
 
Why would it be fake ? Sony has the Carl Zeiss 16-80 that is extremely sharp, some vingetting tho ... but its 16-80, cant do magic there.

Looks like Nikon will have a equal lens now! Its a sweet range! perfect for the d300
--

A700 owner
 
I just used the 24-85mm f/2.8-4 (Macro) the other day, and realized what a flippin' sweet lens it was. Why can't Nikon bring back f/2.8-4?

I guess it's cause they realized there was easier money to be made in 3.5-4.5 non VR lenses, (hence the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5, and its DX version the 18-70mm) ...and now in 3.5-5.6 VR lenses...

Definitely as bummed out about this as you are, Adam. Personally, I'd pay TOP dollar for a 16-55 f/2.8 DX VR, wouldn't you? But then again, has Nikon EVER made a constant f/2.8 zoom lens that DIDN'T weigh as much as a brick? While I applaud Nikon for making the metal, pro-quality DX glass that Canon probably never will, I'd LOVE to have a competitor to Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S IS...

--
Take care!

http://www.matthewsaville.com

 
I agree, the sign is not even completely aligned with the edge above. It's tilted.

That "VR" sign and the VR buttons at the left side just look like someone placed them there. I'm on the non-believers side. Really.

And Nikon would really hurt the sales of the 18-135mm. A 18-135 VR, like the recent update on the 18-50, looks more logical to me.

And the exif screenshot can be faked in MS Paint ;)
Roger J. Buffington said:
Odd that the VR is not in red...
--
Roger (W6VZV)
Huntington Harbour, California
Surf City, USA

'I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather...'
Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers...'

Click to expand...
--

Nikon D80 + 18-70 f/3.5 - 4.5 ~ 35 f/2 ~ 50 f/1.8 ~ 80-200 f2.8 ~ Sigma 30 f1.4 ~ SB-600 ++ Nikon FE

http://users.edpnet.be/madriguera/
 
This seems like such a mediocre target to shoot for, a 3.5-5.6 medium length zoom. I wouldn't put it past Nikon, but it's not that exciting if it is true, is it?!

--
Facilis est Descensus Averni Virgil

'Anybody who tries to generate random numbers by deterministic means is of course living in a state of sin.' Voltaire
 
Hmm... Assuming this is real, I wonder if it would be worth it to upgrade my 18-70 to a 16-85 for landscape purposes, or just buy a Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 12-24. I guess it depends on the cost of upgrading. The f/5.6 rather than f/4.5 at the long end is annoying, but wouldn't ruin it for me, as I find f/4.5 at 70mm too slow when I need fast shutter speeds anyway. Unacceptable results are unacceptable whether I grade them a D+ or a D-.

--Brendan

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcmlxxxvi/ :: 1cor13.1
 
i hope its true, i think wider is better and it would make my tokina 12-24 a lot less used. For indoor party and event shots with bounce flash this would be great.

Flame bait maybe - but indoor crappy night light is not "natural" light. Just pull out your bounce flash if this lens is too slow. Bounced flash done right looks way better at iso 400 and 5.6 than crappy indoor light does as iso 1600 and f2.8. Also - 5.6 is ok - if true looks like they are making it light - so thats why its 5.6. Plus Nikon is usually sharp wide open so no need to stop down past 5.6

If i really want natual light shots ill pull out a fast prime - but this lens could server a nice puropse

Luke
 
Could be a clever fake--don't get hopes up. The "mm" type size is bigger than on other Nikkors. Some spacing issues as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ricardoj
Nikon Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 G ED VR IF - Vs. VRII (regarding AF motors going bad)
Replies
5
Views
2K
Chuck Yadmark
Chuck Yadmark
P
2nd hand Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4 E VR dull colors?
Replies
7
Views
177
GarysInSoCal
GarysInSoCal
V
  • Question Question
Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G VR Hood indicator
Replies
3
Views
1K
monte12345
M
H
Shots are not sharp when shooting at a long focal length with the NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
6K
ajr images
A
A
Sent 2 Lenses into Nikon $$$
Replies
3
Views
207
vockman
V

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top