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

bibi0012 · Dec 26, 2007

The non-IS versions 18-70 and 18-135 look dated by the competitions such as Canon, Olympus, Pentax.

Nikon must continue to innovate or face the consequence.

Now, how about those 15-year old primes??

--
Nikon: D50, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 180mm f2.8, 18-55mm, 70-300mm VR, SB-800
Canon: Rebel XT, 50mm f1.4, 18-55mm IS, 420EX
Fuji: F31fd

cycle61 · Dec 26, 2007

Unless somebody's pretty good in Photoshop, and faking the EXIF, and doing a lot of work to perpetuate some hoax, I'd say this one's real. Screen shot from View NX recognizes the lens as stated:

I might consider this one as a replacement/companion to the 18-135. I rarely find myself at 135mm (and when I do I really need 200 or more) but I'm ALWAYS wishing I could go wider.

If this is as sharp as the 18-135, has a good minimum focus distance, and comes in under $400, I'll certainly be buying one.
--
-Nick Davis
Please feel free to critique anything I post. I'm here to learn.

A humble reflection of the beauty in the world around us:

http://www.cycle61.com

Yes.....I have a blog.

http://cycle61.blogspot.com/

Gary0001 · Dec 26, 2007

How about updating the first VR lens? The 80-400 f/3.5-5.6 VR.
--

ecube · Dec 27, 2007

BR33Z . . .
I wonder why you even try convincing the doubting Thomases.

Most of the low to medium price lenses for the major Japanese brands are now made in Thailand and other Far Easter countries. It seems that western consumers expect release to be synchronized, like the Harry Potter books.

--
ecube

dan man · Dec 27, 2007

Interesting... 16-85 VR, a very suitable D90 kit lens, and with the 18-55 VR for the D40 sisters, they will have a stabilized lineup.

I am personally considering selling my 18-200 VR and splitting to 16-85 VR and 70-300 VR. I always admired the 70-300 VR and could never justify it. Now with the perfect mate, the combo could be a serious upgrade.

I am curious to see if the VR is second gen (VRII). The SWM is certainly the better type (a la 18-200), so I guess it's safe to assume the VR will follow suit.

What I really want is a three lens, pro grade f/4 VR set spanning 10-200! But those lenses are a long ways away...as is the money!!!

puddleduck · Dec 27, 2007

Probably fake - f/5.6 @ 85mm is s-l-o-w.

By comparison the 18-70 DX is f/4.5 @ 70mm and the Nikkor 28-105mm is f/4.5 up to 105mm. Useful focal length, but unlikely spec imho.

--
-Andy

Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andydrake

Rune Nielsen · Dec 27, 2007

puddleduck said:
Probably fake - f/5.6 @ 85mm is s-l-o-w.

By comparison the 18-70 DX is f/4.5 @ 70mm and the Nikkor 28-105mm is
f/4.5 up to 105mm. Useful focal length, but unlikely spec imho.

--
-Andy

Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andydrake

The 18-135 is f/5.6 at 70mm... I wouldn't call it unlikely specs. If the price is around 400$ and this lens is for real, I will probably sell my 18-135 and get this as my light-weight walk-around lens.

puddleduck · Dec 27, 2007

The only explanation I can think of is to compete with the Sony CZ 16-85 in focal length (that Sony kit lens looks very nice) and possible Canon's 17-85?

Its a useful focal length that for sure.

-Andy

Rune Nielsen said:
puddleduck said:

Probably fake - f/5.6 @ 85mm is s-l-o-w.

By comparison the 18-70 DX is f/4.5 @ 70mm and the Nikkor 28-105mm is
f/4.5 up to 105mm. Useful focal length, but unlikely spec imho.

--
-Andy

Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andydrake

Click to expand...

The 18-135 is f/5.6 at 70mm... I wouldn't call it unlikely specs. If
the price is around 400$ and this lens is for real, I will probably
sell my 18-135 and get this as my light-weight walk-around lens.

--
-Andy

Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andydrake

Dan Nelson · Dec 27, 2007

puddleduck said:
Probably fake - f/5.6 @ 85mm is s-l-o-w.

By comparison the 18-70 DX is f/4.5 @ 70mm and the Nikkor 28-105mm is
f/4.5 up to 105mm. Useful focal length, but unlikely spec imho.

Have you forgotten about the 18-55 f3.5-f5.6 VR? F5.6@ 55mm, now that's slow...

I think f5.6 is likely to become the norm for consumer glass, as it is the slowest that will reliably AF with a Nikon body (which also makes it cheaper to produce, therefore AF/s and VR can be added and still keep the price within reach of the masses).

= Dan =

Photo_AK · Dec 27, 2007

Br33z3 said:
Here the picture of the lens he claims.

Where did the photo of the lens dissapear?

--

Robert Capa said 'you can never get close enough'. Well, he did.... He also often visited my daily photoblog at http://logatec.blogspot.com/

khuon · Dec 27, 2007

puddleduck said:
The only explanation I can think of is to compete with the Sony CZ
16-85 in focal length (that Sony kit lens looks very nice) and
possible Canon's 17-85?

Its a useful focal length that for sure.

Yep. It's a very useful length. BTW, the Sony/Carl-Zeiss is a 16-80/3.5-4.5 (not 16-85) and it's a super-sharp lens with good clarity and fairly decent distortion characteristics (can't really expect too many miracles). My wife has it for her A100 and A700 and I've been quite jealous of it actually. However, it's not a kit-lens... at least not in any Sony kit I've seen. It's a $700 lens... a bit pricey but very nice.

I'm a little bummed that the Nikon 16-85 will be 5.6 at the long end. Truth be told, as others have said I would have preferred a 2.8-4 with a not quite-so aggressive zoom. I tend to think the better zooms occur at around 5x or under for consumer-grade and 3x or under for pro-level. Something like a 16-75/2.8-4 or 15-75/3.5-4.5 would be wonderful.

Talkontar · Dec 27, 2007

RAL said:
VR and fast (aperture) glass are two completely separate things.

Totally agree with this statement.

RAL131504 said:
There's no excuse for not using something as valuable as vr if it is
available.

Can't agree with this one

With VR you can use it or you can skip it and use tripod to get similar results without changing aperture and shutter speed. VR is very handy but totally replaceable. Fast lens is irreplaceable. You can compensate exposure on slower lens with slower shutter speed and VR or tripod but You will lose shallow DOF.

IMHO VR on the lens is great thing but you can live without it. On the other hand you can't live without investing in fast lenses in many applications.

Any change like loosing large aperture to get VR is a very bad deal. Getting VR without changing max aperture is always welcome.

--
----------------------------------------------------------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

EricDH · Dec 27, 2007

I also find 5.6 pretty slow. On the other hand, this is the 24-120 lens for DX, and the "original" 24-120 VR lens is also F3.5-5.6. So, Nikon is actually quite consistent here...... (although I would have preferred F3.4-4.5 or even better F2.8-4).

Hocus Pocus · Dec 27, 2007

If you look at the posted photo in the first post, it says the lens is f/3.5-f/5.6.

Then look down a few lines, and it says the aperture is f/6.3?? How does it reach f/6.3 at only 68mm if the aperture is f/5.6 at 85mm according to the markings?

I find it real hard to believe Nikon would come out with a lens with such a terrible aperture (f/6.3) at 68mm. After all, even the 18-70mm is f/4.5 at 70mm...

Then the Lens ID string doesn't look right -- normally the focal length(s) is mentioned first, and VR is somewhere near the end.

The lens user who passed along that info is either pulling your leg or busting a Nikon NDA. I'm not sure how much I could trust the 16-85mm user's information in either scenario. Personally, I think he's having a good, hearty laugh at Br33z3's expense. At best, it's just a fantasy or a practical joke being played out.

Br33z3, I appreciate you're doing us all a favor but I still think that the guy who fed you this info was feeding you some high quality baloney... If you've been around for a while, you'll have seen your fair share of plausible-looking-but-doctored photos of upcoming new products (including some that never materialized).

Martin Datzinger · Dec 27, 2007

Alll I (and others, seemingly) wanted was

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=26022452

and another f/5.6 plastic-fantastic consumer lens is the answer?

Kind regards,
Martin
--
http://www.datzinger.net

RAL131504 · Dec 27, 2007

6.3 is the aperture the image was exposed at. It could have been f11 and has no bearing on what the maximum aperture of the lens is. I don't quite get the point of this statement.

Hocus Pocus · Dec 27, 2007

Well, then there's the ID string for the lens, which is not like Nikon's style.

They invariably identify the focal length first. Why would they list VR first?

Then why would Nikon bring out a 16mm-85mm lens with a poor aperture (even f/5.6) when they clearly can -- and have -- do much better. 85mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 18-70mm f/3.5-f/4.5, etc. I can understand if it was Sigma, but Nikon?

I'm just saying this doesn't add up. It's not any one single thing but the whole thing.

snorri · Dec 27, 2007

Hocus Pocus said:
Well, then there's the ID string for the lens, which is not like Nikon's style.
They invariably identify the focal length first. Why would they list VR first?

My 70-300 lists as "VR 70-300 4,5-5,6G" in Nikon View ...

Hocus Pocus said:
Then why would Nikon bring out a 16mm-85mm lens with a poor aperture
when they clearly can -- and have -- do much better [...] 18-70mm f/3.5-f/4.5

Have you used the 18-70 wide open? The vignetting renders the widest apertures nearly useless at both ends of the zoom range. I'd rather have a lens that has a smaller aperture but doesn't vignette.

-- snorri

--
'... haben sind gewesen gehabt haben geworden sein.'

rick_c · Dec 27, 2007

Adam-T said:
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 !!

I agree. Why bring out more slow lenses? Either a F2.8-4 or constant F4 would have been better, as would a bit of extra length to 105mm (even though that would be getting up to a 6.5x zoom).

I hope it's fake in the hope that Nikon will offer something worthwhile.

As this lens stands, I wouldn't look at it as an option as I already have the 18-55 kit, 55-200VR and 24-85 3.5-4.5 (plus a 35mm MF), so I'd only be missing the 16-18mm range - but that's whay I'll be getting a UWA lens next.

Of course, it would be great as the new kit lens.

WalterF · Dec 27, 2007

It's not the lens I was waiting for (17-70/2.8-4), but I don't see it as a letdown.
If it's as good as the Sony/CZ 16-80 then it will be a fine lens.

If not, I'll have to wait until Tamron and Sigma come out with high quality midrange zooms:

Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC
Sigma 18-50/2.8 OS
Sigma 17-70/2.8 OS

And yes, were is the DX wideangle prime? Smaller, sharper, less flare, less distorsion than the Nikon 12-24 or the Sigma 10-20.......

Walter

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

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

ecube

Guest

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts