D7000 & Nikor 16-85

Verry pleased with this combo!!

It's my walk around lens on my D7000.

I use it on my D3100. Pleased so far!

I agree. It's on my D7000 most of the time. If you add the 70-300VR, you are very well covered for most outdoor situations.

I use it as my walkaround lens on my D7000 - very satisfied with it.

Terrific colors. I am impressed! Those colors look very true to the subject. Thank you for posting. Did you do some post processing?

Sorensen,

No post processing. I love the idea of just the foto from the camera. The fotos are from the Fishtrailers at Laaiplek - West Coast - South Africa.

I am looking at the same combo. How does the lens do indoors?

shadowhawk2020 said:

shadowhawk2020 wrote:

I am looking at the same combo. How does the lens do indoors?

Click to expand...

It does great. I typically use flash (SB-700) with mine.

Yes does great with indoors I aso use the sb700

Shadowhawk2020,

Yes it does well indoors. I myself also make use of the SB700.

Carel Pieterse said:

Carel Pieterse wrote:

Sorensen,

No post processing. I love the idea of just the foto from the camera. The fotos are from the Fishtrailers at Laaiplek - West Coast - South Africa.

Click to expand...

Well, that makes it even more impressive.

Carel Pieterse said:

Verry pleased with this combo!!

Click to expand...

When you look at the pictures 1:1 are you still satisfied with their quality? I mean, do they appear sharp?

I recently purchased this lens and use it with my D3200. When I look at the pictures full size they seem quite blurry. I tried different techniques (increased shutter speed, tripod, VR off, remote shutter, etc), and they seemed to help a bit, but nothing significant. Furthermore, when I took the picture of the same objects with kit lens - 18 55, I couldn't see any real difference in quality. I read some posts that at 24MP you cannot expect picture to look sharp at 1:1, however this does not seem logical to me, as I've also read a lot of posts of very satisfied 16-85 and high-res camera owners.

On my computer, they look very Sharp, indeed. What are you using - a cellphone?

The blurry parts of the Pictures are intended to be so - it's called bokeh. But the bokeh with the 16-85 is of course moderate.

BirgerH.

BirgerH said:

On my computer, they look very Sharp, indeed. What are you using - a cellphone?

The blurry parts of the Pictures are intended to be so - it's called bokeh. But the bokeh with the 16-85 is of course moderate.

BirgerH.

Click to expand...

Yes I about DoF and Bokeh. I was thinking that pictures look nice and sharp when downsized to fit 1080p screen, but when looked at original size they look messy.

I've uploaded some samples to my gallery, but can't seem to find a way to attach them here, when using mobile site version. You can look at the threes samples: both shot at f/8, shutter 160, I've cropped 1:1 parts of the picture where the focus was. One is takek with 18 55 and the other with 16 85 (hint: the one with 25mm focal lengthis taken with 16 85), but I dont sesee tge difference. Maybe this is normal and I am expecting too much, but a lot of posts I've read here claim that 16 85 has superb optics...

Member said:

ArturoBandini wrote:

Member said:

On my computer, they look very Sharp, indeed. What are you using - a cellphone?

The blurry parts of the Pictures are intended to be so - it's called bokeh. But the bokeh with the 16-85 is of course moderate.

BirgerH.

Click to expand...

Yes I about DoF and Bokeh. I was thinking that pictures look nice and sharp when downsized to fit 1080p screen, but when looked at original size they look messy.

I've uploaded some samples to my gallery, but can't seem to find a way to attach them here, when using mobile site version. You can look at the threes samples: both shot at f/8, shutter 160, I've cropped 1:1 parts of the picture where the focus was. One is takek with 18 55 and the other with 16 85 (hint: the one with 25mm focal lengthis taken with 16 85), but I dont sesee tge difference. Maybe this is normal and I am expecting too much, but a lot of posts I've read here claim that 16 85 has superb optics...

Click to expand...

I've been analyzing, and over analyzing, and over analyzing some more, an upgrade to my 18-55.

Here's the thing, the photozone.de numbers back this up: at 24mm, F8, there isn't that much difference between the 18-55 and 16-85. So the two pictures you posted aren't surprising. The 18-55 is pretty good at F8 and in general it's good in the middle.

The 16-85 is better than the 18-55 on the following:

1. At max apertures it's pretty much always significantly sharper around the edges and corners. For example, at 24mm F4.0 the 16-85 comes in over 2200 (photozone.de) the 18-55 (again 24mm F4.0) is 1652. The same is true at 35mm and 50mm... the 18-55 is quite honestly... terrible (at max aperture around the edges).

2. The difference between 16 and 18mm is noticable. Going wider is hard on zoom lenses, which is why you rarely see DX zooms wider than 17 (until you get into true wide angle lenses that don't telephoto past mid 20's). This a big advantage for the 16-85. Oh, and the corners at 16 on the 16-85 at wide apertures are way better than the corners on the 18-55 at 18mm (same as #1 above).

3. Tele reach. 85mm vs. 55mm.

4. Build quality. The 16-85 is built very well. The 18-55 is cheap plastic.



All this said, you can do well with the 18-55. I think I've been doing well with it for some time. But I'm really itching for a new walkaround lens since I have an event coming up in 2 weeks! My gripe with the 16-85 is that it's slow and it's expensive. I can't find even a used 16-85 for less than mid $400's yet I can get a refurb 18-105 with 1 year warranty for $209. I'm also eyeballing the 24-85 (new FX kit lens), Sigma 17-70 C and some of the f2.8 zooms.

If you were interested in the 16-85 new I just got it for 430 at the best place to buy (not sure if we are allowed to say). It keeps going in and out of stock, but that price beat any used deals I have seen lately.

At 1:1 on my monitor these come up sharp. Not blurry at all.

[No message]

Thanks Ray! I love the bright colours from the fishtrailers.