16-85 review photozone is out (nt)

[jaap3]

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr

 

[bobmax]

Better than the 18-200 and 24-120VR's. Sounds very well done!

--
Bob

 

[hrav]

The center res. seem to be very impressive throughout the focal lenght. Now, I just have to try it in store.
--
http://flickr.com/ravenda

 

[cacophony]

About what I would have expected given price point n/t

 

[Mike Neary]

Better than the 18-200 and 24-120VR's. Sounds very well done!

I just compared the charts against the 18-200 VR, 18-135, 18-70, 17-55, and Tamron 17-50. The only lens that equals the 16-85 for sharpness is the Tamron, but it has higher CA!

Klaus' optical verdict - the 16-85 is the only midrange zoom with 4 stars for optical quality.

Still, that doesn't help if you need f/2.8. I'll stick to my Tamron 17-50

Cheers

Mike

 

[Russtopher]

Yes, the new lens looks promising. I've never cared for the 18-200 or the 24-120vr. Both are overrated, in my opinion.
--
Kiron Kid

If you're photographing in color you show the color of their clothes - if you use black and white, you will show the color of their soul.

 

[runelind]

It does indeed look like a great lens, I just wish it was a little cheaper. I'll stick with my 18-55 kit lens for a while longer until the 16-85 comes down in price a bit (although by then there will be another lens that I'll want sigh )

 

[Mike Neary]

It does indeed look like a great lens, I just wish it was a little
cheaper. I'll stick with my 18-55 kit lens for a while longer until
the 16-85 comes down in price a bit (although by then there will be
another lens that I'll want sigh )

I would have liked to see a 16-85 VR with a 2.8-4 aperture... Or maybe a 16-70 VR f/2.8-4... That would have been so much more tempting!

Cheers

Mike

 

[VRII]

Very impressive MTF charts!

 

[Conryn]

As people talk a lot here about the price of this lens I like this statement;

"Combined with a rather MODERATE pricing of around 600 Euro/US$ it seems to be a no-brainer for serious amateurs and prosumers"

Conrad.

 

[Klaus Schroiff]

There is no such thing are a free lunch in lens land. The comparable Zeiss 16-80 DT is as "expensive" and the inferior Canon 17-85mm IS is not that much cheaper.

Zeiss 16-80 DT: 580EUR
Nikkor 16-85 VR: 570EUR
Canon 17-85 IS: 420EUR

 

[Looleylaylow]

There is no such thing are a free lunch in lens land. The comparable
Zeiss 16-80 DT is as "expensive" ...

It's worth noting that the Zeiss 16-80 is a f/3.5-4.5 lens. A little faster on the long end than the Nikon. Of course the build quality of the Zeiss is said to be a bit suspect, with huge sample variation.

 

[hflavo]

But not much better than the 18-135 3.5-5.6, whether based on his opinion or on the objective tests both in Photozone and in SLRgear.com. I just picked up one of those for $225 and it is amazingly sharp. I would have been happy to pay $800 if they had made the new lens a constant f/4, but as it is I'm happier with the 18-135.

--
HARRY LAVO
68 years and lovin it!

Nikon D300, D50, D1H ~ All the glass I need~ Manfrotto pods and clamp system~ Enough software to still be low on the learning curve

 

[hflavo]

Actually he stated earlier in a forum that he really rated it 3.5 stars.
--
HARRY LAVO
68 years and lovin it!

Nikon D300, D50, D1H ~ All the glass I need~ Manfrotto pods and clamp system~ Enough software to still be low on the learning curve

 

[lecastor]

It's worth noting that the Zeiss 16-80 is a f/3.5-4.5 lens. A little
faster on the long end than the Nikon.

I agree the Sony is brighter, but not noticably: between 4.5 and 5.6 there is not even a full-stop. In the other hand the VR of the Nikon is reported to be more effecient than Sony's system of sensor's stabilisation.

Of course the build quality of Zeiss is said to be a bit suspect, with huge sample variation.

And my new 16-85 truly feels solid. Not as much as my -now sold- 17-35, of course, but really still surprisingly solid for a lens that light. This lens feels like a little block, with no play in the rings, neither in the cams.

I've said it already but I just love mine!

regards,

Philippe G

--
some pictures and stories about my life in Japan
http://www.philippegratton.blogspot.com/

 

[bibi0012]

The full-size samples look very good IMO.

--
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

 

[Hank Wolfe]

The MTF charts are actually pretty close to the 18-135 (although better at the corners and with a lot less distortion and CA). The 18-135 is still a much better bargain though, unless you need the VR. The 18-135 a fraction of the price, lighter, nearly as sharp and fast, has a more useful range as a general purpose lens. For this kind of $, I'd go for a faster zoom from a 3rd party or save $ and go for the 18-135 (again, unless you need the VR, which is a pretty great feature depending on what you shoot).

Very impressive MTF charts!

 

[arthurking83]

Hank Wolfe wrote:
.... For this

kind of $, I'd go for a faster zoom from a 3rd party or save $ and go
for the 18-135 (again, unless you need the VR, which is a pretty
great feature depending on what you shoot).

....

For this kind of money I can't see the value for money at all!

Wait 6 months or so, when demand slows, and price reaches a reasonable ratio of the 18-200VR.. say $450-500 or so.

I have a thirdparty lens of this approximate FL(tammy) and I'm still looking at getting the 16-85VR too.
Very good IQ(corners are way better looking than the 18-200VR.

Sometimes VR can be as valuable as f/2.8 depending on your needs(or the needs of the operator!!)

So it's still on my wish list, unless Nikon decide to update the 18-135mm, to a 16-135VR with at least equal IQ to the 16-85VR

 

[polarizer]

Mike - do you get inconsistent focus results with your tamron? claus seems to suggest it in his review.
--
http://www.pbase.com/sakhnini

 

[Mike Neary]

Mike - do you get inconsistent focus results with your tamron? claus
seems to suggest it in his review.

No, my copy is pretty accurate. Accuracy seems to have improved even more when I upgraded from D80 to D300!

I had some serious front focus issues with the first 2 copies of the Tamron I tried, but that was on a D70s body. Gave up on it for about half a year, and then tried another sample on the D80 - it focused dead on

I think Tamron had issues with the early batches.

Cheers

Mike