| Review

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful

My choice among the basic DSLR zooms, Friday, 02 January 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		4.8
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		4.0

I chose the 16-85mm over Nikon's other basic DSLR zooms (18-xx/xxx) primarily due to it's wider zoom capability on the short end, and I have been extremely satisfied with my choice. A 2mm difference doesn't seem like much, but it is very nearly equivalent to the difference between 24mm and 28mm lenses on a 35mm-sized camera. That is a very noticeable difference and enough to make the 16-85 a useful wide angle - rather than near-wide-angle - lens. The 16mm setting is great. It gives a perspective that is striking enough to produce interesting images but close enough to normal to avoid looking unnatural. An ultra-wide still has its place, but 16mm (24mm equivalent) is such a useful focal length to have that it puts the 16-85mm in a category, for me, that is one notch above the 18-xx/xxx lenses.

It helps that by all accounts the 16-85mm is optically the best of the lot. I'm not really equipped to evaluate the lens' technical qualities, but those who have done so tend to note that this lens addresses most of the minor flaws found among the rest of Nikon's basic DSLR zooms, making it likely the sharpest and least flawed of a good lot. I can confirm that it produces strikingly colorful photos that are sharp and mostly free of undesirable effects. Mine does produce some ghosts when shooting photos directly towards the sun, which I often do. I wouldn't fault it too heavily on that basis.

The 16-85's toughest competition is probably the 18-200. I didn't really consider the 200 because Nikon seems to have had to give up just a bit too much in terms of optical quality to get the zoom range. Still, many buyers will compare the two, as they are similar in cost and quality and perform similar functions for most users. I'm actually a bit surprised how infrequently I need to go beyond 85mm on a DSLR. 85mm is a good, useful telephoto range that provides a fair measure of distance compression and allows me to get the perspective I want in the telephoto range for most normal subjects. The 85-200mm range, for me, is really mostly useful for special conditions photography - shooting distant subjects that I have no way to get closer to. For that type of purpose I don't mind having to switch lenses, and the bonus here is that the 70-300mm VR becomes an excellent and affordable complement to the 16-85mm. That combination, although more expensive, provides usefully greater range at both ends than the 18-200mm without quite the optical compromises the 18-200mm seems to require. (Nikon's 28-200mm "G" lens could be another very useful complement to the 16-85mm as it has a reputation for optical excellence, good macro capabilities and is light and inexpensive).

The bottom line is that the 16-85mm is a no-excuses basic lens that serves very well for quite a broad scope of basic photography. I feel confident when I use it that I am getting very close to the best image quality possible. The only thing the lens gives up is speed, and that is surely by necessity. If you wanted a combination of fast lenses that would approximate this range you would need to get both Nikon's 17-35mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8, at a combined cost of $3k, and would still need to add either a 70-200 or an 85mm prime at the long end. VR makes the lack of speedy apertures acceptable for basic shooting. I love my 16-85.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

My choice among the basic DSLR zooms, Friday, 02 January 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		4.5
Sharpness		4.0
Build Quality		4.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		5.0

I chose the 16-85mm over Nikon's other basic DSLR zooms (18-xx/xxx) primarily due to its wider zoom capability on the short end, and I have been extremely satisfied with my choice. A 2mm difference doesn't seem like much, but it is very nearly equivalent to the difference between 24mm and 28mm lenses on a 35mm-sized camera. That is a very noticeable difference and enough to make the 16-85 a useful wide angle - rather than near-wide-angle - lens. The 16mm setting is great. It gives a perspective that is striking enough to produce interesting images but close enough to normal to avoid looking unnatural. An ultra-wide still has its place, but 16mm (24mm equivalent) is such a useful focal length to have that it puts the 16-85mm in a category, for me, that is one notch above the 18-xx/xxx lenses.

It helps that by all accounts the 16-85mm is optically the best of the lot. I'm not really equipped to evaluate the lens' technical qualities, but those who have done so tend to note that this lens addresses most of the minor flaws found among the rest of Nikon's basic DSLR zooms, making it likely the sharpest and least flawed of a good lot. I can confirm that it produces strikingly colorful photos that are sharp and mostly free of undesirable effects. Mine does produce some ghosts when shooting photos with the sun actually in the frame, which I often do. I wouldn't fault it too heavily on that basis.

The 16-85's toughest competition is probably the 18-200. I didn't really consider the 200 because Nikon seems to have had to give up just a bit too much in terms of optical quality to get the zoom range. Still, many buyers will compare the two, as they are similar in cost and quality and perform similar functions for most users. I'm actually a bit surprised how infrequently I need to go beyond 85mm on a DSLR. 85mm is a good, useful telephoto range that provides a fair measure of distance compression and allows me to get the perspective I want in the telephoto range for most normal subjects. The 85-200mm range, for me, is really mostly useful for special conditions photography - shooting distant subjects that I have no way to get closer to. For that type of purpose I don't mind having to switch lenses, and the bonus here is that the 70-300mm VR becomes an excellent and affordable complement to the 16-85mm. That combination, although more expensive, provides usefully greater range at both ends than the 18-200mm without quite the optical compromises the 18-200mm seems to require. (Nikon's 28-200mm "G" lens could be another very useful complement to the 16-85mm as it has a reputation for optical excellence, good macro capabilities and is light and inexpensive).

The bottom line is that the 16-85mm is a no-excuses basic lens that serves very well for quite a broad scope of basic photography. I feel confident when I use it that I am getting very close to the best image quality possible. The only thing the lens gives up is speed, and that is surely by necessity. If you wanted a combination of fast lenses that would approximate this range you would need to get both Nikon's 17-35mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8, at a combined cost of $3k, and would still need to add either a 70-200 or an 85mm prime at the long end. VR makes the lack of speedy apertures acceptable for basic shooting. I love my 16-85.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Basic Nikon zoom adds useful wide angle reach, Friday, 02 January 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		5.0
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		5.0

I chose the 16-85mm over Nikon's other basic DSLR zooms (18-xx/xxx) primarily due to its wider zoom capability on the short end, and I have been extremely satisfied with my choice. A 2mm difference doesn't seem like much, but it is very nearly equivalent to the difference between 24mm and 28mm lenses on a 35mm-sized camera. That is a very noticeable difference and enough to make the 16-85 a useful wide angle lens. The 16mm setting is great. It gives a perspective that is striking enough to produce interesting images but close enough to normal to avoid looking unnatural. An ultra-wide still has its place, but 16mm (24mm equivalent) is such a useful focal length to have that it puts the 16-85mm in a category, for me, that is one notch above the 18-xx/xxx lenses.

It helps that by most accounts the 16-85mm is optically the best of the lot. I'm not really equipped to evaluate the lens' technical qualities, but those who have done so tend to note that this lens addresses most of the minor flaws found among the rest of Nikon's basic DSLR zooms, making it likely the sharpest and least flawed of a good lot. I can confirm that it produces strikingly colorful photos that are sharp and mostly free of undesirable effects. Mine does produce some ghosting when shooting photos with the sun actually in the frame, which I often do. I wouldn't fault it too heavily on that basis.

The 16-85's toughest competition is probably the 18-200. I didn't really consider the 200 because Nikon seems to have had to give up just a bit too much in terms of optical quality to get the zoom range. Still, many buyers will compare the two, as they are similar in cost and quality and perform similar functions for most users. I'm actually a bit surprised how infrequently I need to go beyond 85mm on a DSLR. 85mm is a good, useful telephoto range that provides a fair measure of distance compression and allows me to get the perspective I want in the telephoto range for most normal subjects. The 85-200mm range, for me, is really mostly useful for special conditions photography - shooting distant subjects that I have no way to get closer to. For that type of purpose I don't mind having to switch lenses, and the bonus here is that the 70-300mm VR becomes an excellent and affordable complement to the 16-85mm. That combination, although more expensive, provides usefully greater range at both ends than the 18-200mm without quite the optical compromises the 18-200mm seems to require. Nikon's 28-200mm "G" lens could be another very useful complement to the 16-85mm as it has a reputation for optical excellence, good macro capabilities and is light and fairly inexpensive.

The bottom line is that the 16-85mm is a no-excuses basic lens that serves very well for quite a broad scope of basic photography. I feel confident when I use it that I am getting very close to the best image quality possible. The only thing the lens gives up is speed, and that is surely by necessity. If you wanted a combination of fast lenses that would approximate this range you would need to get both Nikon's 17-35mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8, at a combined cost of $3k, and would still need to add either a 70-200 or an 85mm prime at the long end. VR makes the lack of speedy apertures acceptable for basic shooting. I love my 16-85.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful

Awesome lens except for macro shots, Tuesday, 23 December 2008


Overall rating (weighted)		3.8
Sharpness		3.0
Build Quality		4.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		3.0

This lens is sharp and functions very well. I only have a few minor demerits:

1) At 16mm there is slight light falloff in the corners. It's usually not detrimental to the picture quality in real life. Small sacrifice for those extra 2mm.

2) This is a terrible lens for macro shots. The ratio is something like 1:4.6. In this zoom range (and price range) I would normally expect better macro performance. I already have a 'macro' lens that does 1:2 but because this lens has poor macro performance I lose out on the potential VR benefit during handheld macro shots (not to mention that I have to change lenses to shoot macro). Honestly, if I didn't already have a macro lens I would likely return it on this basis alone.

3) The VR is not really noticeable on this lens at wide angles. I'm sure this is a common issue due to wide angles being less sensitive to camera shake - but I honestly don't notice a difference when the VR is turned on. I know the Nikon VR works great in my longer 70-300mm lens. On that lens the difference VR makes is like night and day.

Other than those issues, this lens is super sharp and has less distortion than most other lenses in this same range. The colors are accurate (not saturated). The focusing seems pretty fast and quiet. Great walkaround lens. Except for the crappy macro performance, this lens would get five stars from me.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful

Perfect match for the D90, Monday, 22 December 2008


Overall rating (weighted)		4.8
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		4.0

After much research and advice from fellow photographers, I opted not to purchase the "kit lens" for my D90. I am happy to say that this is an outstanding walk-about. It produces crisp, sharp images and it's not too large or clumsy to handle. The lens provides a nice range for family gatherings, portraits, a day in the wood or cityscapes. It's a perfect match for my D90. You won't be disappointed.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

It's a Nikon, Thursday, 27 November 2008


Overall rating (weighted)		4.3
Sharpness		4.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		4.0
Value for Money		4.0

I use the 16-85 as a companion to the 70-300. The 16mm wide end is very nice for general shooting. The quality of build and optics is typical Nikon. The reason for the 4 stars instead of 5, the hood will cast a very strong shadow in your photo if you do not take it off before using the built in flash. At least this is true when used with the D60. I am surprised that this got past the good folks at Nikon. Otherwise it's a great product.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful

A great general purpose lens. , Sunday, 09 November 2008


Overall rating (weighted)		4.8
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		4.0

This lens is just right for me. Ideal for indoors, at museums, at the zoo, in the garden. I'm getting wonderful pictures with it. I don't know how they could make it any lighter and the way I use it I don't notice any unusual distortion. Great for most macro shots.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful

A great general purpose lens. , Sunday, 09 November 2008


Overall rating (weighted)		4.8
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		4.0

This lens is just right for me. Ideal for indoors, at museums, at the zoo, in the garden. It is a very good macro lens for casual use without special accessories... great for small flowers, bugs, coins, jewelry. None of the problems that come up when using long telephoto lenses. No creep when pointing down. Very light. Works great on my Nikon D80.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful

Excellent lens, Friday, 31 October 2008


Overall rating (weighted)		4.3
Sharpness		4.0
Build Quality		4.0
AF Speed		4.0
Value for Money		5.0

After being an avid Nikon products user for well over 30 years, I must admit that this lens holds no disappointments for me. The extra 2mm from the 18mm to the 16mm is considerable. It's worth the extra money for the extra consideration. I don't think anyone would regret buying and using this lens.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful

Excellet lens - great compliment to the 70-300 VR, Sunday, 26 October 2008


Overall rating (weighted)		4.5
Sharpness		4.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		4.0
Value for Money		5.0

Bought this lens after one too many times being dissapointed in the 18-55 kit lens that came with my D50. There were two factors important to me - 1) VR being included and 2) improved sharpness, another, yet less important factor was the zoom range which fits perfectly with my other lenses. I currently shoot the 70-300VR, 50mm 1.8, Tamron 90mm macro and now the 16-85 VR. It was a bonus that this lens fit perfectly with my other gear, the real reason I picked it up was revealed the first time I used it. Love the VR, really helps on a majority of my shots which are done hand held. Second is the IQ - sharpness and colors are much improved over the 18-55 kit lens. There is a slight bit of vignetting, however, that's easily fixed in post processing. The build quailty is excellent on this lens and while it may be a bit on the pricey side I'm very happy with it and highly recommend it. I've since "upgraded" to the D300 body and it shines with that as well. If you've currently got the 70-300VR this lens is the perfect compliment.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

10 of 10 people found the following review helpful

I hate zooms, but..., Thursday, 16 October 2008


Overall rating (weighted)		5.0
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		5.0

I am a snob of sorts. I use prime Nikkors, mostly manual focus, and mostly fast apertures. In thirty years of Nikon use, I use manual focus Nikkors even on my auto-focus film cameras.

I tested the waters of digital with a D40 and D60 (the D40 was stolen), and the kit lens that came with each was everything that made me stay with my metal and glass Nikkors when auto-focus ruled the film world, too light, too flimsy, and lacking of a feel of precision. I used my manual focus Nikkors on the D60 with good effect, giving up metering, and a less than exact focusing ability, especially at f/one-point-something.

After reading a review for the 16-85mm Nikkor zoom, I decided to get one so that I could at least have one auto-everything lens for when I wanted to be lazy, or hand the camera to someone else to use. When the lens arrived, it looked much better than the kit lens that sat unused after a brief test period. The lens was first rate in terms of fit and finish. The impression of a fine lens continued when I mounted it and shot images in my low-lit living room. A sharp shot taken at 1/3rd of a second at the 85mm setting was enough to let me know that the new VR label was a true tool, and not just a selling point.

I now have several hundred photos made with this lens, and not a bad one from the lens' fault. The prints I had made from my lab had the tech asking me what I was shooting with... the files were so good.

FWIW... my normal working wide-angle in the film days was 24mm, and this lens has that angle of view when set at 16mm. I was at home with this lens on the first outing, and I stopped thinking about film-versus-digital...I was shooting with a 24mm lens. I never liked the 28mm focal length, so this lens was the one I was waiting for, and I'm glad it came along. There is a difference between a 24mm and 28mm (on film), and it shows up here in the digital world too.

I can recommend this as a quality optic for the digital shooter.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

4 of 6 people found the following review helpful

NIKON LENS, Saturday, 13 September 2008


Overall rating (weighted)		5.0
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		5.0

I AM A PHOTOGRAPHY STUDENT AND BOUGHT THIS LENS FOR MY D-80. IT IS JUST WHAT I NEED TO COMPLETE ALL OF MY ASSIGNMENTS AS IT HAS A VERY GOOD RANGE AND IS NOT CUMBERSOME OR TOO HEAVY. I WILL CONTINUE TO USE THIS LENS FOR YEARS TO COME ON A DAILY BASIS.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful

awesome awesome awesome lens, Sunday, 24 August 2008


Overall rating (weighted)		4.8
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		4.0

this is the perfect addition to my 55-200 vr. i bought the d70s body with no kit lens so i could put the money towards a nice lens. this really worked out how i wanted! i hear people claiming it doesn't focus fast, but i handed it to a 30 year pro photographer buddy and he is looking into buying one now too, so it can't be too bad. i took it to a club to shoot a friends birthday party. my worries about focusing in the dark went away as i came away with 98% of sharp photos of people dancing in the club. i used a sb800 to light it with 1.6 sec shutterspeed both front and rear curtain, iso 200, and the lens did awesome! it found people even when i sometimes couldn't. the vr even has a second stage for while shooting from a moving car called active vr. i would definitely recommend this to a pro photographer! may not be as fast as the big guns, but it's not kicking rocks either.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful

FINALLY!, Friday, 22 August 2008


Overall rating (weighted)		4.5
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		4.0
AF Speed		4.0
Value for Money		5.0

I'd been a fan of the old, ultra-versatile, 24-120mm Nikkor for years, and I couldn't imagine buying a new D-SLR without a lens of similar performance. When I saw this lens hit the market at its price, I knew the digital format had arrived. I'm a huge fan of wide-angle, and this lens delivers a 24-127mm (film-equivalent) zoom range. Awesome. I've only taken a handful of shots with this lens, but it performs at least as good, if not better than the old beast attached to my Nikon N90s. The smaller relative aperture of all small-sensor lenses don't quite give the the narrow depth of field of comparable lenses attached to film cameras, but overall I'm very pleased with the purchase. Not a professional lens by any means, but it's priced just right to reflects it capabilities.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful

Very versatile, Monday, 18 August 2008


Overall rating (weighted)		4.0
Sharpness		4.0
Build Quality		4.0
AF Speed		3.0
Value for Money		5.0

This a very sharp lens. You might be looking at this review, having a 18-55 kit lens, or a 18-200. This is as sharp as either, if not sharper, and it has some improvements. There's a nice firm focusing ring on this one, not like the 18-55, where you have to twist the barrel. The focusing is internal, so if you have a filter on this, like a circular polarizer, you don't need to readjust every time you focus. The VR is great.

If you really want to nitpick, there is minor, MINOR barrel distortion on the wide end, and a little vignetting.

I will say this: the lens is long, and big. Please take note when using this lens. I use this on a D40, and the AF Lamp is slightly obstructed. I also recommend using a speedlight instead of the on board flash. If you try taking a flash shot at the wide end, expect a nice shadow on the bottom of your picture, cast from the end of the barrel. At tighter zoom levels, this isn't apparent, but still.

It's a quality lens. Not too heavy, very good all-around performer

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

Most Popular...