p.1 #1 · Question on Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR AF-S
Those who have used the Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR AF-S, can you please share your opinion of this lens.
How does it compare to the 18-200 or 17-55 or 18-70 DX, etc. For almost $600, is it worthwhile to get the 18-200 instead ?
Has anyone tried this lens on an FX sensor. Does it cause any problems. Is it usable at 16mm on an FX sensor... how about at 20mm.
I did not find any samples in the SLR Lens Samples on the forum for images shot with the Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR AF-S. So if someone has some samples, can you please post same.
p.1 #2 · Question on Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR AF-S
ONly a Dx lense, highly rated by Photozone and likewise, in my own experience. Signifciantly wider -16 mm- and much sharper and imo better built than 18-200. Fora combo of zoom range and IQ it has no peers and stands toe to toe with Nikons latest 2.8 zooms in IQ. Not suitable for Fx. A few shots here. BTW VR is truly great, have shot hand held at 1/2 second SS.
p.1 #3 · Question on Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR AF-S
I just love this overpriced consumer lens! Here's one where I was standing in the cold water waiting for my intrusive ripples to fade and trying not to shiver in the chilly 37F early morining temperature:
p.1 #4 · Question on Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR AF-S
The 16-85 VR lens is the best walk around/general purpose lens I ever had on a DX camera (and I had the 18-200 VR, 18-70 and 17-55). Image quality constantly amazes me.
p.1 #5 · Question on Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR AF-S
And I have to respectfully disagree. I had both lenses at the same time. For a general walk around lens I much prefer the 18-200mm and ended up returning the 16-85mm. Having both in my hand the decision was which do I keep? And the answer was easy for me just because the 18-200mm offered more reach and the 16-85mm wasn't that different IQ wise. Build quality, they are both cut from the same cloth, no difference at all.
You can't really compare to the 17-55mm as it's a different animal, better build, better light gathering, weather sealing... etc. It's a pro lens.
But these are all just our opinions, and I've offered no facts other than my latest shot posted on landscape that was shot with the 18-200mm @ 60mm https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/684191
p.1 #6 · Question on Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR AF-S
I only can compare the 16-85 to the 18-200. I find the IQ of the 16-85 better and the 2mm on the wide end is a bonus for me as well. Distortion is less at the wide end. Build quality is about the same.
On a FX body you need the DX-mode or you have to crop yourself
p.1 #7 · Question on Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR AF-S
At the wide end, the 16-85's comparable to the 17-55 for sharpness and contrast and controls flare better. It offers better sharpness and contrast than the 18-200, although actual resolution is similar.
The 16-85 does get weaker at the long end, and the AF is not particularly speedy (It's noticeably slower on my D300 than the 24-85 AF-S was).
If you like wide, the 16-85 is just about unbeatable as a walk-around lens. If you find yourself at the long-end more, the 24-85 AF-S is better (faster AF and a little sharper) and of course the 18-200 has those extra 115mm.
None of these lenses is really usable on FX. Hard vignetting at most or all focal lengths.
None of these are bad lenses however and all can produce stunning images.
