This is not a lens test. Just some shots using this lens along with my D300 in a real world walk-around situation. These are also just smallish web-seized samples.
I hope that these will serve to help someone make the appropriate decision in purchasing this lens. I might have bought mine sooner had there been more examples available. I am so far quite pleased with the lens. It has a nice heft to it. It focused swiftly and apparently accurately (so far).
It's true what the reviews say about vignetting wide open and at the wide end...it's okay though, because it's easily correctable for me during my workflow.
Zoom is nice and tight. I can't imagine it loosening up enough to creep. It feels really good. Hood feels thinner and more brittle than my other Nikkor hoods...that seemed weird. Questions? Just ask.
Shot RAW and processed in Lightroom with additional techniques in PSCS3.
Camera NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D300
Exposure Time 0.008s (1/125)
Aperture f/8.0
ISO 200
Focal Length 19mm (28mm 35mm)
Camera NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D300
Exposure Time 0.0166s (1/60)
Aperture f/6.3
ISO 800
Focal Length 35mm (52mm 35mm)
Camera NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D300
Exposure Time 0.02s (1/50)
Aperture f/6.3
ISO 800
Focal Length 35mm (52mm 35mm)
Camera NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D300
Exposure Time 0.0333s (1/30)
Aperture f/7.1
ISO 400
Focal Length 16mm (24mm 35mm)
Camera NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D300
Exposure Time 0.04s (1/25)
Aperture f/4.5
ISO 400
Focal Length 18mm (27mm 35mm)
Camera NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D300
Exposure Time 0.004s (1/250)
Aperture f/7.1
ISO 200
Focal Length 16mm (24mm 35mm)
Camera NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D300
Exposure Time 0.004s (1/250)
Aperture f/7.1
ISO 200
Focal Length 16mm (24mm 35mm)
Camera NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D300
Exposure Time 0.005s (1/200)
Aperture f/8.0
ISO 200
Focal Length 35mm (52mm 35mm)
Camera NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D300
Exposure Time 0.0031s (1/320)
Aperture f/7.1
ISO 200
Focal Length 35mm (52mm 35mm)
Camera NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D300
Exposure Time 0.04s (1/25)
Aperture f/4.5
ISO 200
Focal Length 24mm (36mm 35mm)
--
I've upped my ISO, now up yours.
Nice real world examples. It's quickly becoming my favorite walk around zoom. IQ is very good - probably on par with my old Canon 24-105 when using a 5D. Guess I missed that focal range enough to add the 16-85.
Some lovely shots Magic, I've been wondering how this lens performs, and somehow MTF charts never quite tell me what I need to know, so thanks for the samples.
Joe Marques wrote:
Nice real world examples. It's quickly becoming my favorite walk around zoom. IQ is very good - probably on par with my old Canon 24-105 when using a 5D. Guess I missed that focal range enough to add the 16-85.
Hey Joe, would you mind sharing your thoughts on how you think a D300 with the 16-85mm compares to a 5D with the 24-105? My dad is pretty close to switching from his D300 to a 5D in order to get some high-quality, but not-too-heavy walkaround lenses (i.e. Canon's f/4 zooms - the 24-105mm and 70-200mm).
He's just had his D300 sent in for fixing (it was taking notably softer photos than mine with the same lenses) but he's been very disappointed with the performance of the D300 and 18-200mm as a walkaround combo so far - do you think the 16-85mm is a notable improvement?
Mark Kenfield wrote:
Hey Joe, would you mind sharing your thoughts on how you think a D300 with the 16-85mm compares to a 5D with the 24-105? My dad is pretty close to switching from his D300 to a 5D in order to get some high-quality, but not-too-heavy walkaround lenses (i.e. Canon's f/4 zooms - the 24-105mm and 70-200mm).
He's just had his D300 sent in for fixing (it was taking notably softer photos than mine with the same lenses) but he's been very disappointed with the performance of the D300 and 18-200mm as a walkaround combo so far - do you think the 16-85mm is a notable improvement?...Show more →
I'm not Joe, but I recently switched from the Canon 5D and 24-105L combination, and the Nikon D300 with the 16-85 VR is a nice step up in image quality.
Mark Kenfield wrote:
Some lovely shots Magic, I've been wondering how this lens performs, and somehow MTF charts never quite tell me what I need to know, so thanks for the samples.
Hey Joe, would you mind sharing your thoughts on how you think a D300 with the 16-85mm compares to a 5D with the 24-105? My dad is pretty close to switching from his D300 to a 5D in order to get some high-quality, but not-too-heavy walkaround lenses (i.e. Canon's f/4 zooms - the 24-105mm and 70-200mm).
He's just had his D300 sent in for fixing (it was taking notably softer photos than mine with the same lenses) but he's been very disappointed with the performance of the D300 and 18-200mm as a walkaround combo so far - do you think the 16-85mm is a notable improvement?...Show more →
Hi Mark,
I'll start by saying the 5D/24-105L was my favorite combo (and I owned a sharp copy of the Canon 24-70). I currently own the Nikon 24-70 and 16-85 in that normal zoom range. The 24-70 is an amazing lens. Better than anything I owned from Canon in that range. The 16-85 is surprisingly good - as good as the 24-105L from Canon. The only exception is focus speed. It's a beat slower than my 24-70.
I owned the 18-200 for 1 day. That's all it took me to realize it was nothing special. Zoom creep was unacceptable. IQ was average across the range. I understand the appeal given the fact that it's a huge zoom range but I can't sacrifice so much IQ for convenience. The 16-85 is a much better lens. I pair that with the 70-300 VR as my walk around kit (nearly as good as the Canon 70-200 f4 but given the longer reach and VR for less $ it's a steal - bought mine for $379 with the new D40 kit pus one more lens promotion here in the US).
FWIW, I don't miss the 5D/24-105 any longer. The D300 gives me very similar IQ with superior handling in every way and far more reliable and speedy AF. Hope this helps.
molson wrote:
I'm not Joe, but I recently switched from the Canon 5D and 24-105L combination, and the Nikon D300 with the 16-85 VR is a nice step up in image quality.
Thanks Molson, so you think the Nikon kit actually yields better IQ than the Canon one? Do you find the lack of f/4 through most of the zoom range limiting at all when comparing the two?
I'll start by saying the 5D/24-105L was my favorite combo (and I owned a sharp copy of the Canon 24-70). I currently own the Nikon 24-70 and 16-85 in that normal zoom range. The 24-70 is an amazing lens. Better than anything I owned from Canon in that range. The 16-85 is surprisingly good - as good as the 24-105L from Canon. The only exception is focus speed. It's a beat slower than my 24-70.
I owned the 18-200 for 1 day. That's all it took me to realize it was nothing special. Zoom creep was unacceptable. IQ was average across the range. I understand the appeal given the fact that it's a huge zoom range but I can't sacrifice so much IQ for convenience. The 16-85 is a much better lens. I pair that with the 70-300 VR as my walk around kit (nearly as good as the Canon 70-200 f4 but given the longer reach and VR for less $ it's a steal - bought mine for $379 with the new D40 kit pus one more lens promotion here in the US).
FWIW, I don't miss the 5D/24-105 any longer. The D300 gives me very similar IQ with superior handling in every way and far more reliable and speedy AF. Hope this helps....Show more →
Mark Kenfield wrote:
Thanks Molson, so you think the Nikon kit actually yields better IQ than the Canon one? Do you find the lack of f/4 through most of the zoom range limiting at all when comparing the two?
If you judge quality in terms of sharpness, contrast, and color fidelity, then yes, the Nikon kit is noticeably better. You can obviously get good results with the Canon kit as well, but I found you need a lot more patience and Photoshop skills, as well as a few trips to the Canon service centre for periodic gear calibration, in order to do so.
The "lack" of a constant f/4 aperture is totally meaningless; besides, the Canon lens isn't really a true f4 at the wide end, because it has two or three stops of light fall-off from the center of the frame to the edge. The Nikon has some falloff, but it's no where near as severe as it is on the Canon.
I have the Nikon 18-70 which I consider to be a pretty sharp lens regardless of price. I would rather have this 16-85 but I am curious how sharp it is at 100%. Have you ever shot with the 18-70? Can you compare the sharpness of two?
I tried an 18-200VR and though the lens was very soft. I like the 18-70 much better in this regard.
Greg Matty wrote:
I have the Nikon 18-70 which I consider to be a pretty sharp lens regardless of price. I would rather have this 16-85 but I am curious how sharp it is at 100%. Have you ever shot with the 18-70? Can you compare the sharpness of two?
I tried an 18-200VR and though the lens was very soft. I like the 18-70 much better in this regard.
Greg
I had an 18-70mm with my D70, but wouldnt dare compare unless I tried it on my D300. I was never very impressed with my D70 anyway....I turned it into an IR camera after I got my D200. I don't have either of them now....just my D300 and D40, both of which I like quite a lot.
molson wrote:
If you judge quality in terms of sharpness, contrast, and color fidelity, then yes, the Nikon kit is noticeably better. You can obviously get good results with the Canon kit as well, but I found you need a lot more patience and Photoshop skills, as well as a few trips to the Canon service centre for periodic gear calibration, in order to do so.
The "lack" of a constant f/4 aperture is totally meaningless; besides, the Canon lens isn't really a true f4 at the wide end, because it has two or three stops of light fall-off from the center of the frame to the edge. The Nikon has some falloff, but it's no where near as severe as it is on the Canon....Show more →
On APS-C DSLRs vignetting is very well controlled with the lens. Wide-open vignetting does not exceed ~0.5EV which is usually not much of an issue in real life situations. One stop down the problem is absolutely negligible.
2. On the other hand, f/4 is one stop faster than f/5.6.
