16-85 af-s dx vr
- Thread starter aroy
- Start date
First Impressions
. The AF is extremely fast in normal cases
. The AF hunts as other lenses if there is a lot of clutter, for example a flower in foreground and tree ten meters behind, it will try to focus on the tree, while I aim it at the stem.
. The range is better than the kit 18-55.
. The kit seems to be sharper at 55mm compared to 85mm in this lense.
. It is very heavy and bulky lense. I think I have been spoilt by the 50mm, 35mm and the kit lenses.
Otherwise it is a fine lense, and as I have it I will use it.
. The AF is extremely fast in normal cases
. The AF hunts as other lenses if there is a lot of clutter, for example a flower in foreground and tree ten meters behind, it will try to focus on the tree, while I aim it at the stem.
. The range is better than the kit 18-55.
. The kit seems to be sharper at 55mm compared to 85mm in this lense.
. It is very heavy and bulky lense. I think I have been spoilt by the 50mm, 35mm and the kit lenses.
Otherwise it is a fine lense, and as I have it I will use it.
Another thing learnt. The Lens is long and fat, so if the supplied petal hood is mounted, it vignettes with the D3300 onboard flash. So I have to take the hood off when I use the onboard flash.
One good thing is that this is now my longest AF-S lense, so close ups are larger than with the 55mm of the kit lense
One good thing is that this is now my longest AF-S lense, so close ups are larger than with the 55mm of the kit lense
Hi Aroy,
I know that you really like the 18-55mm kit lens, so I was wandering how you feel this lens stacks up against it? You've touched on this already but any more thoughts on the matter would be interesting to hear.
Down the line I'm looking to get a walk around lens, mostly for taking on holiday. Ideally I'd want something a little longer like the 18-140 but if I know I'll mostly be shooting wildlife I'd probably use my 70-300 anyway.
If I were to get 16-85 it would most likely replace my 18-55 as it's the non VR version and would be more than covered by this lens. However I'd only do this if the image quality stands up to that of my kit lens?
Thanks.
I know that you really like the 18-55mm kit lens, so I was wandering how you feel this lens stacks up against it? You've touched on this already but any more thoughts on the matter would be interesting to hear.
Down the line I'm looking to get a walk around lens, mostly for taking on holiday. Ideally I'd want something a little longer like the 18-140 but if I know I'll mostly be shooting wildlife I'd probably use my 70-300 anyway.
If I were to get 16-85 it would most likely replace my 18-55 as it's the non VR version and would be more than covered by this lens. However I'd only do this if the image quality stands up to that of my kit lens?
Thanks.
I have experienced that zooms in general and long zooms in particular have pretty bad IQ. The 16-85 was bought by my son, primarily for the 16mm end. It is just passable at 16mm but much inferior to the latest 18-55 at the long end.
My son had also bought the 70-300, but it is horrible at the 300mm end.
My opinion; not shared by many; is that apart from the professional zooms (which cost an arm and a leg), it is better to have primes. My range would be
. Zoom 18-55 VR-II
. 35mm F1.8
. 135mm F2
. 300mm F4
With a sharp zoom and a 24MP sensor you get better image quality after cropping than with an inexpensive zoom. Thus with 300mm in the 70-300 has less resolution than my 50mm prime. So does the 85mm of 16-85. In some of my posts I did post a comparison.
One thing to consider, is that with primes you have to move about a lot, and at times you may not fill the frame entirely. But photographers have been using primes for the last hundred years with no problems. A prime is the best value for money and at the same time the lightest option. Modern high MP sensors give you enough real estate to crop with impunity. Unless you are in business of selling fine prints of A0 (3' x 4') a 4 to 5 MP image is all that you can display on the screen (and on net it is even smaller). When you consider that a 24MP image can print a A2 size comfortably, cropping half of it out, will still give you a detailed A4 print.
Thanks for the feedback. My next lens will be either a 35mm F1.8 or a 50mm F1.8 (still trying to decide between the two). After that I'm looking at getting something like a 90mm or 105mm macro lens. The appeal of a zoom like this one is just for holiday trips where it becomes less practical to carry multiple lenses. My fear would be that I'd get back from a trip and be left with inferior images and regret not making extra room for another lens or two.
Essentially though you wouldn't recommend it as a replacement for the 18-55mm, bearing in mind I don't have the VR II version?
Essentially though you wouldn't recommend it as a replacement for the 18-55mm, bearing in mind I don't have the VR II version?
I agree with you on the 70-300mm. I don't have the best version of that lens, but I don't like it in the 300mm range either. That is why I ended up buying the Nikkor AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR ED lens. It seemed like the best I could afford that had the reach, that also should work pretty good at the short end.
But even this version is pretty spendy, and I got lucky I think on the price even so.
Thanks for the info buddy on this lens your using! I guess I'll look in the FX lenses to use when I get a FX Nikon, and it should be good for the wide shots.
But even this version is pretty spendy, and I got lucky I think on the price even so.
Thanks for the info buddy on this lens your using! I guess I'll look in the FX lenses to use when I get a FX Nikon, and it should be good for the wide shots.
I have the Tamron 70-300mm VC and have been very impressed with it so far. Saying that I have very little to compare it to, a more experienced photographer would most likely see issues with it that I have not.
Here is one shot taken with it at 300mm, to my eye it is pretty sharp, certainly sharper than I was able to manage with the 55-200mm kit lens I had.
Here is one shot taken with it at 300mm, to my eye it is pretty sharp, certainly sharper than I was able to manage with the 55-200mm kit lens I had.
1. I find the 35mm F1.8DX a versatile lense for DX format, much better than the 50mm F1.8.
2. If you sell the older 18-55, get the latest one. It is a killer lens for its price and range. Avoid 16-85, it is not as good.
It's a a good thing that reviews and tests exist from reputable (not Rockwell) online sources, where people can research and make their own decisions about whether the kit lens has better IQ than the 16-85.
I have the 16-85 and have used it extensively on both my D90 and D7000 and think of it as one of the best walkabout lenses for dx cameras that Nikon makes. it is a little heavy but is about the only zoom manageable by me hand held. Sure primes are sharper but on walkabouts or vacations you are going to miss shots when fumbling around with lens changes. Unless I am going out specifically to do macro shots this is the lens that stays on my camera.
Last edited:
