Nikon 16-85vr Thread

Please post your images and comments/suggestions in relation to the Nikon 16-85mm vr lens. Please be specific with the focal length utilized. I'll start us of with a group at 16mm, These 3 are 3 exposure HDR's

So which lens did you get first, the 10-24 or this one? Looks like you are having fun with both of them. Great shots!
[h=1][/h]

Shoots808 said:

So which lens did you get first, the 10-24 or this one? Looks like you are having fun with both of them. Great shots!

Click to expand...

Thanks!, I've had the 16-85 over a year, the 10-24 less than a Month

At 25mm, 3 exposure HDR

Right there around 24 or 25 is a sweet spot for close range landscapes isn't it?

At 40mm,

@16mm, 1/45th, f3.5 w/VR :

Hard Rock Interior by stupidphotoguy, on Flickr

@16mm :

Hotel Staircase by stupidphotoguy, on Flickr

@70mm :

Hard Rock PRS by stupidphotoguy, on Flickr

Nice shots, I have not used it indoors much, looks like sharp results!

I like the lens indoors. Slow, yes. But even handholding, VRii is really something to behold assuming you don't abuse it. Check out the exif on some of them.


@ 55mm:
inner harobor buildings @ 55mm by stupidphotoguy, on Flickr




@ 22mm:
Bumble Bee by stupidphotoguy, on Flickr




@ 40mm:
Bruno the Goldfish! by stupidphotoguy, on Flickr

At 62mm,

If you post an HDR or LA shot, be sure to make that known.

eurotrash said:

If you post an HDR or LA shot, be sure to make that known.

Click to expand...

Good point! My first 4 images in this thread are HDR's, I amended the posts to reflect that. HDR does compromise sharpness.

here's straight raw files. one regular, one 100% cropped. only lens corrections applied in LR before export. No filters used on lenses, same manual WB and exposure used. Also used level tripod with 5 sec shutter delay and auto focus on single point, middle of frame.
Weather was very overcast and rained shortly after the last shot was taken, hence the perceived darkness of the shots.

35mm 1.8G @ F8, normal:

35mm 1.8G @ F8, 100% crop:

18-55vr @ F8, at 35mm, normal:

18-55vr @ F8, at 35mm, 100% crop:

16-85vr @ F8, at 35mm, normal:

16-85vr @ F8, at 35mm, 100% crop:

When i get my 16-85 back (returned due to scratching on front of glass) I'll do the longer end of the 18-55 and the 16-85.

Looking at the Twig in the crops, CA's are the worst on the 35mm 1.8, not what I would expect in a prime!

Sharpness wise, I see more detail in the siding grain with the 16-85 and the 35 than the 18-55.

Yea, I'm really going to sell my 35mm now. Not just because of the test, but also because it overlaps some range on the 16-85. I'd much prefer the 40mm 2.8. Wonder how much I could get for it, if it's even worth selling.

eurotrash said:

Yea, I'm really going to sell my 35mm now. Not just because of the test, but also because it overlaps some range on the 16-85. I'd much prefer the 40mm 2.8. Wonder how much I could get for it, if it's even worth selling.

Click to expand...

They are a pretty hot lens from all the good reviews, I'd start at $175. I think I got about $160 for mine

Smoke stack at 85mm,

Got my replacement back. Deliberately shot at f13 to catch the sunrays. 16mm HDR:


Sunlight by stupidphotoguy, on Flickr

72mm:


Lazy Day by stupidphotoguy, on Flickr