Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    935

    Lets settle this: 16-85 VR review

    Okay, with a very quick Google search, I have found one of the first, if not THE first, 16-85 VR review.

    It is in French, so I am linking you to an English translated version of the webpage. If you prefer to read in French, or can read better in another language, please use the "Original French version" link and have Google, or some other program translate the page for you. Remember to click on the "next" icons if you wish to continue with the translated version. If you use the pull down menu at the bottom, it will not translate the next page.

    http://translate.google.com/translat...%3Den%26sa%3DG

    Original French version:

    http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/Introduction,1023.html


    From what I can see, its got some really good resolution in the center but corner resolution leaves something to be desired (as seen in the brick tests), lots of distortion on the wide end, as should be expected from this focal range, some vignetting (but not as bad as the 18-70), and I can not understand their CA test. From other test shots I have seen, the CA isn't that bad. A little pink and green here and there, but it can be cleaned up in post if required.

    So there it is folks.
    Last edited by VTEC_EATER; 03-08-2008 at 06:53 PM.
    Nikon D300 | MB-D10 | Nikkor 12-24/4 | Nikkor 50/1.8 | Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRI | Sigma 18-50/2.8 | SB-800 | SB-80DX (x4) | Radiopopper JrX Studio |

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,888
    My issue with the lens revolves around the price.
    The focal length is just about perfect for me and I know that it would be the lens that is on my camera 90% of the time so I was eagerly awaiting pricing info but so far I have been entirely disappointed. Reviews seem to indicate that the lens is good but not great but the price is neither good nor great. The lens does not appear to represent any sort of value for money.
    It's not budget level and it's certainly not pro level so who are Nikon actually trying to sell this lens to?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Posts
    3,650
    ah.... let's see you said it was in your range, I think it special made just for you Kiwi

    price is like wack not like it's an f/4
    I thought about who I am... and realized I was an
    unformed, unreconciled imagery, without "GOD"


    NikonD?
    and some other Nikon stuff

    0.0%

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    793
    For that price in australia, I'd choose the 18-200 VR. Before finding out about price, I was considering replacing my 18-70DX with this 16-85.
    Nikon D700 | SB600 | SB-80DX | 2xSB-26 | 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 | 24-85 f/3.5-4.5G | 50 f/1.4 G | 105 f/2.8 VR | 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR

    flickr

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,888
    The 18-200 is only $50 more expensive so it's a no brainer price wise but I hate that lens and I'm not buying it. If I wanted 18-200 in a single lens I'd buy a Panasonic FZ-18 or something and not worry about an SLR. That's my opinion others obviously differ and that is fine by me.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Posts
    3,650
    OK, the MSRP was a misprint... Let's try $199.99
    I thought about who I am... and realized I was an
    unformed, unreconciled imagery, without "GOD"


    NikonD?
    and some other Nikon stuff

    0.0%

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,132
    Quote Originally Posted by XaiLo View Post
    OK, the MSRP was a misprint... Let's try $199.99
    http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-16-85mm-...5038852&sr=8-1

    Or

    http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-55mm-...5038852&sr=8-4

    Obvious which one I'd pick. Unless someone can convince me that the 16-85 would make my pictures $515 better
    Last edited by Visual Reality; 03-08-2008 at 09:03 PM.
    Nikon D300 | Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm VR | Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 D | SB-600 | Lowepro Voyager C | Lowepro Slingshot 300 AW

    For Sale:
    Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 D - Like New (FX compatible)

    Wish List
    Nikkor AF-S 17-55 f/2.8
    Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f/4 VRII
    Tokina AF 11-16 f/2.8
    SB-900 (2)
    Umbrellas
    New Tripod

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,421
    i agree with kiwi 100%. too expesnive for what it is.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    570
    Yup, the16-85vr was a real dissapointment price-wise. Theres quite a few ppl who own it on dcrp and most are happy with it. Lets wait for some more reviews before totally trashing the lens .
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/14807929@N05/

    D40+Sigma 17-70-2.8-4.5 DC MACRO

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,888
    I don't want to trash it I actually want to to work.
    The problem I have is purely price as I have said before. I can't see it being worth 3x what a 18-70 is worth these days or nearly 4x what a standard non VR 18-55 is worth based on the images I have seen so far.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •