Lets settle this: 16-85 VR review

[VTEC_EATER]

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.

[K1W1]

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?

[XaiLo]

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

[achuang]

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.

[K1W1]

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.

[XaiLo]

OK, the MSRP was a misprint... Let's try $199.99

[Visual Reality]

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

[Rooz]

i agree with kiwi 100%. too expesnive for what it is.

[Aldor88]

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 .

[K1W1]

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.