Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:52 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 10:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:18 am
Posts: 29
Hi Folks,

my fist port here, so apologies if I screw up technically.

I recently got the 16-85 with my new D300 together with the
70-300 VR instead of just the 18-200 for the following reasons:

- longer max focal length
- less distortions
- better sharpness over the entire range

Well, the latter point was more a good guess since there are
not so many reviews out there on the 16-85. Sharpness was
my main concern, since it's the only thing you can't correct for offline.
I would really appreciate any comments, be they however devastating.
Here we go:

Image
Berlin, April 2008
Camera: NIKON D300
Lens: NIKKOR AFS DX 16-85mm 1:3.5-5.6 VR
A: 3.5
FL: 16mm

Here's one 100% crop:
Image

Image
Same as above, but
A: 8
FL: 35mm

100% crop:
Image

There will be more as soon as I can find the time for some more meaningful tests.

Cheers,
Matthias

_________________
Matthias Messer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:00 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9829
Location: UK
Hi Matthias,

May I wish you a warm welcome to the CameraLabs forums.

Great to see you immediately up and running with a contribution to our Lens Gallery. Thank you. 8)

Bob.

_________________
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8.
Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2008 2:31 pm 
It sure looks like this lens can create so nice crisp shots, confirming what all the reviews say about this lens.

That's a nice combo with the D300.

Cheers :-)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 11:49 am 
Looks like a sharp lens Matthias. Do you have any experience with other lenses that start at 18mm? I'm interested to know if the extra 2mm makes much of a difference in practice.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Difference 16 vs 18mm
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 9:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:18 am
Posts: 29
Hi Graham,

I don't have any hands-on experience with a NIKKOR 18mm, but if you
look into Ken Rockwell's Review ( where the choice of the 16-85 got quite
some bashing, by the way), you'll see a few sample shots showing that
the difference is, as to be expected, tiny.
I hope Gordon forgives me pointing you to the "competition" :wink: ,
but I'd gladly send you the URL if you dopn't have it already.

Cheers,
Matthias

_________________
Matthias Messer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 10:10 am 
Thanks Matthias. No need for the URL, I've actually seen it already I just forgot lol. :? :D


Top
  
 
 Post subject: more on sharpness
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:18 am
Posts: 29
Dear all,

thanks for all the feadback so far. Any chance of reading from another
owner of this lense, hugh?
As you've read above, I am mostly after judging sharpness, so here's
another batch with that focus:

Location: Tiny but picturesque little town of Kettwig, Ruhr area, Germany
Aperture: F/11
Shutter: 1/500s
ISO: 250
Focal length: 68mm
DEFAULT SHARPENING in the jpg processing. According to my few little
tests that means some loss of "impression" of sharpness -- +2 is probably the best choice with the D300.

So looking at the numbers above, one should think that this is it: the
vanilla area of performance of such a lense.
See for yourselves:

full but reduced:
Image

100 % crop:
Image

Cheers,

Matthias[/img]

_________________
Matthias Messer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:37 am 
Hey matthiasmesser!

Thanks for the review! I am currently shooting with an 18-135mm on a D80 (pretty standard, i know) as my general purpose lens. I like the new 18-105mm VR prospect, and I wouldnt mind upgrading to the D90 in the mid/near future.

However, I REALLY like the wider angle, and I dont end up shooting at my telephoto end that often with my 18-135mm (thats what my 70-300 is for)! Would you recommend me bumping up to the 16-85mm VR? Or would it really make that much difference?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:18 am
Posts: 29
Hi thestig2010,

I think I've written it somewhere already: For a comparism
btw. 16 and 18mm you may want to look at Ken Rockwell's
review of the 16-85. Read with a little care though: The guy is
brilliant, no doubt, but when he DOES form an opinion it can get
rather subjective and he gives the old 16-85 qute a bashing in
his review.
I just love that lens and I would buy it again. I also have the
70-300 and I do find myself swapping those two a little more
often than I would have thought before. So you may want to
consider the 18-200, or even the Tamron super-zoom (was it
18-270?).
I'll see if I can post a few comparisms betw. 16 and 18 with my
lens lateron.

Cheers,
Matthias

_________________
Matthias Messer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:43 am 
hey matthias,

Thanks for replying back to me!

I, too, have a 70-300 lens (soon to upgrade to the VR instead of the G model), so getting an all-around super-zoom lens isnt really a big deal for me. I like the Nikkor 18-200mm, but I find when I shoot at the long end (which isnt often), its for a purpose, like an air show I attended this summer. For the telephoto, I'd just grab my 70.

I dig the range on my 18-135, but I'd gladly trade the extra length for not only the extra 2mm on the wide end, but also the VR! I, too, am a frequent Rockwell reader and had to sift through the 16-85 review. I was impressed with the quality of the samples and build quality (probably on par with the 18-200 by the looks of things).

Thanks for your opinion, i really appreciate the input!

-TheStig


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:36 am 
Image
D90
16mm
1/1250 sec
f/3.5
ISO 100


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:02 pm 
on the walk with a friend of mine

Image

Image


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 3:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:01 pm
Posts: 1232
Location: NW England
Image


85mm
1/100th
F5.6
iso 100


100% crop

Image

_________________
Image btw,He who dies with the most toys, WINS!
Nikon D800E & D700 bodies + Nikon 200-400mm F4 VR1, 50mm F1.4G, 16-35mm f/4G VR, 105 F2.8 VR macro, 70-300mm lenses. A couple of filters, Giotto tripod & ballhead. Lowepro Slingshot 302 AW
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:01 am
Posts: 1167
Location: bit east of Melbourne
I read Rockwell :roll: review on the 16-85, and as usual with all his reviews take them with a grain of salt, but the only negative seems to be the price as its the same as the 18-200.

He is suggesting that he would buy the 18-200 because it covers more, but the 2 mm at the start of the lens is often more important than the other end of the zoom. He has access to the 12-24 at the wide angle, but you may not.

The 16-85 is sharper at the wide end and has better VR and less distortion than the 18-200. I am sure if it was cheaper he would recommend it.

I went through similar things with the 15-85 for the canon and for a general purpose zoom lens its awesome. For what its worth you have made the right choice in my opinion.

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 6D,7D, Canon 40 2.8 STM, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, Canon 17-40 L, Canon 15-85, Canon 85 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L Macro, Canon 70-300L +Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:01 pm
Posts: 1232
Location: NW England
Hand held from a couple of feet away. Shooting towards the light.

72mm
1/30th sec
F7.1
iso 720

Image

_________________
Image btw,He who dies with the most toys, WINS!
Nikon D800E & D700 bodies + Nikon 200-400mm F4 VR1, 50mm F1.4G, 16-35mm f/4G VR, 105 F2.8 VR macro, 70-300mm lenses. A couple of filters, Giotto tripod & ballhead. Lowepro Slingshot 302 AW
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group