Camera Labs

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:


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:



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

100% crop:


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

Cheers,
Matthias

_________________
Matthias Messer

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.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

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

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.

_________________
Graham
Flickr

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" ,
but I'd gladly send you the URL if you dopn't have it already.

Cheers,
Matthias

_________________
Matthias Messer

Thanks Matthias. No need for the URL, I've actually seen it already I just forgot lol.

_________________
Graham
Flickr

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:


100 % crop:


Cheers,

Matthias[/img]

_________________
Matthias Messer

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?

_________________
---------------
Nikon D80 || AF-S DX 18-135mm
Nikon N75 || AF 28-80mm G , AF 70-300mm G, AF 50mm f1.8D, AF 35mm f2.0 (all Nikkor)

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

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

_________________
---------------
Nikon D80 || AF-S DX 18-135mm
Nikon N75 || AF 28-80mm G , AF 70-300mm G, AF 50mm f1.8D, AF 35mm f2.0 (all Nikkor)

D90
16mm
1/1250 sec
f/3.5
ISO 100

_________________
camera gear: Nikon D90 | 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikkor | 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Nikkor | 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor
future purchases : Nikon SB-600 Speedlight | MB-D80 Battery Grip

Flickr!

on the walk with a friend of mine

85mm
1/100th
F5.6
iso 100


100% crop

_________________

Nikon D700 & D7100 bodies + Nikkor 300mm F2.8 VR11, 1.7TC, 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

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldcarlos/

I read Rockwell 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 7D, 15-85, Canon 85 1.8 USM, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L IS Macro, Canon 70-300L IS USM+Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic

Hand held from a couple of feet away. Shooting towards the light.

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

_________________

Nikon D700 & D7100 bodies + Nikkor 300mm F2.8 VR11, 1.7TC, 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

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldcarlos/