Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED Vibration Reduction Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

If you take many pictures, there have been times when your primary lens has not done the job. Say you are in a small room attempting to take a portrait shot, you have a 35mm lens on the camera, and you run out of room to maneuver. I was there recently. The picture was very important, and the subject was chopped off at the shoulders. I really wanted a full portrait. Finally you remember you have the 16-85mm in your bag and the day is saved. Hopefully you are smarter than I, and you keep the lens on the camera and carry the primary as a spare. Are you, like me, afraid to carry $700 hanging from your neck? Live life, my friend, live dangerously, don't let fear dictate the excellence of your photography. Do two important things before you go out: get a very good neck strap, get an equally good filter to protect the expensive lens. Make use of this wonderful telephoto and take great shots. Cons: The lens is heavy. Don't expect to hold it steady for a long time in your hand. Oh, you are a twenty year old athelete. Maybe you can, but your father shouldn't try it. It has VR which is very handy, but you will want a good tripod. Pros: Have you ever taken beautiful shots in wide angle and found the corners of the pictures have blacked out? When I bought the D5100 kit with the 18-55mm lens the lens took decent pictures at 28mm. Wider than that you don't want to display your great talent. No such problem occurs with this lens. If you take terrible pictures, you are a terrible photographer. For myself I take a lot of macro, landscape and portrait shots. Wonderful results. If the pictures are any good it is due to the D7000 and this lens. Will it work for you? Probably, but there is no guarantee. How good are you? Hopefully this lelps you to decide if you want this lens. For the money it is excellent. Thank you for your time and attention. Barrie Bracken

I got the lens yesterday and went out and shot 50 pictures to check it out. Findings are as follows: VR works well. ½ second hand held at 33mm equivalent. It's dead sharp and 4 stops slower than the nominal 1/30th. I also took one at 1 second that was not too bad. Colors and focus are right on. Macro works OK. It's heavy: I knew it would be. Lens plus D90 with strap, lens cover, and protective filter weigh 3.1 lb. For comparison, it's 1½ times as heavy as my 1.9 lb D40 with the 18-55 VR kit lens, filter, and strap. My Canon S90 weights 0.9 lb ready to go. I bought the 16-85 VR lens to be my primary lens for the D90 and to pair with my 70-300 VR lens. I have found with the D40 that the break between the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses (both of which are excellent performing lenses) is at just the wrong place. Too often I've had to make do with the wrong lens on the camera. Remembering from the `80's that a 35-105 lens covered the most used range of zooms on my old Minolta X700, the 16-85 factors to 24 - 127 mm 35 mm equivalent and that should be about right. An alternative was the 18-200 VR which Ken Rockwell thinks so highly of. The 16-85 is slightly smaller and slightly lighter than the 18-200. Given that I already had the 70-300 (which I got together with the D90 to take pictures of RC model airplanes doing aerobatics at 50-60 mph) the 16-85 seems to be the better choice for me. Tameron has a roughly equivalent lens for a lot less money but it isn't VR. My hand steadiness is such that I have to have VR to get reasonably sharp pictures. Borrowing from another reviewer, I now have a very expensive (and very heavy) point and shoot camera. That's OK. In its zone of effectivity, the S90 can't be beat for picture quality but the D-90 with 16-85 VR "point-and-shoot" has a much bigger zone of effectivitiy that I plan to exercise in my trips to Glacier National Park and Monument Valley this year, with a little help from the 70-300 for any mountain goats etc that I might get to photograph.

After a couple of weeks of waiting, I finally received my copy to pair with my 70-300mm VR and 50mm 1.8G on my Nikon D7000. I straight away put the unit to test against the venerated Nikon 17-55mm (loaner) to see if it's a keeper. I couldn't yet justify the higher cost of the latter with the extra weight (bulky too like carrying an RPG), shorter focal length, bigger size filter and no Vibration Reduction. To my surprise, the 16-85mm is tack-sharp to the point where it's even sharper than the 17-55mm. It's quite obvious on the corners. From corner to corner, the lens is just excellent. Being somewhat of a pixel peeper, I am happy with this copy even wide open. It's much, much sharper than the 18-55mm VR, 18-105mm VR, 18-200mm VR , all of whom I've owned in the past but failed to secure their spots in my bag. The quality of the 16-85mm fairs pretty well against the 35mm 1.G prime. The VR II is excellent on this lens; I get sharper pictures at f5.6 (1/13 sec) than the 17-55mm f2.8 (1/50 sec) for static subjects handheld. But if you plan on shooting moving objects in extreme low light, you'd have to bump up your ISO to a safe level or pull out your must-have fast primes. As good as it is, for events such as wedding or indoor parties, the 17-55mm could be a better option. For a normal walkaround lens, the 16-85mm VR is more desirable than the 17-55mm where neither portraits with nice bokeh or moving subjects in extreme low light are deal breakers. But I do have the 50mm 1.8G as a remedy. The 16-85mm VR complements the Nikon D7000 very, very well with its size, weight, versatility and performance. My other Nikon standard zooms just couldn't keep up with the higher sensor. For lenses, my bag is reduced to the 16-85mm VR, 50mm 1.8G and 70-300mm VR. I am not a Pro by any means, just a D-SLR enthusiast with a happy smile '

As an avid landscape photographer, I have been pleased with the convenience of the Nikkor 18-200VR on my D300 (which I absolutely love!). But I have been hoping to get sharper images and greater focal range by switching over to the new Nikkor 16-85VR paired with the 70-300VR. Overall I am very pleased with the 16-85. My initial observations: - I noticed a significant improvement in the exposure of landscape shots (not as dramatic on indoor shots). Outdoors, I regularly shot with a -.7 adjustment as images tented to be slightly over-exposed with the 18-200. With the 16-85 lens the images came out with much improved exposure. Images just look better to the eye and as noted in comparative histograms from many test shots. - Ditto with improved color accuracy. I was pleasantly surprised to see how much better colors were captured with this lens. Again, this is most noticable in outdoor images. - Improved image sharpness was not as pronounced as hoped but at least equalled or exceeded 18-200 in most instances with a shutter speed of at least 1/20 sec. Surprisingly my initial test shots revealed that between 1/6 to 1/20 the VR was just comparable or in some instances not quite as good as the 18-200 across all focal lengths from 18-85. I often end up shooting at slow speeds and have been impressed with the ability to shoot so low with VRII in the 18-200 and the 16-85. - Balance is better with 18-200. Perhaps this is a minor nit, but for handheld shots, the D300 seems slightly better balanced with the larger 18-200 than with the 16-85. Perhaps this allows for a steadier hand at slow shooting speeds. (note: I realize this may be simpily a matter of having become so comfortable with the feel of the 18-200 on a D300 and this nit may go away the more I use the 16-85.) - The extra 2 degrees of wide angle is nice and looks like it will mean not having to switch over to my 12-24mm zoom quite as much. - The lens action is comparable to the 18-200 - but NO barrel creep. Shooting with the lens barrel angled down in no problem with the 16-85. Overall this is a nice lens which I plan to keep because it delivers such noticeable accuracy improvements in exposure and color...plus the extra 2 degrees and no barrel creep. p.s. I just got the 70-300 yesterday so don't have much comparative testing but overall the image quality in the 70-200 focal range seems to be slightly better than the 18-200, and you have the longer focal length and NO barrel creep.

Some background - I have been using a full-frame Nikon D700 for several years (raw files only) for theatre, event, and photography of art objects, and wanted a smaller, lighter camera for everyday use, also using raw files. So I bought a Nikon D7000, and used it with a number of Nikon prime (i.e., single focal length lenses.) I was impressed by the quality of the results, but of course found that the D7000 has much more noise at ISO > 400 than the D700 (duh,...). The kit lens that comes with the D7000, the 18-105 VR, is a poor performer wide open. Resolution is simply not there, although it is cheap, light, and the VR is effective. If you are outdoors in good light and use ISO 400, the 18-105 is an adequate lens since you will be stopped down for most pictures. I decided to try the 16-85 VR lens, which is about twice the price of the 18-105, and I can say that it is worth the higher price. With a bit of unsharp masking in the raw conversion process, or setting the camera to sharpen JPGs beyond the default setting, good results can be had even wide open on the D7000. The VR performs superbly, as usual for modern lenses, and the Nikon Capture software easily removes the barrel distortion at wide angle settings. Is this lens a bargain? Well, it is not in the same league as the Nikon 50 MM F1.8 AFD, but considering that it is a VR zoom lens that gives good results wide open and is relatively compact and light, I would say that it is an excellent value for the cost. Conclusion? Buy the D5100 or D7000 camera body, but forgo the kit lens, and get the 16-85 instead.

I bought this to supplement/replace an 18-200 VR Nikon lens that I have used very extensively, but have often wanted a sharper, more contrasty walkaround lens. I use them primarily on a D300. I shoot around 30,000 images a year at this point. The 16-85 is sharper than the 18-200. 16mm is significantly wider angle than 18mm, and I have found the extra wide angle more important than the zoom range I lost in going from the 18-200. The 16-85 is also significantly smaller and lighter than the 18-200, and the lens extension is much tighter, as well there is no zoom creep. My 18-200 creeps to full zoom if you point it down even 45 degrees. I don't think the 16-85 will develop that trait. There is significantly less image distortion at the wide end with the 16-85. BTW, my 18-200 is an early one, made in Japan, so likely a better than average sample. I believe all 16-85 lenses are made in Taiwan. The one downside is simply that it's a slow lens. But, no slower than the 18-200. The VR on my sample is not really any better than that of the 18-200, but it's not worse either. I can get sharp images down to 1/8 to 1/15, depending on the zoom, with probably a 50% hit rate to be acceptably sharp. When shooting that slow, I just take 2 or 3 images at a time and one of them is usually sharp. Combined with the high ISO capability of the D300, I can live with the speed of this lens for my shooting. I do use the D300 battery grip, so have a bit of weight which helps with steadiness, too. I find the ability to shoot landscape or portrait with the grip far outweighs it's bulk. I never take it off the camera when handholding. I do notice at the wide end when handheld with VR the images have an edgy character when zoomed to 100% that I take to be a characteristic added by VR. It could also be that it's approaching the resolution limit of the sensor and I'm expecting more from each pixel than can be provided at 16mm by a D300 12 MP sensor. I never noticed this with the 18-200. Neither do I notice it on my 12-24 at that focal length. I don't see it zoomed to anything less than 100%, and I'm far more pleased with having the 16mm shots than I'm bothered by this characteristic. I was hoping for absolute sharpness, in the same vein as my 70-200 VR, and this lens is close, but not quite as sharp. But it's noticeably sharper than the 18-200, most especially at 85mm, and when looking past the center of the frame. At f8 and above, the center of the images between the 16-85 and 18-200 are fully the same sharpness. Past 85mm, the 18-200 becomes less useful due to loss of contrast and sharpness, again making the loss of that zoom range less bothersome. I also considered the Sigma 17-70, but with no VR, that lens while faster would be much more limited. It's much cheaper, though, and has a pseudo-macro capability, and most are reportedly sharp, so you might consider that lens also. I shoot a lot of low light scenes, mostly street scenes at night. I don't mind some blurred people - it simply lends life to the image. I can easily handhold street scenes at night of lit storefronts etc with sharp images of static objects - all I can ask for. My alternative was the 24-70. I know I would have been happier with that lens on an absolute basis, in terms of sharpness, build quality, and overall image quality. But the size and lack of VR of the 24-70 would limit my satisfaction and given the zoom range, it would be a much more limited lens. I have achieved close to the level of sharpness, with less weight and cost. Overall, this lens will add more to my photography than the 24-70, and for less than half the cost. When I get a D700, I will also add the 24-70, but not before. I own other lenses with good to very good Bokeh. The 50 1.8, 70-200 2.8 VR, and Tamron 90 2.8 that I have all have very good Bokeh. Neither the 18-200 or 16-85 do. Just to say, it's very helpful to have at least one lens with very good background blur characteristics in your kit for portraits or closeups. The 16-85 is not that lens at most focal lengths. In short, I'm happy with the purchase, and would purchase again. I will rarely use the 18-200 now that I've purchased this lens.

I have both the 18-135 and the 18-200, yet this lens has become my everyday go to lens for most of my photography. The 18-200 has tremendous versatility and I have made many great photos with it. However the softness and CAs around the edges is quite pronounced and definitely shows in larger prints of 12x18 and larger (I could have a poor copy). My 18-135, on the other hand, is tack sharp throughout the frame and is a great lens. However, the lack of VR is a limiter for using the lens as an everyday lens where low-light, hand held shots are often required. Now to the 16-85VR: As I shoot mostly landscapes and outdoor shots, the 16mm wide end was particularly attractive to me. Only 10% or so of my shots are beyond 85mm, so I don't think I'll miss the 85-200 range. The build quality is about like the 18-200 without the zoom creep. I conducted informal tripod tests of this lens against my sharp 18-135 and the 16-85 actually exhibited better sharpness and contrast all across the frame from 16mm-50mm at all apertures, with the sharpest apertures being f8 and f11 (no surprise there). However, wide open is sharp as well, with very little light falloff at the corners, even at 16mm. In the 60mm - 85mm range, the 18-135 was usually just a bit sharper (except at f-11, where they were equal) for both the center and edges (you have to look really hard and pixel peep at 100% to notice the slight difference). Given the great sharpness (especially in the 16-50mm range), VR, and almost total lack of noticeable CAs, I can highly recommend the 16-85 for a general purpose, on-the-camera-all-the-time lens.

I bought this lens last June 2008 and have been using this for 7 months. I used this lens with my Nikon D80(soon to be replaced with Nikon D700). Before I bought this lens, I compared the Nikon 16-85mm lens with my friend's Nikon 18-200mm lens. Although the Nikon 18-200mm is a good all around lens but the obvious barrel distortion and pincushion distortion is very obvious in this lens. It has a very slow focus in low light conditions. As for the Nikon 16-85mm, the distortion control is way much better than the Nikon 18-200mm. I have a lot of great shots and captured crystal clear pictures, both landscapes and portraits shots with this lens. This lens can focus much faster in low light conditions compared to the Nikon 18-200mm lens. If you are just starting to learn digital photography, don't buy those cheap plastic lenses or use kits lenses, they take poor quality photo shots. Buy this one (Nikon 16-85mm), you won't regret this investment for a budget lens for landscape and portrait photography. This is highly recommended as an all-around superb performance budget lens for landscape and portrait shots. Otherwise, if you want a superfast high quality all around glass for landscape and portrait, then get the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8(price tag around ~$1600 but it is worth every penny if you can afford it).

I ordered this item on Friday morning and thought the Sunday Delivery date was a bit ambitious. However, to my most pleasant surprise, the lens was delivered on time at Lunchtime on Sunday. Two days!!! And an added bonus is the price being $20 cheaper than a pre-loved item fom a major camera store ✔✔✔

Pues eso, si quieres tener un objetivo pegado al cuerpo de tu cámara, este es el tuyo, bastante nítido en todas las focales y cerrando un poco el diafragma aun mejor (a partir de 6,3 mejora mucho), va durito (buena construcción), es un poco oscuro, mejor un 2,8-4 claro que si, pero es lo que tiene tener tanto rango focal. La relación calidad-precio no es óptima, pero vale lo que cuesta. No distorsiona demasiado a 16, y para la mayoría de las fotos de viajes vale. Con la d7000 se lleva de miedo. Incluye el típico parasol y bolsa.

Ich habe das Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm 1:3,5-5,6G ED VR gekauft weil ich mit der Abbildungsleistung und der Verarbeitungsqualität des Kitobjektives Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm/3,5-5,6G ED VR nicht zufrieden war. Beide Objektive habe ich an meiner Nikon D7100 gestestet. Ich muß hinzufügen das mein Vergleich ausschließlich Praxisbezogen ist und keinerlei Laborprüfungen durchgeführt worden sind. Meine Rezension beziehen sich ausschließlich auf Erfahrungen in der Praxis mit beiden Objektiven. Meine hier geschilderten Eindrücke und Bewertungen hinsichtlich dieser beiden Objektive sind daher sicherlich teilweise subjektiv. Zur Abbildungsleistung: Landschaftaufnahmen mit dem Nikkor 18-105mm waren trotz Verwendung von Stativ, Blende 8, Belichtungszeit von 160/S und 250/S recht matschig, insbesondere an den Bildrändern lässt meiner Meinung nach die Bildschärfe deutlich nach. (Brennweite 18mm). Bei Nutzung der anderen Brennweitenbereiche, bei Tabletopaufnahmen waren die Ergebnisse auch eher unterdurchschnittlich. Wenn man natürlich den Preis des Nikkor 18-105mm betrachtet ( ca. 200€ ) erhält man für dieses Geld ein ordentliches Immerdraufobjektiv. Für meine Belange aber leider nicht ausreichend. Das Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm 1:3,5-5,6G ED VR bildet in allen Blendenbereichen und Brennweiten, auch bei Offenblende deutlich schärfer ab. Auch unter eher ungünstigeren Lichtbedingungen gelingen damit sehr scharfe Abbildungen. Die 20mm mehr Brennweite im Vergleich zum 18-105mm sind gut zu verschmerzen. Die 2mm weniger bei dem Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm 1:3,5-5,6G ED VR waren mir da schon wichtiger. Damit sind aber noch nicht alle Vorteile des Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm 1:3,5-5,6G ED VR aufgezählt. Der Autofokus ist sehr treffsicher und der Bildstabilisator verfügt über zwei Modi, zum einen Normal und zum anderen Active, mit dem Active Stabi gelingen sogar Aufnahmen, die auf einem Feldweg aus einem fahrenden Auto geschossen werden. Die Verarbeitungsqualität ist hervorragend, an Stelle des Plastiktubus bei dem 18-105mm hat das 16-85mm einen Metalltubus. Auch das manuelle scharfstellen und das zoomen funktioniert an den Einstellringen des 16-85mm besser und genauer. Die Wiederstände der Einstellringe empfinde ich als sehr angenehm. Darüber hinaus ist das Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm 1:3,5-5,6G ED VR am Bajonettverschluss mit einem Dichtring ausgestattet, somit ist die Warscheinlichkeit das Staub oder Feuchtigkeit in den Body eindringt um einiges geringer. Mein Fazit: Das Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm 1:3,5-5,6G ED VR ist meiner Meinung nach das beste Standartzoomobjektiv das zur Zeit von Nikon für DX Kameras angeboten wird. Wenn man noch mehr möchte, wird man entweder noch mehr bezahlen müssen oder auf Festbrennweiten ausweichen müssen. Habe ein Bild von unserem Australien Shepherd (Hütehund) hinzugefügt, schneller Autofokus und Knackscharf. Ich bereue den Kauf nicht, eine klare Kaufempfehlung für Fotografen die etwas mehr möchten. *Sollte diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich gewesen sein würde ich mich über ein positives Feedback freuen. *Sollten in dieser rezension Fragen unbeantwortet geblieben sein, werde ich die Fragen im Rahmen meiner Möglichkeiten auf Nachfrage beantworten.

Das Objektiv ist von Verarbeitung, Haptik (wenn man sich denn erst einmal an den vorn liegenden Zoomring gewöhnt hat) und Bedienung für die qualitativ "mittlere" Baureihe von Nikon hervorragend, viel besser als z.B. das Vollformat-Pendant 24-120 VR. Schärfe und Kontrast sind generell sehr gut. Es produziert wenig Überstrahlung, so daß auch Nachtaufnahmen sehr gut und sehr klar gelingen. Der Brennweitenbereich ist für die Allroundfotografie optimal. Für Landschaft ist der Brennweitenbereich das Nonplusultra, zudem nimmt es auch starke Abblendung in der Schärfeleistung nicht übel. Vorsicht bei Architekturfotografie, da die extreme WW-Stellung sichtbar tonnenförmig verzeichnet; daher für Städtereisen nur iVm einem zusätzlichen WW-Objektiv empfehlenswert. Über Blende 5,6 am langen Ende gibt's nichts zu Meckern: Man kann halt nicht alles zum überschaubaren Preis in einer kompakten und von der Abblidungsleistung sehr guten Linse bekommen. Fazit: Ich bin sehr zufrieden mit dieser Linse und würde mir wünschen, daß Nikon ein Objektiv vergleichbarer Ausstattung und Qualität auch für das Vollformat anbietet (das 24-120 VR ist es jedenfalls nicht). Nachtrag zur Klarstellung: Wenn ich das 16-85 hier mit dem von mir kritisch gesehenen Vollformatobjektiv "24-120" vergleiche, meine ich damit das alte 3,5-5,6/24-120 VR, nicht das neuere 4/24-120 VR, mit dem ich noch nicht fotografiert habe. Nachsatz: Die neueren APS-C-Kameras, wie z.B. die D7000, haben eine Verzeichnungskorrektureinstellung an Bord, die allerdings nur funktioniert, wenn man JPGs produziert. Schaltet man sie ein, erhält man sowohl von diesem Objektiv wie auch etwa dem 18-200VR, das noch stärker verzeichnet, in Bezug auf die Verzeichnungswerte astreine Ergebnisse. Raw-Shooter müssen die Verzeichnung über die Korrekturfunktion z.B. von Lightroom eliminieren. Gleichwohl bleibt es bei meiner Empfehlung, bei Städtetouren noch ein Super-WW-Zoom des Kalibers 8-16, 11-16, 10-24 oder 12-24mm einzupacken, da man mit 16mm doch häufig vor größeren Gebäuden kapitulieren muß.

J'ai emporté ce zoom "à tout faire" dans un grand voyage, et il a été tout à fait à la hauteur! Les images sont piquées à souhait, et c'est très agréable de pouvoir aller du grand angulaire au petit télé. Par contre attention de ne pas lui ajouter de filtre trop épais, comme un polarisant tournant qui peuvent vignetter les bords supérieurs de l'image à 16mm. Donc un seul filtre UV de protection suffit. Le pare-soleil que j'avais d'abord accusé est en fait fort bien calculé et n'apporte aucune gêne. Bref c'est un achat que je ne regrette pas et referais si je ne l'avais déjà fait, Je le recommande à tout photographe exigeant. La qualité des photos et l'aisance des prises de vue font vite oublier le prix, certes assez élevé.