Talk to about the Nikon 16-85 Please

james_death

james_death

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,778
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok folks i dont pop in much these days but i still appreciate the pics.

Well ever since the D300 came out i hankered after one, i always knew i could not afford a new one...:lol:

Well i have seen them come and go in sale threads and the D300s come out.

Im now have the chance to get the D300 second user of course.

However i also have first refusal on the 16-85 also.

So what are folks findings on this lens in particular on the D300 if possible.

I always fancied wildlife and airshows but it doesnt happen so the fact the 18-200 is it? Goes for about the same money well if anything for more second user.

Having found the 18-70 of old hangs on the camera most im thinking of replacing with the 16-85.

Enlighten me people. Please...:D

Oh cost of the lens, it will be about £245 possibly slightly less. Just had confirmed i can have for £220...

Oh need to have made my mind up before 4pm tomorrow the 11th of August 2011....:lol:

I ask having already trawled through the mentions of the 16-85.
 
Last edited:
It is a nice lens but to be honest, unless you really really want the extra 2mm on the wide end then I wouldn't bother (for the long end, take a step forwards) - the 18-70 is a great lens, the only thing it is lacking is VR.
 
Last edited:
I've got one, don't use it too much.
Great build quality - feels very solid compared to the 18-105 and the 18-200.
IQ wise I would say they are all of a muchness.

At that price I would snap it up if I were you!:)
 
Thanks folks, anyone else chipping in.

As mentioned i dare say i could sell for more than i would be paying should i not feel it offers much over the old 18-70..... f3.5-4.5...
 
I use one on my D300 and in all honesty they are the mutts nuts together.
 
I got the 16-85mm to replace the 18-70mm when I changed from the D70 to the D200. I've found it a great lens. :) The extra 2mm makes a surprisingly big difference, and the 85mm overlaps nicely with my 70-300mm so as I don't have to change lenses as often. The VR comes in handy too in some low light situations.

I kept 16-85mm when I got the D300, and even bought another one to replace one that was stolen. It is the perfect blend of quality (image and build), range, size and price for me.
 
redhed17 said:
I got the 16-85mm to replace the 18-70mm when I changed from the D70 to the D200. I've found it a great lens. :) The extra 2mm makes a surprisingly big difference, and the 85mm overlaps nicely with my 70-300mm so as I don't have to change lenses as often. The VR comes in handy too in some low light situations.

I kept 16-85mm when I got the D300, and even bought another one to replace one that was stolen. It is the perfect blend of quality (image and build), range, size and price for me.
Click to expand...

How does the 16-85mm IQ compare to the 18-70mm ? I find the 18-70mm IQ to be utterly amazing for what was a kit lens.
 
Last edited:
I found the 16-85mm a better lens in every way to the 18-70mm, but it did go hand in hand with camera upgrades with regards to image quality, but I'm never found it wanting, which is more than I can say for a Sigma lens I had. ;) But it is still working superbly, and I would have no qualms about getting another one should I be unfortunate enough to be without one, or have this one damaged, again. :)
 
you guys that have it - dont you miss having a fixed wide aperture? ive heard so much good stuff about the 16-85, but i think i would miss my f/2.8 on my 17-50 too much.
 
i'd say thats a good deal, and i would probably snap it up, however i only wish that there was a 16-85 VR f4, that would be sweet
 
But then factor in the weight of a 2.8 lens if you're going to carry it all day. I have the 24-85 2.8 and just bought a 16-85 not just for the extra length but the lighter weight.
 
thorton said:
you guys that have it - dont you miss having a fixed wide aperture?
Click to expand...

You don't miss what you've never had. ;)


As I said earlier it is the perfect blend of quality (image and build), range, size and price for me. :)

For others, well, you make up your own mind. :shrug: :D
 
redhed17 said:
You don't miss what you've never had. ;)


As I said earlier it is the perfect blend of quality (image and build), range, size and price for me. :)

For others, well, you make up your own mind. :shrug: :D
Click to expand...
Exactly how I feel, well said :thumbs:

At that price I would buy, its a no brainier. If you don't like it you will make money reselling. Go for it! :D
 
I love my 50mm 1.8, but the 16-85 would be a good everyday lens, having said that i think the sigma 10-20 has been on for a month....:lol:

So as said i cant loose if i decide to sell on well i could but would be daft to accept less...

So it looks like a D300 with less than 6k activations and the 16-85 also.

Only wish it was £220 for the pair...:lol:
 
james_death said:
I love my 50mm 1.8, but the 16-85 would be a good everyday lens, having said that i think the sigma 10-20 has been on for a month....:lol:
Click to expand...
Funny you should mention those two... I have both, and the fifty just does not get used, and the 10-20 seemed great for a few months but has been relegated since I got the 16-85, which goes (just) wide enough for me. It seems to have a weird "lens x factor" that makes me want to use it all the bloody time :thinking:

Maybe that's just me tho :suspect:
 
The 18-70 is a good lens, but if you compare it to the 16-85, then there's no competition. Even in the shop, I compared the 16-85 to the Tamron 17-50 and even on the lcd, the difference in sharpness is visible...

This is on a D7000, btw...
 
I went on holiday to Rome a few years ago with the 16-85mm, 70-300mm and a borrowed Sigma 10-20mm. I used the 16-85mm 95%+ of the time and the 10-20mm the rest. I found the Sigma handy in the odd situation, but the lens distortion made it not as useful as I thought it would be. I didn't use the 70-300mm at all, but maybe that is to be expected in a city centre situation.

That was just for my type of photography though. :shrug: For some the 10-20mm is the perfect lens, but I can't justify having a lens like that that would get so little use. :shake:

Obviously, when the lottery win comes in I can have occasional lenses, but I'm quite happy with what I've got. :D
 
Last edited:
I have the 16-85mm and 50mm for my D90. I only use the 50mm if I want some more bokeh otherwise its the 16-85 all the way.
 
I would defiantly go with the 16-85 as I bought one of here just to try it against my 18-200 VR, I have now sold the 18-200 and kept the 16-85 I tried them both together and I would say the IQ on the 16-85 was just slightly better, but for me the lens was lighter plus I hardly ever went above 100mm anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top