How do Nikon Rumors participants feel about the Nikon 16-85mm lens for use on say a D7100 or a D7200

DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 1,084Member
edited June 2015 in Nikon DSLR cameras
I find in the field use of say a D7200 or D7100 the need for say a 16-85 pretty great. It is one of the lens I do not own. I have a 18-200 and my grandson who uses it professionally now uses it. I think that range is too great by the way. I use a 10-20 Sigma a lot. I also use the 55-300 a lot too. I have quite a few 70-300s...I don't use them much now.....I need a 400 sharp lens say even better a 200-500 except they are too big and too expensive but the range I need most is say 16-about 135mm

Comments

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    Always, the question is about the budget. So, if you have one, let us make a recommendation based on this. I cannot suggest a big Nikkor when it may be way out of the $$$ available.
    Msmoto, mod
  • ggbutcherggbutcher Posts: 370Member
    I use the 18-200mm on a D7000, and I like the results. I don't print large pictures, though.

    I use the "compressed" perspective of 200mm a lot, and I sometimes find myself physically moving back so I can frame a 200mm shot thusly. Just depends on what you're shooting, but for me, 85mm would be too short.

    I've never used one, but the 18-140mm sounds like a better lens in that class.
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,182Member
    edited June 2015
    I have the 18-200 and 18-140.. The 18-200 is better built and I think focuses faster by a tiny bit. but the IQ of the 18-140 is better. However, the build is a bit more platic, and it didnt come with a lense hood, though you can get one for it seperately.

    The 16-85 i think is a bit older than the 18-200. I have played with it in the nikon booth ( expo ). The specs and reviews are nice and it was the best kit zoom in terms of IQ for a while. although the 18-140 now has the best IQ. I cant remember why but I didnt like it as much as I thought I would from reading the specs. I think there was focusing noise.. From reviews and from what I saw the bokeh was not great from 50-70mm but at 85mm it was nice!.

    I think you need to have a play with one to see if you like it. I was seriously considering getting one because of the 16mm. but after playing with it I decided not to( that was a few years before I got my 18-140. there has been talk of an updated 16-85 for several years now.. maybe this year ?

    Have you considered the Tamron 16-300 ?
    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,483Moderator
    edited June 2015
    @DaveyJ: I had that lens on my D7000. To be honest, I sold it because my 18-105 was as sharp so I got the 17-55 to replace it. Pros and cons are metal mount, 16mm (is very handy) Vs expensive and definitely not sharper than your 18-55.
    Post edited by spraynpray on
    Always learning.
  • mcammermcammer Posts: 10Member
    I have the 16-85, but it doesn't see much use these days. It was spectacular on my D5000 and disappointing on my D7000. Maybe it needs focus tuning but that's a little tricky with a zoom. Or maybe its flaws were more evident with increased pixels. I think the 18-105 was equally good on the D7000, and gave a bit of extra range (handy for walk around). OTOH those 2 mm on the wide end were useful too. I kept it because there wasn't a great single lens choice. From comments above, maybe the 18-140 is the best solution.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,483Moderator
    Another view by mcamer similar enough that we have a consensus. If Nikon updated the 16-85, it would be a very good lens indeed but would always be hampered by its slow and variable aperture. A 2.8 to 4 would be better if it had to be variable or just 2.8.
    Always learning.
  • BabaGanoushBabaGanoush Posts: 252Member
    I bought a copy of the 16-85mm when I bought my D7000. I own neither one now. My copy of the 16-85mm front focused at one end of its zoom range and back focused at the other end, but was spot-on (Zero micro- adjustment) in the middle range of focal lengths, where it was plenty sharp. The focus offset was large enough that it made a noticeable difference in the sharpness of my images. When it became too much of a hassle for me to remember to reset the micro adjustment to the proper value each time I changed the focal length, I got rid of the lens. When I did remember to crank in the right tuning value, the lens performed very well, that I will admit.
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,182Member
    edited June 2015
    If there is an update for the 16-85 -- it would probably come from sigma. Have you also considered the old sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.0 OS .. .. I would think if there was a new lense in that range .. sigma would be the first. Especially now that they have the 18-35 f1.8. .. cross that with the old 17-70 F2.8-f4 and you can see a nice 16-85 f2-2.8(or 3.5). we aready have a 16-50 F2-F2.8 from Sumsung.
    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,314Member
    I shoot a fair amount with the 16-85 on my D7000 and D7100. I especially find it handy for interior shots with a bounce flash when I need to be able to change focal lengths rapidly and feet zooming is not a reasonable option with a prime. Yeah I do sometimes wish it focused a tiny bit faster, but it's pretty good.
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,314Member
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 1,084Member
    edited June 2015
    The new rumored 16-85 seems more what I was looking for. Based on my own use of the 16-85 (older) lens and all that I decided to just use a variety of lens.....now the rumored replacement seems much better. We will now have to wait and see. Hopefully the price is bearable. I have almost bought a 18-140 but based on the fact that I tend to want wider often....and my most used wide DX lens now is the 10-20 Sigma and I also have the 12-24 Nikkor which my son now uses once in a while. Hopefully this new 16-85 will turn out to be a REAL winner. It is pretty much the range I personally am looking for. If it is an important event I typically use the D7100 with the 10-20 Sigma and then switch to 55-300VR or the 70-300VR (three of these by the way).....and used somewhat less now as the 55-300 is quite good and lighter. So on another camera the 16-85 new lens would be the best catch all for me. I think.

    I apologize for making new thread but I had the suspicion that all previous discussion was too deeply buried and i heard a rumor myself that the 16-85 was being "replaced". Now it appears MAYBE it will be. If so one would think that the D400 may indeed be getting closer. I myself though would opt for a D7200 and the new 16-85VR 2.8-5 lens. One trepidation I have is a 2.8f low end means to me way more money with little benefit to me.
    Post edited by DaveyJ on
  • kyoshinikonkyoshinikon Posts: 411Member
    While I'd never get one it looks like a pretty nice lens. Fast, wide, and light...
    “To photograph is to hold one’s breath, when all faculties converge to capture fleeting reality. It’s at that precise moment that mastering an image becomes a great physical and intellectual joy.” - Bresson
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,483Moderator
    At last! A DX lens upgrade to a decent standard. Let's hope they keep this up. I can smell a D400 coming to put it on.. ;-)
    Always learning.
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,182Member
    edited June 2015
    Just a smell ..... I think its less than that :-)

    Still its nice that DX is getting SOME attention. However, the Samsung 16-50 F2.0-2.8 sure looks tempting. Wish nikon could have come out with something like that. That would really smell like a D400...

    16-80 F2.8-3.5 numbers does look really nice though ... hope its not too big.. the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.0 filter size is 72mm so it would probably be at least 72mm. Although I hope that they can keep it down to 67mm.
    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 1,084Member
    I think the new 16-80 F2.8-3.5 might be a 72mm or MAYBE a 77mm filter size.
  • picturetedpictureted Posts: 153Member
    I bought the 16-85 with my D90 and have used it on D7000 and D7100. I found it to be extremely sharp and immensely useful. It has moderate and correctible distortion and is best stopped down to f5.6, but the zoom range, ergonomics and sharpness are terrific. I'm now shooting the 24-85VR on a D810 and don't think it's quite as good. Both lenses are weakest at their long ends, so for 70mm and above the 70-200/4 is better,
    pictureted at flickr
  • esquiloesquilo Posts: 71Member
    I bought a 16-85 to replace my 18-105. The main reasons was that I wanted a metal mount and a distance scale. The better sharpness came as a surprise. It has been my standard walk-around lens ever since. I just love it! The 16-85 also has half as much distortion as the 18-105. I got frustrated on the complex multi-grade distortion of the 18-105 when shooting buildings and sea landscapes.
    Nikon D7100 with Sigma 10-20 mm, Nikon 16-85 mm, Nikon 70-300 mm, Sigma 150-500 mm, Nikon 28 mm f/1.8G and Nikon 50 mm f/1.8G.
    Nikon1 J3 with 10-30 mm and 10 mm f/2.8
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,364Member
    edited August 2015
    16 is nice but 85 just not long enough...I have a one lens per camera policy and I never change on a job.
    Post edited by Pistnbroke on
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,483Moderator
    I had the 18-105 and sold it for the 16-85 because I wanted the extra 2mm on the short end. I was disappointed that it was no sharper than my 18-105 which I regret selling.

    Pro's: 16mm at the wide end, build quality and sealed mount.

    Con's: Narrower zoom range and unimpressive sharpness.

    I ended up selling the 16-85 for the 17-55 which has the IQ that I wanted, but an even narrower zoom range and no VR.

    Of course these comments apply to the copies I had, so if you are feeling lucky...
    Always learning.
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 1,084Member
    edited August 2015
    I have used my 16-80 (the new lens) on both the D7100 and D7200. It now my primary lens. I reviewed the lens briefly on Nikon USA where I gave it the highest possible rating. There are no other cameras that I feel the 16-80 would work better on. Despite owning quite a few other Nikon DSLRs I admit I have only used it on the D7100 and D7200. I use a telephoto which I leave set up on the D7200 at home and when I go to work I now take the D7100 and the 16-80 and bring along the D3200 and the kit lens if the going is too rough for my comfort. and of course bring it home I take the D7100 with the 16-80 DX new lens. I thought it was pretty much the same lens on either camera and I could not tell the difference between using it on one camera or the other. The VR and all other features on the new 16-80 seems to have put it in a whole different league.

    I have used the 17-55 a lot and feel it is an excellent lens. I find the range on it though very problematic. I use the 16 end of the 16-80 a lot and also the 80 end. I have tested it at all focal lengths and found it excellent for my purposes throughout. I use the D3200 and often a 18-55 in the most dangerous settings where I just want a documentary photo. It is not as sharp or as fast as the 16-80 but then I am using it on the D3200.
    Post edited by DaveyJ on
Sign In or Register to comment.