# Nikkor 16-85 VR



## Sw1tchFX (Dec 31, 2007)

A friend of mine just sent me an email about it, said he found it on Fred Miranda.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/600050

Seems like a pretty useful range to me, I love the range my 24-120VR gives me on my 35mm, if the distortions aren't _too_ bad and it's sharp, and under $450, I could see it in my bag. 

opinions?


----------



## Garbz (Dec 31, 2007)

I'm not sure I would see it as much of a step from the kit lenses. It definitely looks like a higher-end kit. Other than the VR it seems to be quite uninteresting. f/3.5-5.6 I may be more inclined to be excited if I didn't already have the 18-70mm.


----------



## johnmh (Dec 31, 2007)

Lots of discussions on other forums... general consensus is that its a new kit lens - some suspect a formal announcement at some trade show that's coming up. Following threads on NiIkonCafe

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=143780&highlight=16-85

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=143076&highlight=16-85

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=143269&highlight=16-85


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Dec 31, 2007)

Garbz said:


> I'm not sure I would see it as much of a step from the kit lenses. It definitely looks like a higher-end kit. Other than the VR it seems to be quite uninteresting. f/3.5-5.6 I may be more inclined to be excited if I didn't already have the 18-70mm.



If it's anything like the 18-70 sample I used, I can see it being pretty sharp wide open. Depending on if it's legit or not and it's price, I might just sell my 17-55, and with the money, buy the 16-85, sigma 10-20, 50 f/1.8 and another SB-600 for CLS. 

That sort of flexibility with the three lenses and the 2nd strobe would immensely outweigh the f/2.8 of the 17-55 in my books. I would be able to do more for the client, and out of pocket i would only be spending a few hundred doing that.


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 1, 2008)

Now if they would just make it in an f2.8!


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 3, 2008)

lol, it'd be bigger around than the 14-24!


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 3, 2008)

Would you care?  I wouldn't.


----------



## Garbz (Jan 4, 2008)

True one thing that never ceased to amaze me is that Nikon produced the 18-70mm and bundled it as a kit. It's damn sharp for a kit lens, has next to no CA, and my Nikon bias aside I think Canon has a lot to catch up to in this regard.

That said the 18-55 from Nikon is back to being rather poor just like the Canon. Btw don't take this as me saying Canon don't make good lenses, that is wrong ofcourse. They just don't seem to bundle anything with cameras that could make the most of them.


----------



## AlexColeman (Dec 19, 2008)

I am really looking at getting one. I will be sure to post the results.


----------



## Joves (Dec 19, 2008)

Garbz said:


> True one thing that never ceased to amaze me is that Nikon produced the 18-70mm and bundled it as a kit. It's damn sharp for a kit lens, has next to no CA, and my Nikon bias aside I think Canon has a lot to catch up to in this regard.
> 
> That said the 18-55 from Nikon is back to being rather poor just like the Canon. Btw don't take this as me saying Canon don't make good lenses, that is wrong ofcourse. They just don't seem to bundle anything with cameras that could make the most of them.


 I agree! I hear some of the Canon people complain about the kit lenses. At least my 18-55 on my D50 produced some half decent results. Well when stopped to f/10 or better.


----------



## AlexColeman (Jan 17, 2009)

I love mine. All of my D90 shots on my flickr were taken with it.


----------



## TUX424 (Jan 18, 2009)

I wish the 16-85 VR was a least f/3.5-4.5 which is what my 18-70 "kit lens" is and i really like that about it.


----------

