answers: 297

  1. Alexander
    20.03.2020

    I have been using it for six months. happy with everything. sharpness, convenience. Focus is fast. Carcass 5300
    But there is always a fixed aperture 35, just in case

    Reply

  2. Alexander
    20.03.2020

    the photo in the previous koment did not load))))

    Reply

  3. an256
    30.08.2020

    I bought such a lens for 4K UAH. in perfect condition, the lens was hardly used. I liked the lens, it is sharp with good color rendering, I shoot with D3200, I don't know why someone wrote here that this lens would be bad with a 24MP camera. for D3200 it is quite good. The lens is definitely better than the 18-55 or 18-105, and if it is not expensive to find it on the secondary in good condition, then it is definitely worth taking instead of 18-55 or 18-105, but I don't see any reason to buy a new one or for an expensive one instead of the whale ones.

    Reply

  4. lk27
    19.12.2020

    And on Nikon DX AF-S 16-80 1: 2,8-4 is it worth changing this lens, is there a big difference between them?

    Reply

  5. pkuutn
    06.04.2021

    For about the same money, Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX HSM is sold on the secondary
    It is not so versatile, but I think it's better ...

    Reply

  6. Marat, Sevastopol
    28.05.2021

    I took it on the D3200 after the regular 18-55. Heaven and earth! The bokeh is more ... “smooth” or something, and at the same time, on an open hole, it is clearly pronounced, objects that are out of focus, close to the focus soap more, and far away ones do not twist. Those. to summarize, the object in focus is more pronounced than at 18-55

    16 mm. really feels like 85 together 55. Sharpness is really higher. In general, I think that for the D3200 this is certainly overkill, like a trouser, because the price is higher than the price of the carcass itself, however, using it, understanding why you are taking it, is quite reasonable. For older D5xxx, and even more so 7xxx, it would be a good option for the "staff".

    Of the minuses: blind, as for a "staff" for ~ 500 bucks. There is understandably 16-80, but it is twice as expensive, tk. even for D7xxx cameras it is too expensive a kit, for my D3200 - well, in general, it is clear that taking a 16-80 should be very clear about why you need it.

    Reply

    • Victor
      28.05.2021

      The Lord is with you, the 12 thousand lens is in perfect condition.

      An ordinary staff with slightly more convenient focal lengths than in the 18-55 and a slightly thicker picture (at the level of very small nuances).
      There are not enough stars from the sky, and yes, at d320 just right.

      Reply

    • Oleg
      28.05.2021

      When the price of glass is higher than the price of a carcass, this is normal. Not overkill.

      Reply

    • B. R. P.
      29.05.2021

      And sho you say for 17-55 2,8 then? Shtatnik only for D500?)))

      Reply

      • Jury
        15.07.2022

        lathers around the edges, disappointed

        Reply

      • Jury
        05.09.2022

        17-55 2,8 nikor, soap around the edges, I'm looking for 16-85

        Reply

  7. Oleg
    28.05.2021

    Was like this, not for long. Yes, from the technical point of view it is good, but in the “artistic” aspect, of course, nothing, as they say.

    Reply

  8. an256
    06.06.2021

    For the d3200, the 16-85 is not very good, there is not enough resolution for the 24MP camera. I bought a Nikon AF-S DX VR Nikkor 3200-16mm f / 85-16E ED lens instead of a 80-2,8 on my d4 and have never regretted the huge difference in resolution and stabilizer.

    Reply

  9. Vladimir
    20.09.2021

    Give advice please.
    I am an aspiring photographer.
    I want to sell the lens nikkor 16-85 3.5-5.6G and replace it with nikkor 50 1.8G
    Should I get rid of nikkor 16-85 3.5-5.6G or leave it just in case ...?
    It is interesting to read your opinions ...

    Reply

    • Oleg
      20.09.2021

      Don't just buy half a tintk

      Reply

  10. Dmitriy
    07.11.2021

    Good day !

    Yuzayu D5100.
    Bribed 16-85.
    The lens is not sharp compared to the existing 55-200.
    In the reviews they write that 16-85 is like a razor, but that's not how it is with me.
    Front and tank focus no.
    Stab and sharpness are frankly weak.
    Visually, the lens is in perfect condition.
    The firmware on the camera is the latest from Nikon.
    Fotal in every possible way, the result is not particularly impressive.
    Can this be a feature of the lens and the D5100?
    16-55 was much sharper.

    I phoned SC NIKONA, they say send it, we'll see, let's say what's wrong with him.

    Reply

    • B. R. P.
      07.11.2021

      Did you check it through live view?

      Reply

      • Dmitriy
        07.11.2021

        in every possible way

        Reply

    • Victor
      07.11.2021

      What's 16-55? 18-55?

      And so exactly the same story, while I put it on the shelf, until better times, externally also ideally, and the sharpness is very weak.

      It can be seen that there is a scatter of quality.

      Reply

      • Dmitriy
        07.11.2021

        16-85 Years, 18-55 Years
        the lenses
        add 18-55 VR

        Reply

      • Victor
        07.11.2021

        Write down later what the SC answered, and how much you charged for the repair (if you agreed to fix the defect)

        Reply

      • Dmitriy
        10.11.2021

        events are developing - the tushka and the lens went to the office. SC in PETER.

        Reply

      • Dmitriy
        17.12.2021

        The photo and the lens came from the SC.
        The setting was done for both devices.
        Price for services - 5200 r.
        The result is in the photo.

        SC Pitersky - “Photo ON”.
        St. Petersburg
        Bolshaya Monetnaya, 16
        +7 (812) 324-33-09

        Recommend.

        Reply

  11. Dima
    28.05.2022

    What is better optically 18-70 or 16-85? There are both on the secondary at a similar price.

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      28.05.2022

      16-85

      Reply

      • Dima
        28.05.2022

        Thank you

        Reply

      • ba3lur
        13.02.2023

        it is clear that 16-85 is more attractive in all respects, and if the price tag is similar to 18-70, then the first one is better, alas, I only own the 2nd and the 1st is already in mind ... together with Nikon 300s for 15000r, but here is a recommendation that if you have 18-105 then you shouldn’t change it to 16-85, and if 18-70 it’s doubtful ... many pros don’t respect 18-105 (although it’s not bad for me), but 18-70 is an authoritatively worthy lens, I would say the best whale of all times and peoples ! (in its class of course)

        Reply

    • Victor
      28.05.2022

      These lenses should not be at a similar price, the difference between them is 2-3 times.
      In your case, either 16-85 is already a corpse, or you will overpay for 18-70.
      16-85 is good, but 18-70 is also not bad. Optically they don't have much difference, but 16-85 is much newer, mechanically more reliable and has a stabilizer (which can be useful)

      Reply

      • Dima
        28.05.2022

        Here is such a flea market) Mileage at 16-85 is 17. 000-18 is a little cheaper. I won’t name prices in white rubles anyway, you won’t understand) I’ll probably look at 70-16 all the same, 85 mm at a wide angle is very beckoning.

        Reply

      • YavnoB. R.P.
        28.05.2022

        Lens mileage? You can take 10 frames and screw up the lens, you can take 10 - and at least henna.

        Reply

      • Dima
        29.05.2022

        So you can stub any thing)

        Reply

      • B. R. P.
        29.05.2022

        )

        Reply

  12. Dmitriy
    31.10.2022

    Everyone. Hello. Advise, on d7100 take 16 85 for 12 in z. condition, or 18 55 afp, for 4500

    Reply

    • Dmitriy
      31.10.2022

      In good condition I would say)))

      Reply

    • B. R. P.
      31.10.2022

      The lenses are very different, but the difference in price is much more than the difference in the picture, IMHO. Prices in what currency?

      Reply

      • Dmitriy
        31.10.2022

        Rubles

        Reply

      • B. R. P.
        31.10.2022

        Expensive for a whale, even for a new one. For 16-85 they always break, but it's not worth it. For ~$250 you can already look for used Sigma 17-50 2,8.

        Reply

      • Dmitriy
        31.10.2022

        Thank you)

        Reply

  13. Sergiy
    12.06.2023

    And where is 16 80, it seems that the review was but removed, and a comparison with 16 85.

    Reply

  14. Andrei
    12.08.2023

    I noticed some “feature” of my (or not only) lens, when the active stub is turned on, the sharpness begins to fall and the shake effect appears. externally in excellent condition

    Reply

    • B. R. P.
      13.08.2023

      The specifics of working with a stub.

      Reply

  15. Yura
    11.02.2024

    You have, Arcade, a description/look at the NIKON 16-80MM F/2.8-4E ED VR AF-S DX NIKKOR, because you don’t know🤷🏼‍♂️.?

    Why aren’t you doing anything anymore?

    Reply

    • Yura
      11.02.2024

      *you don’t do this kind of stuff anymore,” ed🙈😅

      Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        11.02.2024

        like this?

        Reply

  16. Valery
    13.02.2024

    Good afternoon everyone.
    I'm surprised at 16-85, 18-140 and 18-200.
    Which is better than a standard, universal lens? On every day, so to speak. Mainly nature, children, architecture.
    Camera Nikon D7200.
    Thanks for your attention.

    Reply

  17. Load more comments ...

Answer lk27

 

 

Top
mobility. computer