answers: 297

  1. Sergei
    13.08.2015

    “The only two more 'fancy' native general purpose lenses are the Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 16-85mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED SWM VR IF Aspherical and the Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1: 2.8G ED SWM IF. "

    I think it's worth fixing on
    “The only two more 'sophisticated' native general purpose lenses are the Nikon Nikkor AF-S DX 16-80 / 2.8-4.0E ED ​​VR and Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1: 2.8G ED SWM IF.”

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      13.08.2015

      fixed.

      Reply

  2. Michael (PMC7027)
    13.08.2015

    Once I had a chance to shoot with this lens - I was looking for a replacement for my regular 18-55. It was a long time ago. There are two memories left - the angles are good, and the quality of the final images is no better than with 18-55, i.e. bad (“soap”, dull colors). The price seemed too high five years ago. In general, I did not buy it, which I do not regret.

    Reply

  3. Ivan
    13.08.2015

    I have been shooting for over a year (at d90), on the whole I am satisfied. I bought it up to d90 .. When I compared the world and the flocculation line with 18-105, I immediately decided to sell 105. Because 105 washed in the corners and periphery and had some backing flus, and 16-85 gives good sharpness throughout the entire field of the frame ... clearly hit almost the middle of the grip (measured at max aperture essno) The distortion at 16mm (24 ufr) is small and easy corrected even in lightroom .. chrome aberrations at large brightness differences are also small and also disappear to zero in the same lightroom .. Perhaps I just got a good copy ... I bought it for 16.5 tr. even before the jump in $ in 2014. They do not plan to sell yet ..)

    Reply

  4. Dezdecado
    22.10.2015

    I have been using it since March. I bought it in exchange for 18-105, the quality is much better, it can be seen from the first photo. I was with him everywhere in the mountains and in the lowlands, I have never failed practically no mistakes (maybe I got a quality). With the polar in general, Class! Bokeh smooth without frills. The aperture of course is not enough, it is corrected by raising the ISO. Who wants to buy do not hesitate, I think you will not regret it, prices are rising.
    Lens for all occasions.
    Nikon has not just released the new 16-80 (What is marketing at zero?) Optimum focus.
    Of the minuses, very biting prices

    Reply

  5. Dezdecado
    22.10.2015

    Thank you, Radozhiva! When I saw in the review a photo of a beautiful warrior on this glass, I immediately realized this is mine.

    Reply

  6. Michael
    07.11.2015

    If the price is 4-5 times higher than 18-55, and how many times more interesting is the picture? I have 18-55 without a stub, which shows both sharpness and color. Is it worth it.

    Reply

  7. lech
    08.11.2015

    Well, what can I add to the account 16-85? at the short end, the picture is pretty sharp. on a long, bokeh a little peculiar, I don’t even know how to describe it. You should not expect a strongly outstanding color difference between 16-85 and 18-55. stub, I do not know, always off. Below is an example of a 16mm party party booze. removed from a tripod + remote puffs.

    Reply

  8. Nemo
    09.11.2015

    After buying a 16-85, you realize that 18-55 sucks.
    Including the colors - the sky became blue in the photo. not gray :-)))

    Reply

  9. Ruslan
    13.11.2015

    tell me, is there a choice what to choose Nikon 24-85mm f / 3.5-4.5G ED VR AF-S or Nikon 16-85mm f / 3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX? Nikon D3100 camera. there are whale 18-55 and 35mm 1.8

    Reply

    • Lynx
      13.11.2015

      16-85 if you need a reporter. If not, a whale with 35tk is enough.

      Reply

      • Ruslan
        13.11.2015

        mostly I shoot portraits to the full height or waist-high, but sometimes they ask me to shoot a wedding, sometimes we go on vacation. So there is a choice between 16-85 and was advised to look at 18-140. Help decide

        Reply

      • Lynx
        13.11.2015

        If you have money, or the opportunity to buy for inexpensive, then 16-85 is certainly not bad, but it is far from always justified at its price.
        If there is not much money, but you still need a zoom larger than 55 mm, then the 18-140 is a good amateur wagon.
        But under such conditions, when they themselves have not decided on the focal ones, it seems to me that 18-55 is enough, and 35 mm turns out to be a classic angle.

        Reply

      • Oleg
        27.06.2017

        Good evening . Help determine and find out your opinion about zooms to d7000: 16-85, 18-105, 18-140 (I would like tamrons and sigma 17-50 f 2.8, but the quality is scary). Intuition prompts 16-85. Thank you in advance .

        Reply

      • lynx
        27.06.2017

        16-85 is generally good. but expensive.
        In terms of reporting, it is generally very useful, I had occasion to shoot reportage on it, of course, it requires a flash indoors, but who doesn't?
        ....
        but for artistic and other shooting - it is worth leaving with d7000.

        Reply

      • Oleg
        27.06.2017

        Thank you.

        Reply

      • Oleg
        27.06.2017

        The monetary “repertoire” does not allow me to leave d7000, but in general, as an amateur, it suits me 100%. Thanks again.

        Reply

      • Eugene
        16.01.2018

        And where to go ?? I just want to switch from D80 to D7000, and now I’ve decided on the camera (I was thinking about 60d kenon or 7d kenon, the thought of 300C creeps in, it’s important for me to have a video). And now I think what kind of lens to take, dkmayu 35mm 1.8. I have a budget of 10 000 UAH

        Reply

  10. Ruslan
    13.11.2015

    mostly I shoot portraits to the full height or waist-high, but sometimes they ask me to shoot a wedding, sometimes we go on vacation. So there is a choice between 16-85 and was advised to look at 18-140. Help decide

    Reply

    • lech
      14.11.2015

      I have both, 16-85 and 10-140. so gentlemen; partying and other weddings 16-85, if purely portraits then 18-140.

      Reply

  11. Shark
    15.01.2016

    Nikon 16-35 has less aperture, but there is a stabilizer. This means that the Nikon 16-35 is more suitable for static scenes, such as landscapes.

    Reply

  12. wolffserg
    22.03.2016

    Arkady, thanks for your work! And when you can see the review about the AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f / 2.8-4E ED VR, really can not wait))? I consider the new 16-80 as a staff member for the D7100.

    Reply

    • Jury
      06.06.2016

      Sorry, no one is given 16-80 per test. This glass has existed for so long, and so far there has not been a single true review (rewrites of English are not considered).

      Reply

  13. anonym
    15.08.2016

    16-85 on the nikon 7100 soap, less sharp on f8-f11
    Sigma 17-50 2.8 is much sharper.

    Reply

    • Pastor
      15.08.2016

      Maybe a copy like that? I have tested 24-5200 of 3300-megapixel cameras on d16 and d85 - everything is fine everywhere with the open one. On similar diaphragms with sigma is not worse. According to tests, sigma sags in sharpness after f5.6, while 16-85 picks it up to f8. So what can just a jamb of a particular specimen or a bad filter on the lens?

      Reply

  14. lech
    18.09.2016

    Today I went to the store, and tested 85 makrik compared to my 16-85. I made control photos of human portraits with the same settings at 85 mm. I must say that even with pixel-by-pixel examination, I did not find a difference in sharpness.

    Reply

  15. lech
    19.09.2016

    In order not to be unfounded, I add a photographed fragment from the photo. The portrait was full-height, so 10 meters and in haste.

    Reply

    • Ivan ...
      22.10.2016

      Fucking comparison. I immediately understood, XY from XY !!! I will run to buy after your test. Well, come on, guys ... ..

      Reply

    • Denis
      22.10.2016

      even without enlarging the picture you can see that on the right is noticeably sharper

      Reply

  16. Andrei
    13.10.2016

    So if 18-70 in the class is higher than 18-105, then why is the first worth changing to 16-85, and the second not?

    Reply

  17. R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№
    15.03.2017

    I was looking for a replacement for the whale 18-105 for the D7000 for a long time. I didn’t like an angle of 18. I couldn’t take pictures of fireplaces (I’m a stove-maker) in small (narrow) rooms. And ... 18-105 gave a barrel. Very unpleasant, distorting fireplaces. Rummaged through the Internet and reviews. I tuned in to 16-85. I went to buy. In the store, photographers began to discourage buying it. Like bullshit. But I bought it. I don’t regret it much. I feel 16-85 DX is better than 18-105 DX. It does not give a barrel with close photography. The settings grid shows perfect straight verticals. Photos are also without distortion. Focuses well. Otherwise, I also like this lens much more than the kit 18-105. Only brings a little less. From 16-85 camera D7000 looks much more proportional and sleeker.

    Reply

  18. Great
    04.04.2017

    Greetings, Arkady!
    Here I saw this “bird”: Nikon 16-80mm f / 2.8-4E ED VR AF-S DX Nikkor. I did not find it with you. When will it be possible to enlighten us?

    Reply

    • Alejandro
      17.04.2017

      A bunch of English and print and video reviews
      IMHO the increase in image quality is clearly not proportional to the price

      Reply

      • lech
        10.06.2017

        Apparently, in order to stay afloat, Nikon decided to engage in “Honest taking money” from the population.

        Reply

  19. Nikita
    10.09.2017

    communication with the output 16-80 f2.8-4
    begin to merge on a sabzh flea market. it makes sense to roll onto it if there is 18-105
    (lack of sharpness and speed of the AF is especially closer to the competition)
    I'll clarify - this 18-105 is used as a travel zoom and just a staff.

    Reply

  20. Dmitry Sh.
    16.12.2017

    18-55,16-85,18-105,18-140, the same consumer goods, all dark, one class (cheap). If you want something better, higher level, then 17-55 2.8 or Sigma 17-50 2.8 or 24-70 2.8, the latter on the D5100 will simply fly away.

    Reply

    • Nemo
      25.12.2017

      A bunch of 24-70 f / 2.8 and D5100 is pure perversion.

      Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        25.12.2017

        But many amateur photographers would change their ligaments to this :)

        Reply

      • Denis
        26.12.2017

        D5100 in this bundle acts as a back cover

        Reply

      • Igor
        26.12.2017

        It depends on who is holding the D5100. Minus 24-70 on D5100 - wide angle loss. The rest on the D5100 is skill. Nevertheless, I agree that the budget lens 5100-18 or 105-18 will be enough for the D70. Further, too - skills.

        Reply

    • Michael
      26.12.2017

      Dark glass and bad glass are two different things. An insole with an aperture ratio of 2,8 is no better in quality than standard ones (for example, I came across an instance of a tamron, which cost 2 times more than the standard, but the picture was no better). You understand why you need aperture ratio. Sometimes 2,8 indoors is not enough for good shooting and fix 1,8 gives the best result. The F8 standard often gives a good result, and this is achieved in good light (street during the day or indoor flashes). In general, you don't always need to chase the zoom at F2.8.

      Reply

    • Vadim
      18.03.2018

      and with what is better to connect Nikon d5600 - with 16-85 or with 18-140?

      Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        18.03.2018

        with 16-85

        Reply

      • Denis
        18.03.2018

        heard opinions that 18-140 resolves 24MP, and 16-85 or 18-105 does not.
        can you trust them?

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        18.03.2018

        It all depends on what is meant by "allows 24MP"

        Reply

      • Vitaly N
        18.03.2018

        For synthetic measurements, 18-140 also does not allow. I don’t know how 16-85, and my 18-105 on a covered diaphragm completely allows 24 megapixels.
        https://d.radikal.ru/d25/1803/5c/75c714f2a6c3.jpg

        Reply

    • Vadim
      18.03.2018

      16-85 times 10 more expensive than 18-55 and 2 times more expensive than 18-140. one class of "cheap"?

      Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        18.03.2018

        18-55, 18-140 and 16-85 are amateur dark zooms. 16-85 'class' is slightly higher (easily determined by the distance scale, M / A mode and ring motor).

        Reply

      • Denis
        18.03.2018

        the scale of distances at 16-85 either shows "weather", or works only at one focal length. readings at different focal points differ by 2-3 times

        Reply

      • Denis
        18.03.2018

        though I checked, focusing on a distance of the order of 0,5m

        Reply

      • Vadim
        18.03.2018

        Arkady, thanks

        Reply

  21. Sergei
    28.02.2018

    I have been waiting for 16-80 / 4 for a long time. Considering that a full-frame 24-120 / 4 with a nano-coating (even marketing) costs from 14 thousand hryvnias for today, then the expected should cost 10-12! And the hero of the review costs from 14, as a full-frame analogue, and more light. The benefits of crop are nieliable. Fundamentally I will not buy! Maybe Sigma with Tamron will ripen.

    Reply

  22. Kostya
    14.03.2018

    I have a D5300 with 18-55 afp.
    I want to buy myself a better lens and think - maybe buy a 16-85 or 16-80 (which is new).
    I shoot mainly landscapes. I wander through the mountains, fields, forests and take pictures of landscapes there.
    If you would be so kind as to give someone a shot from 16-85 and / or 16-80 lenses ...

    Reply

    • Michael
      14.03.2018

      Read the article and find what you are looking for

      Reply

  23. Olexandr
    09.04.2018

    Good day. I congratulate all on the holiday of the Resurrection of the Lord!
    Oh, please answer, for the Nikon D7200, which lens would be preferable: Tamron Di II SP 17-50mm F / 2.8 VC or Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 16-85mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED VR SWM IF Aspherica? Thanks in advance for your reply.

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      09.04.2018

      Tamron 17-50 on equivalent apertures in general will be better, and F / 2.8 will not hurt.

      Reply

  24. Olexandr
    09.04.2018

    Thank you very much Arkady for the instant response. I already have the aforementioned Tamron, but something he doesn’t always make me happy, very often there is some kind of inaccuracy in the received pictures. I have two more lenses: Nikon AF Nikkor 24-85mm 1: 2.8-4 D IF Aspherical Macro (1: 2) and Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm 1: 4.5-5.6G VR IF SWM, so these, especially the second I am very satisfied with the received pictures. Maybe I came across a copy of Tamron, not really, or the Nikon D7200 carcass is not very friendly with third-party lens manufacturers?

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      09.04.2018

      Perhaps 7200 and the truth is not good friends with Tamron. This 16-85 is significantly darker, and in principle overrated.

      Reply

  25. Olexandr
    09.04.2018

    Thank you very much Arkady for the answers to my questions and for the enormous contribution to the popularization of modern PHOTOGRAPHY. I bow to you for your SITE.

    Reply

  26. Load more comments ...

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer