Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Lens

I first bought a D60 with the standard Nikkor 18-55mm VR kit zoom lens. I also had the Nikkor 55-200mm VR lens. Both are good lenses. I wanted a single walkround lens to cover >70% of my shots and the Nikkor 18-200mm VR seemed like the perfect solution - it wasn't. The Nikkor 16-85mm VR however, was.

Compared to:

Nikkor 18-200mm VR Zoom Nikon 18-200MM F3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX
The 16-85mm VR offers far better sharpness and contrast than the Nikkor 18-200mm. I sold the 18-200 and kept the 16-85mm.

Nikkor 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 VR DX kit zoom Nikon 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens
Compared to the 18-55mm the 16mm wide end for me was VERY useful. The 85mm at the long end in place of the 55mm was also VERY useful. The contrast and sharpness is at least as good as the 18-55mm. The clutch override on the 16-85 also allows instant manual focus - the 18-55 doesn't offer this (must be switched over). I sold the 18-55 and kept the 16-85mm.

Nikkor 35mm f1.8 DX Prime Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f1.8G
The sharpness and contrast are a bit better on the 35mm prime, although not by a huge margin. For a zoom lens, the 16-85 provides the closest performance to the 35mm prime I have seen. I still carry the 35mm prime for shots where I need the wide 1.8 aperture for either bokeh or low light.

I find myself mostly shooting at the 2 extreme ends of this lens, 16mm and 85mm and I am very happy with the results and performance at both these focal lengths. I also carry the Nikkor 35mm f1.8 prime for low light and wide aperture shots and the 55-200mm VR f4-5.6 for more telephoto. The 16-85mm stays on my camera the majority of the time.

The switchable VR feature ( Normal to Active ) is useful, although in practice I don't use it often, it's mainly for shooting from moving vehicles. I leave the lens in Normal and often I switch the VR off completely and use a higher shutter speed. VR must be switched off for tripod use, it is only for hand holding, although this applies to all Nikon VR lenses and is not unique to the 16-85mm.

I like the solid build quality compared to the 18-55 and 55-200 kit zooms. The 16-85 is heavier than the kit zooms but not excessively so. It is around 500g where the standard kit zooms are under 400g.

The autofocus motor is built-in and fast, therefore it will autofocus on all Nikon DSLR's including the D40,D60,D3000,D3100,D5000, etc. It works great on the D90 and D300 too with excellent performance.

In summary, features I like (most important to me first): 16mm wide end, contrast, sharpness, 85mm telephoto, instant manual focus override, build quality, 67mm filter.

I thoroughly recommend this lens!

I don't ever do reviews for things but I was that impressed with this lens that I thought I'd add my 2 pennies worth.
I was always a Canon man until a lifestyle change forced me to sell all of my camera gear, and I mean some serious kit too.... 5d mkii, 24-70f2.8L, 100-400L, 17-40f4L, 70-200f2.8L etc etc.
I recently picked up a Nikon D7000 (which I am also massively impressed with), and bought a 35mm f1.8 to go with it. The results have been excellent so far. I wanted a general purpose walk about lens and landscape lens and the 16-85 gets very positive reviews everywhere I look so I decided to go for it.
I have to say I am astonished by the quality of the images this lens produces. Colour, detail, resolution, contrast etc are all excellent and the sharpness has to be seen to be believed. Coming from a full frame Canon with 'L' series lenses I was spoilt for image quality but this lens and camera combo does a stunning job indeed. Interestingly I did a picture quality test with the cam mounted on a tripod, mirror lock up etc etc and this lens is producing better quality images than my 35mm f1.8 prime so either I have an outstanding 16-85 lens or my 35mm isn't producing the goods. This might have to be returned for a new copy, but it just goes to show how very good indeed the 16-85 is.

From a build quality perspective the lens is excellent. Very solid and has a good weighty feel to it. The zoom ring is very solid and satisfying and there's zero percent chance of lens creep. Some might say it's a little too firm but I really like the reassuring solid feel and everything about the build smacks of quality. The addition of a lens hood and lens bag is also very good at this price point (Canon lenses don't usually come with hoods and bags at this price point). Mounted on the D7000 body the lens feels very nicely balanced but is still light enough to not become a pain from a days carrying.

In summary, I absolutely do not hesitate in recommending this lens. Like me I suspect you will be astonished by the quality of the lens in regards to both build quality but more importantly image quality.

A good £470 well spent in my opinion.

Note 1: this is an updated review.
Note 2: if you are an amateur, I think the last bit will make you happy.

===========================
Bottom-line
===========================

* For the amateur that cares about IQ:
* ------------------------------------
- If you care about image quality, use primes instead (for a little bit more money)
- 24mm f/2.8D + 35mm f/1.8G + 50mm f/1.8D) > 16-85 VR

* For the amateur that cares about flexibility
* --------------------------------------------
- If you are an amateur/enthusiast and **need** the flexibility, go with the 16-85 VR and ditch the primes (try to keep the 35 f/1.8G though)

* Pro Vs Amateurs
* ---------------------------------------------
If you are a pro (you shouldn't be reading this), the 17-55 f/2.8 is your definite choice -but you already know this.

===========================
Details
===========================

I have had this lens for about 11 months now.

It is a very competent zoom and an excellent choice when you want the convenience of a mid-range zoom without breaking the bank. The built quality of the lens is superb for the price point. It also Handles very well; focuses very fast (for a consumer lens). It balances perfectly on my D90. VR works wonders.

It is very, very, sharp for a zoom in its price point. Has very little CA.

Now, this is the updated part of the review.

* --------------------------
* Compared to the 18-105 VR
* --------------------------

I take the 18-85 without major hesitations. Why? In my view the 16-85 is sharper but there could be some sample variability -the 18-105 is very sharp as well.

Where the 16-85 wins clearly is in CA and distortion.

However, I consider that the deal-breaker are the extra 2mm on the wide side: Those extra 2mm will make you far happier than the extra 20mm of the 18-105.

* --------------------------------
* Compared to collection of primes
* --------------------------------

I have the 24 f/2.8D, 35 f/1.8G and 50 f/1.8D. There is absolutely no doubt that each one of these lenses is better than the 16-85 at the corresponding focal length. I'm all for image quality so I prefer the primes in 9 out of 10 potential situations. The one case were the 16-85 trumps this line-up of primes is when you need to move along the focal length range very quickly. Otherwise, the image quality given by that combination of lenses is far superior to that obtained by the 16-85.

Without a doubt, if you have to pick just one from all of them (16-85, 24, 35, 50) take the 35 f1.8G without even thinking about it.

If you need to move along substantially different focal lengths very quickly pick the 16-85 (whatever you can get with it will be better than missing the shot).

* ---------------------------------
* Compared to the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8
* ---------------------------------

I seriously considered breaking the bank and go for the 17-55 f/2.8. But before jumping into such big decision, I went to 3 photography stores and asked them to let me do some test shots along my 16-85. I'm very, very happy that I could do that.

To put it clear: the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 is a professional lens and to really take advantage of it you have to use it professionally.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is excellent from f/2.8 to f/4 which are the apertures that wedding photographers and concert photographers would want to use. Corner sharpness is excellent at those apertures (and so is centre sharpness).

However, from f/5.6 onwards, there is virtually no difference with the 16-85 VR and sometimes the 16-85 is clearly better. Given the VR, the 16-85 is a much better choice to shoot at f/5.6 - f/11 (leaving other considerations aside).

Really, I have pixel-peeped shots taken at 16, 17, 24, 35, and 55mm taken at f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8 with my 16-85 VR and three (3) different copies of the 17-55 f/2.8 and the results are always the same: there is no clear advantage in IQ from f/5.6 onwards.

The images of the 17-55 at f/2.8 are very, very good. If you need those apertures (weddings, concerts, photojournalism) then there is no discussion and you should buy the 17-55. But beyond that (f/5.6-f/8), don't kid yourself: the IQ of the 16-55 is largely on par with that of the 17-55 and you get the additional advantage of the VR.

Additionally, the built quality of the 17-55 is professional all the way: it's a tank (if you are a pro, then you will abuse the lens). The AF speed is also superior in the 17-55. But then again, I'm not a pro. I cannot justify 3 times the price for 1 extra stop (professionals can) of good image quality.

* ----------------
* Round-up
* ----------------

If you are an amateur/enthusiast that cares about IQ, then I suggest that you spend a little bit more and get the 24 f/2.8D + 35 f/1.8G + 50 f/1.8D.

If you are an amateur/enthusiast that wants flexibility and decent IQ, then get this 16-85 VR (but please try to get the 35 f/1.8). Rest assured that the IQ from f/5.6 is largely on par with that of the 17-55 f/2.8.

If you are a pro, well, you know you don't have much of a choice between this and the 17-55 (but you know that, that's why you are shooting at f/2.8)