A very inexpensive older lens here for Nikon's APS-C digital SLRs. I hope you all can tolerate my interest in these. Reviews of newer lenses are definitely coming by the way...including the Z 58mm f/0.95 'Noct', which I have in my office right now and is performing unbelievably well!
When i was in market for zooms like this for my APS-C Nikon some 5 years ago i went for the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS after watching your reviews, and got one used for a similar price to this 16-85. Still have that on a backup camera.
Hey :) I love your videos! Could you maybe add a section about transmission with the really fast lenses (like f1.4 and faster) comparing shutter speed advantages to a normal f1.8 or f2.8 lens? Thank you! :)
Interesting! I used to have it and it was quite good. Nikon replaced it with a 16-80mm that was supposed to be better. Have you ever tried it? This is a very good option for Z50 and FTZ adapter.
Welcome to the Nikon world, the wait is over for us nikonians! I heard this lens is great for IR photography too, many lenses leave a 'hot spot' (I believe they call it) in the image but not this one. It will be my next lens to replace my already broken kit lens so this review was not only timely but also very welcome. Regards from London
I snatched one of these for 140€ a while ago and am very happy with it. It's my everyday walk around lens. It combines nicely with my 70-300mm FX telephoto too. Both have the same filter thread which is convenient. Next purchase will be extension tubes for macro photography.
I'm always surprised by how consistently great value old Nikon/Nikkor glass is! Anything from pre-AI, AIS, and even plasticky AF/D or G lenses are very sharp and always seem to punch above their price class (the only caveats being distortion or CA in some). The 28-80mm AF-D kit lens ($30), 80-200mm kit zoom ($35) and 50mm f1.8 D ($80) are my "dangerous/sketchy/theft-risk" situation lens kit.
"...it's impressivly sharp for a 12 year old Zoom Optic..." Smiles, and mounts a decent Zoom Lens from 1979. ;-) Good Review Chris, this Nikon DX Lens was one of the better Ones, and way recommanded back into the Day from PhotoZone, now being called OpticalLimits.
Had one of these since 2008 and use on a variety of bodies. It is a solid optic. Sadly, it was a letdown from the earlier 18-70 AF-S, which is faster in both aperture (f3.5-4.5) and focus performance but brings more range at either end and VR.
I purchased this lens almost 10 years ago, in 2014, as a NikonUSA Refurbished product, having then paid $400 U.S. for it. I've taken it with me all over the USA, shooting many thousands of images and hundreds of hours of video with it on my D7200 and D7500 DSLR bodies, and it still looks and functions like new. It is slow (f/3.5~5.6 max. variable apertures), doesn't have the fastest AF or best VR in the Nikon Nikkor world, but it zooms and manually focuses smoothly with no zoom creep, and offers pretty good sharpness and image quality. It's done a very good job for me, and has proven to be money very well spent. Currently, however, I'm hoping to trade up to the newer gold ringed (N) Nikon Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8~4 AF-S VR DX zoom for a little better image quality, sharpness, and speed, while not really losing any versatility. Both Thom Hogan and Ken Rockwell have written pretty highly of it as a general purpose walk around lens, which is what I want it for. Good things! 👍
I was once a Nikon shooter (now Fuji) and I have owned this lens and also the 17-55mm f2.8. I can honestly say that this lens was a match for the 17-55mm and possibly sharper with less CA. I have also owned the newer and more expensive Nikon 16-80mm f2-8 - F4 which has very disappointing due to poor performance at the wide end.
@They Caged Non I liked my 16-80 when I owned it but you’re right there was a fair bit of distortion. Wouldn’t you compare it to the Fuji 16-80 rather than the 16-55? I’d be interested to see how they compare. The Fuji version gets a lot of complaints like the Nikon but I quite liked the Nikon.
Thanks Christopher... a great review as always. I'm looking at this lens and I think you've managed to convince me to get it 😃 I have the 50mm 1.8G, 18-200 and the 70-300. I can do with a bit wider at 17mm and not up to so much as 300mm for slightly better quality.
This is the only lens I miss after moving to Fuji last year. IQ was so good for the size and weight and it was built well enough it took a ton of abuse from me. I found the Fuji 16-80 very disappointing. The 18-55 is decent and what I have but boy do I miss that 2mm at the wide end sometimes.
@They Caged Non Yeah, people do seem to rate them but a large part of trading my D7200 was to travel lighter so that counts it out for me. The 16 2.8 would probably be great but so many lenses and so little money ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I got a canon aps-c DSLR to start off with but I wish I'd got a Nikon :') heck I wish I'd got a mirrorless 😂 but that will be corrected soon, I'm trading in my gear and upgrading to a used z6
Interesting! I used to have it and it was quite good. Nikon replaced it with a 16-80mm that was supposed to be better. Have you ever tried it? This is a very good option for Z50 and FTZ adapter.
@They Caged Non have you tried the 16-85? I remember when the 16-80 came out reviewers praised it and snubbed the older 16-85. Anyway the 16-85 would be a great kit lens for the Z50, if Nikon could adopt the design for the Z mount.
Hey, I really enjoy your lens reviews! I expecially like the comparability. As I'm a Nikon (FX, F-mount) shooter, I'd love to see some Nikon fullframe-lens tests!
My workhorse lens is my 17-50 2.8 Sigma but this covers my range much better - I always feel 50 on APSC isn't quite enough for some normal scenarios. Just wish this was a bit faster.
Thank you for the great review. Will you be doing a review for the newer 16-80mm f2.8-4? I'm curious if there are any improvements compared to this 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 lens to justify the more expensive price tag for the long term.
Check flickr groups for both lenses. 16-80 images look far more pleasing. Sharpness looks about same. 16-85mm itself gives perfect results almost. Hard to improve in sharpness really.
@@vaibhavpisal That can be down to editing, lighting and many other factors. They are pretty similar at f8-11. 16-80 is maybe a bit better wider and on the long end but theres very little in it.
I already have an AF-D 85mm, an AF-S 35mm and a Sigma 10-24 F3.5 so the 16-85 is overkill. Still looking for an AF-D 24mm. No zooming, yet a lot more light and a lot less weight for carrying around.
@@captainnoah2230 I was thinking more about Nikon 17-55/2.8 as it is one of only 3 Nikon's gold ring DX lenses (the other ones are a 10.5/2.8 fisheye and a 12-24/4 zoom)
Maybe it’s the same where like with most used cheap but recommended lenses like old Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for Canon and Nikon, Canon 24-85 f3.5-4.5, Canon 17-85, Canon 15-85..... I had most of them and the copies have huge sample variations and are more likely to be wildly decentred or unsharp at all than not...
Christopher you should really test the Kamlan 21mm 1.8 lens. Very under-reviewed, but excellent performance for the money. It's a very interesting lens. Stay safe!
Heard gd things abt this lens and looks like a nice cute lens when i considering to upgrade from my kit lens. But i needed 1 lens that settle both telephoto and wide angle so went to a 18-300 instead. Wonder if this works well on my d3500 as well. Anyways wished nikon make a 16-300 similar to tamron one since my lens aperture actually matches this lens but except start at 18mm instead of 16mm
I'm looking for an affordable lens in this focal range. How would you say this one compares to the Sigma 17-70 F2.8/4 image quality and focus? I'm in doubt between the two
Christopher Pleeeassseee test Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II by testing the sharpest zoom lens from nikon, my copy is sharper than the 85 f1.8G, or Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED AF-P DX
The sigma 17-50 is not so sharp in the corners. I tried the 17-50 tamron sister and was very disappointed. When I bought the Nikon D5200 the nikon 18-55 kit lens wasn't sharp so I didn't by it and bought the nikon 16-85mm which is generally good and sharp but not perfect. not recommended for video.
Have one which I bought for around €580 new here in Ireland quite a number of years ago now. Brilliant with my D7200. Upgraded to the 17-55 f2.8 (used). However moved to full frame so never really used the latter but still have that also. Have abandoned all now for the LUMIX GX9 with decent lenses because of size and love it. Think I'll set up a camera and lense museum 😂👍
A very inexpensive older lens here for Nikon's APS-C digital SLRs. I hope you all can tolerate my interest in these. Reviews of newer lenses are definitely coming by the way...including the Z 58mm f/0.95 'Noct', which I have in my office right now and is performing unbelievably well!
When i was in market for zooms like this for my APS-C Nikon some 5 years ago i went for the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS after watching your reviews, and got one used for a similar price to this 16-85. Still have that on a backup camera.
Woah, can't wait for the f/0.95 Noct review!!
If you can manage to get ahold of it, the old Nikkor f/1.2 Ai-S would be super-interesting as well.
Hey :) I love your videos! Could you maybe add a section about transmission with the really fast lenses (like f1.4 and faster) comparing shutter speed advantages to a normal f1.8 or f2.8 lens? Thank you! :)
Interesting! I used to have it and it was quite good. Nikon replaced it with a 16-80mm that was supposed to be better. Have you ever tried it? This is a very good option for Z50 and FTZ adapter.
@@alexaudiovisuals I often do, with f/0.95 lenses
i bought this lense over 10 years ago, and used it on my D200 and D300s. Today i'm still using it on my D5500.
2 reviews in one day?! You're spoiling us! :D
Haha that was actually a mistake!
@@christopherfrost Haha It's allright. As the late Bob Ross would say, "we don't make mistakes, just happy little accidents" ;-)
Welcome to the Nikon world, the wait is over for us nikonians! I heard this lens is great for IR photography too, many lenses leave a 'hot spot' (I believe they call it) in the image but not this one. It will be my next lens to replace my already broken kit lens so this review was not only timely but also very welcome. Regards from London
I snatched one of these for 140€ a while ago and am very happy with it. It's my everyday walk around lens. It combines nicely with my 70-300mm FX telephoto too. Both have the same filter thread which is convenient. Next purchase will be extension tubes for macro photography.
You've found this lens at a great price. It would be great if you could test the newer 16-80 2.8-4 version.
😅not so good only ok better get the 24-85mm vr
Now time to test the other Nikon DX zoom with a good reputation, the 18-140mm. I'm very curious how you see it compared to this lens
I'm always surprised by how consistently great value old Nikon/Nikkor glass is! Anything from pre-AI, AIS, and even plasticky AF/D or G lenses are very sharp and always seem to punch above their price class (the only caveats being distortion or CA in some). The 28-80mm AF-D kit lens ($30), 80-200mm kit zoom ($35) and 50mm f1.8 D ($80) are my "dangerous/sketchy/theft-risk" situation lens kit.
"...it's impressivly sharp for a 12 year old Zoom Optic..." Smiles, and mounts a decent Zoom Lens from 1979. ;-) Good Review Chris, this Nikon DX Lens was one of the better Ones, and way recommanded back into the Day from PhotoZone, now being called OpticalLimits.
Great review as always, one of my first lenses, very good for travel!
Terrificly comprehensive and succinct review!
Had one of these since 2008 and use on a variety of bodies. It is a solid optic. Sadly, it was a letdown from the earlier 18-70 AF-S, which is faster in both aperture (f3.5-4.5) and focus performance but brings more range at either end and VR.
I purchased this lens almost 10 years ago, in 2014, as a NikonUSA Refurbished product, having then paid $400 U.S. for it.
I've taken it with me all over the USA, shooting many thousands of images and hundreds of hours of video with it on my D7200 and D7500 DSLR bodies, and it still looks and functions like new.
It is slow (f/3.5~5.6 max. variable apertures), doesn't have the fastest AF or best VR in the Nikon Nikkor world, but it zooms and manually focuses smoothly with no zoom creep, and offers pretty good sharpness and image quality.
It's done a very good job for me, and has proven to be money very well spent.
Currently, however, I'm hoping to trade up to the newer gold ringed (N) Nikon Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8~4 AF-S VR DX zoom for a little better image quality, sharpness, and speed, while not really losing any versatility. Both Thom Hogan and Ken Rockwell have written pretty highly of it as a general purpose walk around lens, which is what I want it for.
Good things! 👍
I was once a Nikon shooter (now Fuji) and I have owned this lens and also the 17-55mm f2.8. I can honestly say that this lens was a match for the 17-55mm and possibly sharper with less CA. I have also owned the newer and more expensive Nikon 16-80mm f2-8 - F4 which has very disappointing due to poor performance at the wide end.
Heard a lot of complaints about the 16-80 mm. Want to try it out some day.
@They Caged Non I liked my 16-80 when I owned it but you’re right there was a fair bit of distortion. Wouldn’t you compare it to the Fuji 16-80 rather than the 16-55? I’d be interested to see how they compare. The Fuji version gets a lot of complaints like the Nikon but I quite liked the Nikon.
Thanks Christopher... a great review as always. I'm looking at this lens and I think you've managed to convince me to get it 😃 I have the 50mm 1.8G, 18-200 and the 70-300. I can do with a bit wider at 17mm and not up to so much as 300mm for slightly better quality.
This is the only lens I miss after moving to Fuji last year. IQ was so good for the size and weight and it was built well enough it took a ton of abuse from me. I found the Fuji 16-80 very disappointing. The 18-55 is decent and what I have but boy do I miss that 2mm at the wide end sometimes.
@They Caged Non Yeah, people do seem to rate them but a large part of trading my D7200 was to travel lighter so that counts it out for me. The 16 2.8 would probably be great but so many lenses and so little money ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Very few reviews of this lens on YT, very well done.
You only need to consult the angry photographer Theoria Apophasis since his reviews are very clear.
@@Pozi_Drive I see several videos of him, he said that this lens is a piece of crap.
Excellent review, it shows how a old camera and lense is capable off. Specially during the time of hypes of spec.
Have you ever done a review of the Nikon 200-500mm f5:6?
I got a canon aps-c DSLR to start off with but I wish I'd got a Nikon :') heck I wish I'd got a mirrorless 😂 but that will be corrected soon, I'm trading in my gear and upgrading to a used z6
Pls do a review on new fuji 70-300 and 10 24
Interesting! I used to have it and it was quite good. Nikon replaced it with a 16-80mm that was supposed to be better. Have you ever tried it? This is a very good option for Z50 and FTZ adapter.
@They Caged Non have you tried the 16-85? I remember when the 16-80 came out reviewers praised it and snubbed the older 16-85. Anyway the 16-85 would be a great kit lens for the Z50, if Nikon could adopt the design for the Z mount.
Hey, I really enjoy your lens reviews! I expecially like the comparability. As I'm a Nikon (FX, F-mount) shooter, I'd love to see some Nikon fullframe-lens tests!
My workhorse lens is my 17-50 2.8 Sigma but this covers my range much better - I always feel 50 on APSC isn't quite enough for some normal scenarios. Just wish this was a bit faster.
Thank you for the great review. Will you be doing a review for the newer 16-80mm f2.8-4? I'm curious if there are any improvements compared to this 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 lens to justify the more expensive price tag for the long term.
Check flickr groups for both lenses.
16-80 images look far more pleasing. Sharpness looks about same. 16-85mm itself gives perfect results almost. Hard to improve in sharpness really.
@@vaibhavpisal That can be down to editing, lighting and many other factors. They are pretty similar at f8-11. 16-80 is maybe a bit better wider and on the long end but theres very little in it.
Could you review the Nikon 70-300mm F4.5-6.3G AF-P ED?
No need, it is must have, if you can find a deal on used one (FX VR, only). I am still pissed at myself for not buying one for $350.
I compared this lens with Fuji 16-80/4 on a X-H1， this one is better. especially at edges.
I already have an AF-D 85mm, an AF-S 35mm and a Sigma 10-24 F3.5 so the 16-85 is overkill. Still looking for an AF-D 24mm. No zooming, yet a lot more light and a lot less weight for carrying around.
this was on sale at a thrift store for $90 now i wish i bought it 😅
I bought for $200 😉
it probably had a gypsy curse on it
great review (as usual). Though I still wait for a 17-55/2.8 =) Pretty please!
me too！！！
both Tamron and Sigma have 17-55 2.8 at a very low price...but it’s kinda old
@@captainnoah2230 I was thinking more about Nikon 17-55/2.8 as it is one of only 3 Nikon's gold ring DX lenses (the other ones are a 10.5/2.8 fisheye and a 12-24/4 zoom)
@@captainnoah2230 The Sigma seems to be fasing out.
Great reviews Chris, I’d love to know what you think of the Nikon 18-70 dx another older lens. Thanks.
I hope you will test the nikkor 16-80 f2,8-4 vr
Maybe it’s the same where like with most used cheap but recommended lenses like old Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for Canon and Nikon, Canon 24-85 f3.5-4.5, Canon 17-85, Canon 15-85..... I had most of them and the copies have huge sample variations and are more likely to be wildly decentred or unsharp at all than not...
will this lens work on the sony a6000 with an adapter?
Define 'work'
@@Pozi_Drive I'm sorry for being unclear. I meant: will I get the same result with an adapter on an a6000?
Christopher you should really test the Kamlan 21mm 1.8 lens. Very under-reviewed, but excellent performance for the money. It's a very interesting lens. Stay safe!
Hey Chris a video on either Tokina 23 1.4 for Fujifilm cameras please. 📸
Need help here! Is this better than Tamron 17-50 2.8 Di II VC?
Pleas give us Fujifilm xf 70-300mm lens review
Heard gd things abt this lens and looks like a nice cute lens when i considering to upgrade from my kit lens. But i needed 1 lens that settle both telephoto and wide angle so went to a 18-300 instead. Wonder if this works well on my d3500 as well.
Anyways wished nikon make a 16-300 similar to tamron one since my lens aperture actually matches this lens but except start at 18mm instead of 16mm
I’ve cracked the front glass on one of these :( anyone know how I can fix it?
It's the best APS-C lens for DX for the price, seems like you pretty much agree here. :)
I'm looking for an affordable lens in this focal range. How would you say this one compares to the Sigma 17-70 F2.8/4 image quality and focus? I'm in doubt between the two
Would you recommend this lens over the 105 lens?
Christopher Pleeeassseee test Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II by testing the sharpest zoom lens from nikon, my copy is sharper than the 85 f1.8G, or Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED AF-P DX
The sigma 17-50 is not so sharp in the corners.
I tried the 17-50 tamron sister and was very disappointed.
When I bought the Nikon D5200 the nikon 18-55 kit lens wasn't sharp
so I didn't by it and bought the nikon 16-85mm which is generally
good and sharp but not perfect.
not recommended for video.
a little under $200 used on ebay i may pick this up just to have on hikes
Хороший объектив.
Have one which I bought for around €580 new here in Ireland quite a number of years ago now.
Brilliant with my D7200. Upgraded to the 17-55 f2.8 (used).
However moved to full frame so never really used the latter but still have that also.
Have abandoned all now for the LUMIX GX9 with decent lenses because of size and love it.
Think I'll set up a camera and lense museum 😂👍
Hi I have one of this for sale! made in japan, in perfect condition for use and conservation! I'm in Brazil, Bahia, Salvador
Is he doing Nikon now?
Personally I much prefer the newer 16-80mm F2.8-4 lens over this one.
Oh that was fast
Ikr
My company own a total of 30 of these
I thought I would give this a try, but nikon, with all of their odd nomenclature made me feel ill
1st
A shame you did this instead of the better 16-80
Review Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4 Nano
I remember this lens as garbage when used with D300s, let's see if I was right
wow, it's not that bad
wtf the name 😂
I want this lens but lots of people 💩💩💩 on it. Of course this doesn’t match a 2.8,2,1.8,1.4 but the range 😂. It’s a nicer kit lens.