A travel lens, in the best possible way. Vibration Reduction System works on 5+. The range of focal lengths is just what you need. I liked the lens, both in terms of workmanship and the resulting images. However, low aperture leaves it in a purely amateur segment. It's a pity . But I still won't sell it. Has pros: 1. Very sharp (especially in the wide-angle range). 2. Good color rendering. 3. Strong constructive. Forget about backlashes. Has some cons 1. Small aperture. 2. Overpriced. The…

Reportage, ideal for travel photography. Super sharp with nikons without anti-moire filter. The drawing is not plastic - well, it was not created for this. Change 18-140 or even 18-105 only from extra money. But if that is what is required. that he knows better than others, buy immediately with him. Its pros: A real travelzoom! 16mm something. what you need on crop for landscape and architectural photography. Yes, and Inside. what is needed. Cutting. With its cons. Everything lived up to…

The lens is well assembled, sturdy. The focal length is enough, I use it as a staff member. At 16 mm, the horizontal does not bend much, before that I used 18-55 mm, the difference is significant. The upper aisle is 85 mm, which is enough for me, then I use 70-300mm. I don’t experience any special problems with aperture ratio, I would ideally like F / 2.8, but what is. Bokeh for zoom, quite good. The pictures are quite sharp, with good color reproduction. Focus is fast and tenacious, even in…

Like many photographers, as I developed, I changed Nikon Nikkor 18-105 to Nikon Nikkor 16-85 VR and at first I was satisfied. But with the growth of experience and the transition to lenses with a fixed distance, I began to see about the same shortcomings. The main one is that focal lengths over 60-70 mm are difficult to use due to a drop in image quality. Similarly, 16 mm is not too happy. The optimal quality range is approximately 20-50 mm. My requirements for a lens are above average - for…

Before that, I used Nikonovsky 28-80 3.3 - 5.6. What can I say . Glass is something else. The current focal lengths for travel are convenient. Filmed like this. It will go for itself. For a wedding - God forbid. The quality of the photos with him is not stable. I bought this one and . 28-80 was lighter! Yes. He had 3.3 at 28, and here at 28 - 4.2. Feel the difference. I'll have to get used to it now. What is 28mm? This is the focal length at which many photographs begin. Both domestic and…

I have been using it together with the D80 for 3 years . now I plan to switch to the D7000, I will try it there. Never regretted the purchase. Never broke or lost, works like clockwork. Cutting. at 16mm it is very convenient to shoot landscapes or interiors with a tripod!) This is much better than whale lenses or the same 18-105 . I even use it for professional purposes!

At the beginning I wanted to take Nikon 17-55 or 16-35 to replace Tamron 17-50 After testing two expensive lenses, I came to a non-standard opinion. For some reason, 17-55 used does not have a stable picture, in one corner lighter in another darker, and there is not as much sharpness as they write about it for his money, perhaps for a constructive, but very heavy. At 16-35, the picture is more stable, but not enough to pay for it such an amount and that both of these are focal. I have a…

I wouldn’t call it a full-fledged wide-angle (only for 16mm), in general, the lens is not bad, I’m testing it at the moment. Here are some photos: http://fotki. Yandex. Ru/users/sergey-korovkin-84/view/804228/?page=7, http://fotki. Yandex. Ru/users/sergey-korovkin-84/view /803184?page=7 ,http://fotki. Yandex. Ru/users/sergey-korovkin-84/view/803306/?page=7 ,http://fotki. Yandex. Ru/users/sergey-korovkin- 84/view/802999/?page=7

sharpening further than 50mm is not so important, because. before that I used 18-55 AF-S VR, which starts at 35mm compared to 18-55 AF-S VR, the image is more "transparent" perhaps inferior in sharpness to 18-55 AF-P VR, which is still very chromate, and in poor lighting everything starts to turn acid green 16-85 is noticeably better than 18-70mm (plastic, dust-collecting) or 18-105 (but it’s not obvious here, given the cost of the latter is 2-3 times less on the used market)

I have one cropped camera - I lived on it for half a year and read what a good 18-105 is and you shouldn’t switch to 16-85 . I wasn’t too lazy to drive to the store and took pictures - and I’ll tell you that this is nonsense. 16-85 liked immediately. Read carefully: ITS TASK TO INCREASE SHARPNESS OVER THE ENTIRE FIELD OF THE FRAME. The center of the frame is sharper, but not by much. An excellent staffer, given that it has fallen a little in price. Well, he doesn’t have 2.8 . what to do - but I

I've been using it for a month. In general, I am satisfied, although of course I was expecting much more, but this more is worth 50t. R. about. I compensate for the lack of lighting with shutter speed, and I use a tripod to take it apart. For the price, this is a good zoom. Here are examples of photos: http://fotki. . Ru/next/users/gogoton/album/108256/view/833912 http://fotki. . Ru/next/users/gogoton/album/227789/view/833603 http://fotki. . Ru/next/users/gogoton/album/229098/view/833531

I bought it after the Nikon 18-105 whale. There is some improvement in sharpness and a bit more metal in the construction. Nothing else. Very much regretted the purchase. At that time, I did not understand why different lenses were used at all. From the characteristics I read about sharpness and bokeh) Although now I understand that this is the last thing you should pay attention to. If you want to choose a single lens for your DX camera, take the Nikon 35 f1.8. With it, you will take much more

I compared it with 16-35 (it didn’t seem very sharp to me on the crop). 24-70 (very similar, on the same apertures) 35.1.8 is good, but fixed 12-24 (on the same F. R. they are almost indistinguishable, apart from less distortion at wide angle. 18-105 (washes corners). 18-55 is worse in everything. At 85 / 5.6, the bokeh is not so bad. For Nikon's crop, like a travel zoom, in my opinion, this is the best lens!

This lens served me for a year and a half and died. Suddenly, during the shooting, something cracked, the trunk fell out and the focus was cut off. Now, when rotating, something crunches, the trunk is not fixed. At the same time, he did not receive injuries, I did not beat him, did not drop him, did not offend him in other ways. While I used it, there were no particular complaints. Particularly satisfied with the range of focal lengths. After the breakdown, I bought 24-70 / 2.8. Feelings are…

Undeservedly long after the purchase, sat on the bench). Now I practically do not unfasten from the carcass. All summer I shot mostly one macro, autumn demanded other scales and attached 16-85. Aperture abound, for all types of shooting. Morning, afternoon, evening do not cause problems, but for special, darkened, cases, there is a fast and light 35mm / f1.8, it will not drag the bag. The lens is very sharp, the bokeh may not be a fountain, but the background is blurred quite acceptable…

I have a large fleet of Nikon and Canon photographic equipment. And recently I got my hands on this lens. Of course, I read about him and I know the results of various tests, but I have not come across it before. I bought it used and the first thing that surprised me was the very modest size. With a similar length to 18-105, this lens is even a little Narrower. At the same time, it is slightly heavier and feels more reliable in the hands. I will describe a number of zooms with a standard…

I chose as a permanent to the D80, the choice was between 16-85 and 18-200. I wanted a travel zoom for vacation. in auto-mode in the summer in sunny weather worked without question, even unknowingly littered with materiel at dusk managed to pull out the frames through the channels in the shop. basically - the frames are sharp, aperture in daylight in open spaces is more than enough. I think this is important, and I repeat: in clear weather, in the sun and with little cloud cover, this bunch…

I bought it recently, I’m very satisfied, the model is very good, I recommend it to everyone, I chose between it and 18-200 for a long time, I don’t regret the choice at all, the quality is on top, the stabilizer is super, but as for the focal lengths, I can say that if you want a larger range of focal lengths, then you it is better to choose a lens from another category, otherwise the model is excellent!

The short end is a fisheye, a normal face is in the center, the rest are monsters. I regret that I traded 18-105 for it, there were no such problems with that. I leave it only because of the video stub, it’s just gorgeous. colors . sharpness - at a height, of course no bokeh. Summary - good for video, for reporting after f20. I repeat, if the video is not needed, then 18-105 is a waste of money to change to it.

Despite the above cons, the 16-85/3.5-5.6 is one of the best lenses I've owned, and without a doubt, it's currently the best (quality, not price) fast zoom on crop. It differs from the super popular 18-200 and 18-135 abroad by its excellent geometric qualities and sharpness, and it is much better structurally. However, if I had a choice between 18-70 and 16-85, then, given the difference in price by 3 times, it is not known what I would stop at. Despite all the advantages of the lens, it…