TaoTeJared said:
Just a FYI at 1/200th you are probably hitting the nyquist frequency for the focal length and the VR is actually causing blur. It is better to turn it off when the shutter exceeds 2-3x the focal length and at anything above 1/500th.

I know that, but I could have just written 1/100 instead. I could get better results at the wider angles without VR than with it at speeds like 1/40+. Anyways the VR in the 16-35 doesn't act like this, the introduced blur is so minor, that I almost never turn it off. At speeds like 1/200 I can get tripod equivalent sharpness with VR on. (assuming it's warm enough for me to handhold the camera properly. )

I'm not sure how the Nyquist frequency applies here, since the element movements induced by the vr movements are not instantaneous and there is very limited specific data available on VR. (according to Tom Hogan for example you should turn it on below 1/500)

This sounds like a thread on its own. Do you know where I can find a reference of focal lengths/shutter speeds that are a problem? It sounds like something I should know more about.

Thx.

Basically once you are beyond 2-3x the focal length blur is no longer captured. With VR on, it re-centers elements while the shutter is moving causing false blur.

Nyquist by Thom

"Nyquist tells us that we can only really resolve data accurately below half the sampling frequency, thus it can accurately only take out movements as small as 500Hz (1/500 second). While this sampling frequency is of the camera motion, it is not completely uncorrelated with shutter speed. For example, the shutter curtains only travel across the sensor at speeds above 1/250, exposing only a portion of the image at a time. Another aspect of the VR system is that it "recenters" the moving element(s) just prior to the shutter opening. Simply put, there's a lot that has to be right at very short shutter speeds in order for there not to be a small visual impact, especially with long lenses." http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm

Sure, that is all understood, it is the Nyquist frequency part that doesn't compute.

ummm - nope. You shouldn't need VR or it won't do much if anything above 1/125th on DX. VR will actually introduce false blur as it will think there should be movement, even if the shutter speed is high enough. Most see this with the longer lenses like the 70-300vr when images shot at 1/500th and higher don't look sharp - but when they turn the VR off, it is tack sharp. There is tons written on this by Nikon and others if you go look for it.

TaoTeJared said:
Just a FYI at 1/200th you are probably hitting the nyquist frequency for the focal length and the VR is actually causing blur.

Hey Tao - it isn't April 1st for half a year yet....

Just a FYI at 1/200th you are probably hitting the nyquist frequency for the focal length and the VR is actually causing blur. It is better to turn it off when the shutter exceeds 2-3x the focal length and at anything above 1/500th.

spraynpray said:
That is useful to know thanks and some of those points are not covered in the usual tests. Maybe I'll hold off on that lens unless I get many indications from others here that suspect you had a bad one - what with the distance scale being out of alignment, maybe it got beat up in shipping before you used it.

A contacted Nikon at the time, described my problems and they stated it's pretty normal with the lens.

That is useful to know thanks and some of those points are not covered in the usual tests. Maybe I'll hold off on that lens unless I get many indications from others here that suspect you had a bad one - what with the distance scale being out of alignment, maybe it got beat up in shipping before you used it.

spraynpray said:
Lightroom has automatic distortion correction - do you use Lightroom TriShooter?

Wow! That is strong stuff Gabbb - I have to ask you what your specific dislikes about the 16-85 were?

Let's see.
1. Background Blur, it's very nervous, same as the 18-105)
2. Horrible work against bright light sources, heavy loss of contrast with the sky in a landscape shot even with the sun excluded, or even with white walls with a bounce flash.
3. Focusing speed, slightly faster than a 18-55VR, but that's the only good thing about it.
4. Sharpness. I used a tripod to make comparison images with the kit lens, they came out as equally "sharp".
5. Mine had a miscalibrated distance scale window.
6. VR on it is set to a too strong setting, which is good at 1/2, but horrible at 1/200.

I liked however the build quality, especially the metal zoom barrels.

TriShooter said:
I still love my 16-85mm for indoor shooting, and the distortion at the wide end is manageable, and far better than my Sony 18-55mm zoom for the Alpha NEX Series which has really serious distortion at the wide end.

Lightroom has automatic distortion correction - do you use Lightroom TriShooter?

Gabbb said:
In my opinion go with the 18-105VR, the 16-85 doesn't worth it. It's the only lens in the nikon lineup I would rather avoid using vs. a Tamron or Sigma zoom. THe Sigma 17-70 and Tamron 17-50 are both better lenses in their own ways.

(I had one, used it a for a while and was greatly disappointed)

Wow! That is strong stuff Gabbb - I have to ask you what your specific dislikes about the 16-85 were?

In my opinion go with the 18-105VR, the 16-85 doesn't worth it. It's the only lens in the nikon lineup I would rather avoid using vs. a Tamron or Sigma zoom. THe Sigma 17-70 and Tamron 17-50 are both better lenses in their own ways.

(I had one, used it a for a while and was greatly disappointed)

If you use Lightroom, go to the Library tab, hit grid view,then \, then select metadata from the header choices in the middle at the top of the pane and you will see a filter system - on the right hand of the four panels you will see the labels column, click on the word 'labels' and select 'focal length' from the pop-up. You will now have all of the pictures in your current catalogue shown sorted by date, camera, lens and focal length. Looking at this will enable you to see at a glance which focal length you use most. You can swap catalogues and see this info for all of them.

I did this and saw I had few shots between 70mm and 105mm but a lot banged up against 18mm so I am looking to change my 18-105 VR. I already have the 11-16mm Tokina, so the 16-85 VR is pulling on me because I can't afford the 14-24 & 24-70.

If you structure your catalogue system by jobs, you will have to look through them all to see your particular overall usage.

That is a little expensive, but if I have much money, I will pick it as my kit lens. I don't like replace lens frequently.

TaoTeJared makes good points. I also would prefer the 18-200 for inside and outside assuming I was buying one lens. I agree that 2mm is not huge until your back is against the wall using an 18mm lens. A used 12-24mm is a good lens with a nice range, but personally would buy the 10-24mm for a DX camera. I still love my 16-85mm for indoor shooting, and the distortion at the wide end is manageable, and far better than my Sony 18-55mm zoom for the Alpha NEX Series which has really serious distortion at the wide end.

Just to check, You said wider which everyone posted the two Tokina's (11-16 & 12-24mm) but when you say "versatile" are you saying more at the long end?

There is little wrong with the Nikon 16-85mm - it has been out for a while and has proven a spot in the line up. That is why there is so little written about it. It is a walk-around lens. Doubtful it will be updated anytime soon, but it probably doesn't need it. The other option for not much more is the 18-200vr which is another great lens and has even more versatility on the long end.

2mm on the wide end is not much at all and it is loaded with distortion. 14mm on down is very wide. The question for wide, is how wide is wide enough - inevitability most everyone here has picked up a super wide lens that goes to 12mm+.

afrogeez said:
Thank you to everyone for your replies.

I think I'll hold off the purchase for now and wait for the D7000/16-85mm refresh. Fingers crossed we don't have to wait too long :)

Hope you are not holding your breath waiting! Nikon has been acting strangely in the release of new products we seem to want. But, the new products seem to be outstanding in the technical specifications.

And, welcome to NRF!

I am with Henrik1963 on the Nikon 16-85mm lens. It is my primary inside zoom shooting lens. It is sharp as a tack, has a pleasant bokeh, rich color, and great contrast. I am sure the F4 version will be little different but very surprised to see it blow away the current version. That 2mm advantage on the 16-85mm is a huge advantage when shooting indoors for me. I would not swap mine for 18-105mm.

Thank you to everyone for your replies.

I think I'll hold off the purchase for now and wait for the D7000/16-85mm refresh. Fingers crossed we don't have to wait too long :)

I'd hold off on the 16-85. If you want more range, you can get the 18-105 which is a much more cost efficient option.

The consensus among serius lens testers seems to be that the 16-85 is the best kit zoom for Nikon DX bar none.

I have one on my D90. It is a very good lens. Better build than 18-xxx zooms. Sharp. And VR works well.

The range is very usefull for a "do it all lens". 16 is so much better than 18 in the wide end. Nikon is weak when it comes to wide primes for DX. The 16-85 is a good way to work around that weakness.

You will need a pro 2.8 zoom to beat it. (I have the golden trio of 2.8 zooms for my FX kit - I still like my little DX kit for what it can do if I do my part)

If you want wider and more versatile the 16-85 will deliver whithout breaking the bank.

A few opinions:

I just bought the 18-55 VR for my wife and am impressed that it is sharper than my 18-105VR and only cost me £50.

I would not buy the 11-16 Tokina again - not because it is not a very good lens - but because it has such a restricted range. I would get the 12-24.

On the D7000, it is a fine camera and I have seen the body only for £600 new so if I were in the market I'd pick one up now at that price. The replacement is likely to cost £3-400 more. If you don't need the saving on the price, think of it as you are able to buy better glass.

DaveyJ said:
THe 18-55VR is one of the most disliked lens made by Nikon.

The 18-55mm VR is easily the most sold, and used Nikkor ever made. It doesn't hold a candle to $800 zooms or primes, but to say it is the most disliked lens is a bit of a stretch. Have you actually used one for more than a few minutes in a store? I tested one for a few months a few years ago, on an evaluation D3100, and it was a very good lens, considering the price.

It is sharp, light and has decent, but not great AF. Having tested almost all of Nikon's kit lenses (18-70, 18-55, 18-135, 18-105) I think it is the best Nikon kit lens available, in terms of both bang for your buck and features. In it's range it is about as good as the 16-85, but build quality is where the 18-55mm falls short.

THe 18-55VR is one of the most disliked lens made by Nikon. It may be OK in its range but it is at best a kit lens. The 16-85 is a whole lot better. I would though wait for both the D7200 and the updated lens which PB PM recommends. I use my 12-24DX as much as any wide angle and I have some very expensive wide angle zooms....the 20-35 Nikkor and the 16-35 Nikkor. Both of those lens I use primarily for full frame. Right now I would take the D7200 and an updated 16-85VR over almost anything in that range. Nikon should be coming out with these soon. In fact checking on that is MY primary reason for following NR....although I sure am going to be looking very close at the D400 when that becomes available!

An update for the 16-85mm might be coming soon so hold off, if that is a lens you are interested in. There is a patent from Nikon for a 16-85mm F4 DX VR lens, so that could be coming in the next year.

The existing lens is slightly better than the 18-55mm VR in terms of sharpness, and a lot better build quality, but the primary reason to get it would be the wider zoom range.