any experience with Nikon 16-85 mm lens

rwmj

I am relatively new to digital photography and am noticing that my pictures are not a sharp as I would like. I am using a Nikon D40x with the standard 18-55mm lens. Even though I often use a tripod and stop the lens down the sharpness of the pictures leaves something to be desired. Its not surprising that the optics in these kit lenses might be less than ideal but I am not sure how to remedy the situation. I notice that Nikon has a relatively new 16-85 mm lens (in the $560 range) that some reviewers say is pretty sharp if you are not going to spend 2 or 3 times that much. Even $560 is a stretch for me but I do want to improve on the optical quality. I saw a review by Ken Rockwell who wrote that the sharpness of this lens was no better than the standard 18-55. I don't want to fork out the extra cash if there is not a compelling reason to expect big improvements. Currently I am interested in lanscapes but in th epast I have done lost sof people - both portaits and street photograhy. This would be an all purpose lens for me taking the palve of the 18-55mm that I purchased with the camera. Anyone have experience with the Nikon 16-85 mm lens or have other suggestions.

Thanks,

Roy

Liquidity

rwmj wrote:

I am relatively new to digital photography and am noticing that my pictures are not a sharp as I would like. I am using a Nikon D40x with the standard 18-55mm lens. Even though I often use a tripod and stop the lens down the sharpness of the pictures leaves something to be desired. Its not surprising that the optics in these kit lenses might be less than ideal but I am not sure how to remedy the situation. I notice that Nikon has a relatively new 16-85 mm lens (in the $560 range) that some reviewers say is pretty sharp if you are not going to spend 2 or 3 times that much. Even $560 is a stretch for me but I do want to improve on the optical quality. I saw a review by Ken Rockwell who wrote that the sharpness of this lens was no better than the standard 18-55. I don't want to fork out the extra cash if there is not a compelling reason to expect big improvements. Currently I am interested in lanscapes but in th epast I have done lost sof people - both portaits and street photograhy. This would be an all purpose lens for me taking the palve of the 18-55mm that I purchased with the camera. Anyone have experience with the Nikon 16-85 mm lens or have other suggestions.

Thanks,

Roy

Roy,

Check out Bjorn Rorslett's website for more information on this lens and others.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

jonh68

For what it does, the 18-55 kit lens is a great little lens and is pretty sharp. Before you buy another lens, post some samples and lets see if it's the particular lens you have. I don't have the 16-85, but if you are going to spend $560, there may be better alternatives to you that would be a major upgrade. I just don't think the 16-85 would be a major upgrade if that is the range you are going for.

System

Check out Nikon's 18-200 VR lens. It's a great "all around" lens. I sold the kit lens when I got this one. I think a new one is in the $600 range and there a few used ones around.

rwmj

jonh68 wrote:

For what it does, the 18-55 kit lens is a great little lens and is pretty sharp. Before you buy another lens, post some samples and lets see if it's the particular lens you have. I don't have the 16-85, but if you are going to spend $560, there may be better alternatives to you that would be a major upgrade. I just don't think the 16-85 would be a major upgrade if that is the range you are going for.

Here is a recent picture at F25, 55 mm I believe
[img][/img]http://rwmj.smugmug.com/photos/458053172_bHWNX-M.jpg
Certainly the grasses on the left are not sharp and the ice doesn't seem that sharp either.

The 16-85 mm is appealing to me for two reasons - that it gets reviewed as very sharp - one reviewer said the best of the Nikon Dx zooms and because it goes down to 16 mm. In my predigital days my favorites lenses were a F2.8 24 mm and a f2.0 35 mm and sometimes a F1.8 85 mm so the wider view is very attractive. The upper end of the 16-85 range is not as appealing and so I have been thinking about the 18-70 mm lens also - which has the advantage of a more reasonable price. At this point I don't think I can manage anything more expensive than $600+/-.

Thanks for taking a look.

Roy

pathfinder

Whether you shoot Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, Pentax, Sigma or Tamron lenses, none of them will be at their sharpest at f25. As you discussed, tripod, mirror lock up, cable release are all important contributors to the highest optical quality.

Traditionally, and still today, a given lens is usually at its very sharpest when stopped down ~two stops from wide open. Modern sensors in digital cameras are very demanding on their lenses, and it is good to remember to shoot at the sharpest aperture ( about 2 stops down ) if one can do that.

Small aperture like f22, f25, or even f16 begin to suffer from diffraction, and hence their resolution begins to be compromised by the inherent qualities of light.

I have a number of excellent L lenses from Canon - but if shot at f25 they will not be nearly as sharp as f5.6 or f8, of even f11.

For the highest quality images, one needs to shoot RAW, perform capture sharpening in the RAW converter, and correct any chromatic aberration there as well. I find not insignificant chromatic aberration in a number of L lenses. Interestingly, I have a Tamron 200-500 zoom that I would expect to display a fair amount of chromatic aberration, but even at 400% viewing in many images, I rarely find it.

Maybe Nikon lenses are better than Canon's , but I doubt there are really major differences if properly used.

Raw images tend to look soft if not properly rendered in the RAW converter.

angevin1

rwmj wrote:

Here is a recent picture at F25, 55 mm I believe
[img][/img]http://rwmj.smugmug.com/photos/458053172_bHWNX-M.jpg
Certainly the grasses on the left are not sharp and the ice doesn't seem that sharp either.

The 16-85 mm is appealing to me for two reasons - that it gets reviewed as very sharp - one reviewer said the best of the Nikon Dx zooms and because it goes down to 16 mm. In my predigital days my favorites lenses were a F2.8 24 mm and a f2.0 35 mm and sometimes a F1.8 85 mm so the wider view is very attractive. The upper end of the 16-85 range is not as appealing and so I have been thinking about the 18-70 mm lens also - which has the advantage of a more reasonable price. At this point I don't think I can manage anything more expensive than $600+/-.

Thanks for taking a look.

Roy

The Sweet spot on Your lens seems to be about f8 or f11. @f22 0r especially f32 it is quite out of the sweet area, rendering photos like you share here....perhaps you want to try it again with it stopped down to just 5.6, 8 and 11...then look at it again for your sharpness.

Considering you are looking for incredible DOF and Sharpness throughout the shot, you may have to opt for a different lens. and with a crop sensor camera your options for WIDE/CHEAP/SHARP may be limited....I know on my crop camera I have been very pleased with my tamaron 17-50 f2.8 for sharpness in landscape prints, and the 18-70 kit lens aint too bad either....not saying 5-6 hundred is cheap..its all very relative~

good luck, tom

kini62

rwmj wrote:

Here is a recent picture at F25, 55 mm I believe
[img][/img]http://rwmj.smugmug.com/photos/458053172_bHWNX-M.jpg
Certainly the grasses on the left are not sharp and the ice doesn't seem that sharp either.

The 16-85 mm is appealing to me for two reasons - that it gets reviewed as very sharp - one reviewer said the best of the Nikon Dx zooms and because it goes down to 16 mm. In my predigital days my favorites lenses were a F2.8 24 mm and a f2.0 35 mm and sometimes a F1.8 85 mm so the wider view is very attractive. The upper end of the 16-85 range is not as appealing and so I have been thinking about the 18-70 mm lens also - which has the advantage of a more reasonable price. At this point I don't think I can manage anything more expensive than $600+/-.

Thanks for taking a look.

Roy

First, F25 is way past the point of softness due to diffraction. No need to go beyond F8-F11 for maximum sharpness. If extreme DOF is the goal then you'll have to live with the diffraction limitations.

Second- that image is way too small to tell if it's soft or not.

If VR is important than any of the Nikons in that range will work. The 16-85 should provide a little better IQ over the overlapping FLs, plus greater range, VR (I think), faster AF, better build quality.

If VR is not important the Sigma 17-70 seems to be a very sharp lens. Only drawback is Sigma's questionable QC.

Gene

rwmj

kini62 wrote:

First, F25 is way past the point of softness due to diffraction. No need to go beyond F8-F11 for maximum sharpness. If extreme DOF is the goal then you'll have to live with the diffraction limitations.

Second- that image is way too small to tell if it's soft or not.

If VR is important than any of the Nikons in that range will work. The 16-85 should provide a little better IQ over the overlapping FLs, plus greater range, VR (I think), faster AF, better build quality.

If VR is not important the Sigma 17-70 seems to be a very sharp lens. Only drawback is Sigma's questionable QC.

Gene

Thanks to all of you for the pointer about using a F8-F11 aperture for maximum sharpness. I checked out the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 lens and it looked pretty good - less expensive than the Nikon 16-85 and I am not that interested in the longer focal lengths or the VR anyway. I gather that the Tamron can be expected to be sharper than the Nikon 18-70 but slower to focus and a bit noisy. They seem to be about the same price.

angevin1

rwmj wrote:

Thanks to all of you for the pointer about using a F8-F11 aperture for maximum sharpness. I checked out the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 lens and it looked pretty good - less expensive than the Nikon 16-85 and I am not that interested in the longer focal lengths or the VR anyway. I gather that the Tamron can be expected to be sharper than the Nikon 18-70 but slower to focus and a bit noisy. They seem to be about the same price.

Actually...I have that very lens for you in the Nikon Flea market for sale...right now: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=118535

It is as fast as the 18-70....not as quiet IMO...but it is quiet, relatively so!

I think it is sharper and several test sites say so...but I will also say the 18-70 is a very decent kit lens!

But of course, it is also f2.8 and lets in plenty of light.

hard decisions, these lenses, eh?

good luck, tom