:[1] 2 3 ... 5 Re: Press Release: Nikkor 16-85mm VR
1: January 29, 2008, 09:58:13 AM by bjornthun
Seems to be a most useful standard zoom. 16 mm on DX gives approx. the same angle of view as a 24 mm on FX. If the quality is good this lens may be worth looking into.
Re: Press Release: Nikkor 16-85mm VR
2: January 29, 2008, 10:39:01 AM by NikosR
I would like to know at what focal length the aperture exceeds 4 and becomes 5.6. It is a different thing if 5.6 is reached only beyond say 70mm and quite different if at 50mm the lens is already very close to 5.6.
I remind the 18-70 is (was?) a 3.5-4.5. Why can't we have a constant F4.0 at that range? Is it too much to ask for? Re: Press Release: Nikkor 16-85mm VR
3: January 29, 2008, 08:13:10 PM by Tom
At 600EUR/$550 this lens is a rip-off. Better buy the DX VR 18-200
![]() Re: Press Release: Nikkor 16-85mm VR
4: January 29, 2008, 08:26:31 PM by mattsteg
At 600EUR/$550 this lens is a rip-off. Better buy the DX VR 18-200 That depends on how it performs and how useful those extra couple of mm on the wide end are to the purchaser, I suppose. It'll probably be a reasonable deal to people with a specific set of needs.![]() Re: Press Release: Nikkor 16-85mm VR
5: January 29, 2008, 09:39:09 PM by Noct
At 600EUR/$550 this lens is a rip-off. Better buy the DX VR 18-200 ![]() If the lens is any good at 16mm, then this extra 2mm range at the wide side is IMHO worth the money. Personally I would always prefer this range over a 18-200. Now please a 16-55/2.8DX or even better a 15-55/2.8DX Re: Press Release: Nikkor 16-85mm VR
6: January 30, 2008, 06:51:35 PM by rvink
Pentax have announced the development of a 17-70/4 lens for their digital (DX format) cameras. That's right, constant aperture f4. If it's a good performer I'm sure it will have a lot of Canon and Nikon shooters looking over the fence. There's also a 60-250/4 and 55/1.4.
Re: Press Release: Nikkor 16-85mm VR
7: February 22, 2008, 03:47:48 AM by steveh0607
I have a Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 as my walk around lens. It's very sharp, well built, and costs just under $500 U.S. I'm sure the Nikon 16-85 is good, but for a projected $650 U.S. is the extra money for the name? Yes, I have the utmost respect for Nikon's professional lens line (always over $1,000 U.S.), but this isn't a pro lens. And yes I know "You get what you pay for", but honestly, when lenses are objectively reviewed, the cost differential for the Nikon doesn't seem justified. Nikon doesn't need to pad the cost of lenses (or cameras for that matter).
Re: Press Release: Nikkor 16-85mm VR
8: February 24, 2008, 02:58:12 PM by ElanR
Hi everyone. My first post here
![]() It's easy to make the case that Nikon decided to make this lens to compete with the once very popular Canon 17-85/IS, so my expectation is that the price will be in the same ~$500 price bracket. Where Nikon dropped the ball with this lens is in overlooking all the impressive options available in this focal/price range from 3rd party makers. Like the excellent Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro Steve mentions. The Canon they model after is not a strong seller anymore for this very reason. Nikon needs to read these discussion boards more regularly. They're losing market share to lenses like the Sigma 30/1.4 and 150/2.8 Macro while they're wasting their resources developing yet another 18/16-xx consumer lens. Re: Press Release: Nikkor 16-85mm VR
9: February 25, 2008, 03:52:35 AM by NikosR
I've been reading all people say about 'just another consumer lens' but I have the suspicion that this will be proved to be a very well performing lens, much better than the 3rd party alternatives (and the Canon one), an almost pro lens in everything but aperture and price. We'll see
![]() Re: Press Release: Nikkor 16-85mm VR
10: February 25, 2008, 04:44:24 AM by Dallas
I have used it extensively with the D60 this weekend and initial indications are that it is a pretty good lens. From what I am seeing at B&H you're looking at about $700 so its not really in the "kit lens" price range.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2008 by dallasdahms.com All Rights Reserved | | Designed for 1024x768 screen resolution | Best viewed in Firefox 3.0+ |