So i was just recently got a 16-85vr lens secondhand, setting me back a reasonable $600 CAD. I was drawn to this particular lens from the mostly positive reviews i've read, and the pretty useful zoom range, for now this will be the new walkaround lens for me. Quick check: retail Price for the lens is about 800, and the hoya shmc is worth about $50 more. Well its time to do a quick comparison against my trusty plastic 18-55 vr kit lens (value $200). Is the 16-85 worth the extra $400?
From a paper standpoint:
-Metal mount!
-67mm filter vs 52
-variable aperature is the same f/3.5-5.6 (For this price, the 16-85VR is a REALLY slow lens)
-extra 2mm on the wide, and 30mm on the zoom
-just slightly taller than the 18-55, but fatter overall
-distance scale on the maunal focus (much easier to use)
Everything is taken with my d90 and shot in jpeg fine. (No point in raw)
Mounted on a 190xbprob tripod.
(it took me forever to find a website that would host my original files)
Lets start out with the 18-55VR
at 18mm
f/4, 1/800 ISO200
f/5.6, 1/640 ISO200
f/8, 1/320 ISO200
f/13, 1/100 ISO200
16-85VR2
at 18mm
f/4, 1/800 ISO200
f/5.6, 1/640 ISO200
f/8, 1/320 ISO200
f/13, 1/100 ISO200
Thoughts:
Center sharpness is great for both lenses. The 18-55 does not handle the sun aswell as directly projected onto the shed. Highlights on the leaves were blown out. None the less, center performance is very similar to its more expensive brother. As we leave the center of the frame, the scenario changes immediately, even at f/4 the 16-85 produces cleaner and shaper results across the frame, the 18-55 simply cannot keep up. by f/13, it still doesnt not match the 16-85 at all. So much for ken rockwell claiming it one of nikon's best lenses. We can see chroma is present in both lenses, but the 16-85 has a better control, as it dissapears almost completely past f/8. At f/4 it exists, but not to the extent of the 18-55. Check out the leaves on the tree.. At f/13, there is still some left. Keep in mind the d90 already has correction for CA build into the camera itself, reducing lateral CA. I actually forgot to switch off VR while shooting, so while it might have very minor impact, i doubt it is refelctive of the gerernal comparison. Looking overall, it seems like the 18-55 produces brighter images, but it more prone to blowing out detail. At 18mm, the 16-85 is about failry sharp (but not perfect) across the frame with good corner sharpness. 18-55 on the other hand, outside of the center, peformance decreases, corners are very soft.
The 18-55 completely missed focusing on the f/8 pic
