It helps that by most accounts the 16-85mm is optically the best of these lenses. I’m not really equipped to evaluate the lens’ technical qualities in great detail, but those who have done so tend to note that this lens addresses most of the minor flaws found among the rest of Nikon’s basic DSLR zooms, making it likely the sharpest and least flawed of a good lot. I can confirm that it produces strikingly colorful photos that are exceedingly sharp and mostly free of undesirable effects. Mine does produce some ghosting when shooting photos with the sun actually in the frame, which I often do. I wouldn’t fault it too heavily on that basis.

The 16-85′s toughest competition is probably the 18-200. I didn’t really consider the 200 because Nikon seems to have had to give up just a bit too much in terms of optical quality to get the zoom range. Still, many buyers will compare the two, as they are similar in cost and quality and perform similar functions for most users. I’m actually a bit surprised how infrequently I need to go beyond 85mm on a DSLR. 85mm is a good, useful telephoto range that provides a fair measure of distance compression and allows me to get the perspective I want in the telephoto range for most subjects. The 85-200mm range, for me, is really mostly useful for special conditions photography – shooting distant subjects that I have no way to get closer to. For that type of purpose I don’t mind having to switch lenses, and the bonus here is that the 70-300mm VR becomes a reasonably affordable complement to the 16-85mm (2/25/09 note: I have since purchased, used and reviewed a copy of the 70-300 VR zoom and found it to be quite mediocre, although it may have been a below-average sample). That combination, although more expensive, provides usefully greater range at both ends than the 18-200mm without quite the optical compromises the 18-200mm seems to require. Nikon’s 28-200mm “G” lens could be another very useful complement to the 16-85mm as it has a reputation for optical excellence, good macro capabilities and is light and fairly inexpensive.

The bottom line is that the 16-85mm is a no-excuses basic lens that serves very well for quite a broad scope of basic photography. I feel confident when I use it that I am getting very close to the best image quality possible. The only thing the lens gives up is speed, and that is surely by necessity. Any combination of fast lenses that would approximate this range you would need to get both Nikon’s 17-35mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 at a combined cost of $3k, and would still need to add either a 70-200 or an 85mm prime at the long end. VR makes the lack of speedy apertures acceptable for basic shooting. I love my 16-85.

Main Features

• 5.3x zoom lens covering a wide focal range of 16 to 85mm (picture angle is equivalent to focal length of 24 to 127.5mm in the 35mm format)
• Vibration Reduction II enables sharper pictures while shooting at shutter speeds up to four stops slower than would otherwise be possible
• Optical design optimized for superior performance with Nikon digital SLRs
• ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass elements minimize chromatic aberration while providing higher resolution and superior contrast
• Three aspherical lens elements minimize various types of lens aberration
• High-performance Nikon Super Integrated Coating achieves superior color reproduction while substantially reducing ghosting and flare
• Nikon’s exclusive Silent Wave Motor ensures fast, quiet autofocus operation
• Rounded seven-blade diaphragm opening makes out-of-focus elements appear more natural
• 0.38 m/1.3 ft. closest focus distance throughout the entire zoom range
• Accepts 67 mm filter attachments

Other Lenses:

I’ve had the opportunity to own and use many different Nikon lenses and have posted my impressions of some of them here. For those interested, here are short summaries. I have used all these lenses on Nikon DX-sized DSLRs, most recently my current D90.

• Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AF-D: *** Competent, sharp lens is a good fit as a bargain DX “normal” prime. Slow f/2.8 max aperture poor. Very inexpensive in used market.

• Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM: *** Poor focusing consistency and below average large-aperture acuity combine for disappointing real-world performance. Fast max aperture, very capable if used with appropriate care.

• Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-G: ****1/2 Terrific lens at a bargain price. Not without flaws, but excellent in all important respects. A pleasure to use.

• Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D: **** Sharp, especially at large apertures, moderate contrast. Classic “normal” lens for DX but consider new 35mm f/1.8 AF-S instead.

• Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-D: *** My sample was unacceptably poor at large apertures. Perhaps a below-average sample. Focal length not ideally suited to DX.

• Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AF-D ****1/2 Very good short-to-moderate telephoto on DX. Acceptable at large apertures, very sharp stopped-down, moderate contrast. Potentially excellent for portrait use.

• Nikon 28-200mm AF-G *** Of two samples, one was excellent and one poor, so watch for sample variations. Very good contrast. Not ideal hand-held due to lack of VR. Not ideal for tripod use due to design.

• Nikon 55-200mm VR **** Very good lens, very good sharpness and contrast, no fatal flaws. Cheap feel and feature-challenged, but has effective VR. A bargain.

• Nikon 70-300mm VR *** My sample had very poor performance above 200mm, good to very good elsewhere. Good contrast, generally very good focus performance. Good sports/action lens. Not good where critical sharpness is desired. Possibly a below-average sample.