WOW, looks great

mike on Mar 13th 2010 10:57 am edit

  • http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012909nikkor1685vr.asp

    This may be what I was looking for:)


  • I see what you are saying, I thought the range is what was interesting. And as I am looking for a new lens, I thought that was a nice lens.

    Interesting but way over-priced. I just bought the 18-200, which is also pricey but more bang for the buck.


  • I'm sure that the North American Price will be less than $500. European pricing is through the roof for pretty much everything.


  • AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 ED VF

    Could the designation for a lens be any longer?


    Yes the price is a bit steep...


  • http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545654-USA/Nikon_2178_16_85mm_f_3_5_5_6G_ED_VR.html


    B&H has it listed for $690, which is more than their current price for the 18-200VR. I suspect these are just going to sit on the shelves for awhile and that eventually they'll dip into the $5xx range (US) new.


  • maybe if it was 2.8 constant?

    It would be nice if it was faster. Would probably end up in my bag. As it is, ill pass


  • Interesting but way over-priced. I just bought the 18-200, which is also pricey but more bang for the buck.

    I am sure today is the D day, the moment of truth, am I right?
    Please tell us the IQ of this lens as I am sure others also eager to know once you run it thoroughly.


  • The lens looks nice and the price does not. $649 is a little on the steep side, especially considering there is already an 18-70 and and 18-200 VR out that cost way less and have very good optical quality.


  • I see what you are saying, I thought the range is what was interesting. And as I am looking for a new lens, I thought that was a nice lens.


  • That's been the reaction of most people. Too much money. For the asking price, it would have to deliver truly outstanding "no excuses" for anything image quality, and then some. If it was priced $100-150 cheaper and was f/4.5 at the long end rather than f/5.6 I think a lot of people would change their minds.

    For the most part I never need VR, but I could commonly use some extra speed either for selective focus or for low light. So in this range I'd probably opt for an 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 instead which is about as long and 2/3rds of a stop faster at the long end.


  • http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012909nikkor1685vr.asp

    This may be what I was looking for:)

    If I am not mistaken this lens will be in the market starting today 1st of march. They have not any detailed review for it yet.

    Judging from the prices in US dollars here and there it seem an expensive one though. But we should know it a bit more in couple months or so what is like.


  • Personally, I just don't see it.

    Another slow, overpriced zoom VR lens. Compare this $650 to the $200 18-55 VR of about the same speed.

    Am I missing something here?







    • #If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#
    Your name:
    E-mail:
    Telphone:

    Your comments:


    If you have any other info about WOW, looks great , Please add it free.

    Filed in enart.5isou.com |