Comparison: The Nikon 16-85mm 1:3.5-5.6 G ED loses against itself - Update 16.03.2020
At first glance, comparing a lens with itself seems pointless. But I realise that not both specimens are exactly the same.
This article is not about how good the tested lens is. The Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED is no longer available. Rather, it is about the general question of whether two examples of the same model are really exactly the same.
The 16-85mm lens is the first and only one that I own twice. That's why I can carry out such a test at my leisure. I came up with this idea because I had the impression that the second lens did not deliver the image quality that I am used to from this lens.
The background
I bought the lens over ten years ago in a kit with a Nikon D90. Unfortunately, the filter thread was slightly dented due to a fall, so I can no longer attach filters. So I bought the same lens secondhand for my converted infrared camera, which absolutely needs a filter. 200 francs seemed a reasonable price-performance ratio to me, because I always had a very good impression of this lens. It originally cost about three times as much.
I took the newly purchased lens with me on my last holiday. Back home, I realise on my PC that the photos aren't as sharp as I'm used to from the lens. I am disappointed. And I want to know why. Did I make a mistake when taking the photos or is it really the lens? And if I have made a mistake, what is it?
The test
I mount the camera on a tripod and take exactly the same picture with both lenses. Everything is set to manual: 100 ISO, aperture 8, 1/6 second exposure. Self-timer with mirror lock-up to make sure there is no camera shake. I photograph the subject with a focal length of 85, 35 and 16 millimetres, each with two shots to be on the safe side. Raw format.
At 85 millimetres, the old lens actually seems sharper to me, but I don't notice any differences at the other two focal lengths.
I repeat the test again to be on the safe side. The result remains the same. There are clear differences at 85 millimetres.
Strange focus display
The lens has a focus distance indicator. The distance to the subject in the test set-up is around 1.5 metres. At a focal length of 85 millimetres, the lens adjusts the focus accordingly to 1.5 metres. However, the more I move into the wide angle, the shorter the displayed distance becomes. At 16 millimetres, it only shows 80 cm, but the distance to the subject in focus is still 1.5 metres.
This is strange. Even stranger is that the photo becomes more or less sharp with the 80 cm displayed, while it becomes blurred when I set the distance manually (correctly).
The phenomenon occurs with both specimens, but it is more pronounced with the newer one.
This means that there are also differences between the two models. I can't say whether and how this affects the sharpness. What is clear, however, is that up to now I always believed that I wouldn't have to refocus if I just zoomed out and didn't change anything else. This is not the case, and this may well have caused me some blurred images.
AF fine tuning
Nikon offers the option of adjusting the autofocus in the camera. This can be done manually or automatically. The automatic measurement has determined the value +1 for the new 16-85mm. If I focus like this, it doesn't change the result: the other lens is sharper.
To be on the safe side, I photographed again with a correction of +3. You can go up to +20. It's no use: the photo doesn't get any sharper.
Download comparison images in full resolution.
Real and imagined differences
After the very theoretical test, I go through my photo collection again: Are the old photos with the first 16-85mm really that much better? Not so easy to say, because:
- The old photos with the D90 have a much lower resolution and are therefore not directly comparable.
- Some photos were probably taken in motion and are therefore slightly blurred, although the exposure time is very short.
- Even at 16 millimetres and aperture 8, it depends on where I set the focus point. I often didn't photograph carefully enough.
- I should probably have used the lens hood more often.
The fact is, however, that I don't have a single really sharp picture with a focal length of 85 millimetres from my holidays.
An isolated case or a common phenomenon?
I now know that the two lenses behave differently and that one is better. But I don't know whether this is an "unfortunate isolated case" or whether it happens more often.
As a tester, it's tedious for me if I can't assume that my tests are universally valid. And of course the tests aren't much use to potential buyers either.
If a lens is not able to deliver sharp images, it is of course a warranty case. Then you realise this, send it back and it will be replaced.
But things are a little different here. The second lens is not defective. It works. It just doesn't deliver the same sharpness in the telephoto range. But you don't notice that immediately. I discovered it by chance.
Have you had similar experiences?
Update, 16/03/2020
A reader writes the following comment:
Unfortunately, it remains unclear to the end whether it could be an AF problem. Please make another comparison with solid, manual focussing.
I find it very difficult to focus manually even more accurately than automatically. The viewfinder and the small LCD don't reveal the small differences well enough for me.
What I have tried, however: I tried the AF fine adjustment with all possible values. And indeed: At the -5 setting, the images are crisp and sharp. Even sharper than with the other lens.
This is actually an autofocus problem. The optics are perfectly fine. And it's a problem that you as a user can fix yourself. In this respect: it's all half as bad.
However, I am convinced that the majority of affected photographers will never find out exactly what the problem is and how they can fix it. If I hadn't known that this lens could do more, and if a reader hadn't asked again, then I too would have continued to produce only half-sharp photos. <p
19 people like this article
David Lee
Senior Editor
David.Lee@digitecgalaxus.chMy interest in IT and writing landed me in tech journalism early on (2000). I want to know how we can use technology without being used. Outside of the office, I’m a keen musician who makes up for lacking talent with excessive enthusiasm.
