Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I missed one. 70-300 VR is great, but 70mm is often too much and 18-135mm lens has no VR, so "no flash" in museums, aquariums etc. usually means no pictures. Most Nikon fans probably wonder if this new lens is a worthy alternative to 18-200 VR. 18-200 VR lens covers the range of this lens almost completely, adds plenty on telephoto end and costs about as much. So optical quality of 16-85mm VR lens better be very good. Not many reviews and test results are available on the web at the time of writing. I spent hours searching for test data and found only one French site that had detailed test results. The major weaknesses of 18-200 lens - bad distortion and corner softness are clearly addressed in this new lens. Distortion is about half of what you get with 18-200 lens, and sharpnes is on par with 70-300mm VR. The only weakness is relatively harsh bokeh - out of focus background blurring. My personal experience with the lens is pretty much in line with formal tests. The lens is as sharp as it gets. Tansitions between two objects of different color are usually one pixhel wide. Distortion, noticeable at 16mm is not very bad and quickly disappears as you increase focal length. VR works like a charm. This lens is not fast, but professionals should have incentive to pay 3 times as much for their toys. I think 16-85mm VR and 70-300 VR lenses is probably all amateur like me needs, with light and compact 16-85mm VR lens mounted on camera most of the time.