Nikon Lenses Instant Rebates at Multiple Stores, $2097 Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII; $396.96 85mm f/1.8G and many others - B&H, Amazon, Adorama

There goes that tax refund I haven't received yet... THANKS OP!! TU & Repped.

I just received my 85mm beyond happy! thanks OP

Quote from Sorid : And a lot of folks who were hoping for instant rebates for ultrawide zooms or the 105VR Micro (or even the 200/4 Micro) are disappointed as well. Still, a lot of good lenses did get the rebate.

Quote from izx : ^^ That. And more love to the 16-35 VR too!

Suuuuper angry the 16-35 f4 VR didn't make the list. But I ended up scoring a used one for 950 today. Probably going to wait another day or two to see if anyone bites on my trade 70-200 VR1 plus cash for a VR2 offer and if not use my tax return to buy the VR2 and just sell my VR1 for cash.

Where's the $1200 off a 600mm F/4 rebate? That's what I'm waiting for!

Actually as mentioned, it sucks they left out the 14-24. There aren't any wide lenses on there and I need one (plus 14-24 is the only logical one to get)!

this 24-70 is huuuuuge!

what do you guys think about the 16-85mm for $550?
i have the kit 18-55, 55-300 and 35mm prime.

thinking about getting rid of the 18-55mm since it doesn't quite get wide enough for me indoors, but the f/3.5 on the 16-85mm isn't much better for low light.

Quote from blahblahyoutoo : what do you guys think about the 16-85mm for $550? i have the kit 18-55, 55-300 and 35mm prime. thinking about getting rid of the 18-55mm since it doesn't quite get wide enough for me indoors, but the f/3.5 on the 16-85mm isn't much better for low light.

It's hard to say; how much wider do you need to go?

You could grab a wide angle zoom, like the Nikon 12-24 (review [slrgear.com]), or a comparable but half price Sigma 10-20 (review [slrgear.com]).

A wide angle zoom won't replace the 18-55 as an all purpose lens, but if you really want something noticeably wider than 18mm, those might serve you better.

My recollection from reading about the 16-85 (review [slrgear.com]) a few years back is that people who spent the money to get it almost always felt they got exactly what they wanted and post positively about the lens on forums, but there seemed to be an equal number of people who tried it or considered it and admit that it's better than the 18-55, but not much better than the 18-105, and find it to be overpriced at 2x the cost of the 18-105. The new rebates may mitigate that, however.

You could also consider the sigma 17-70 (review [slrgear.com]) and save yourself $200. Search [bit.ly] for threads like this one [dpreview.com] which point out the plusses and minuses for each lens (I think slrgear actually discusses the 17-70 relative to the 16-85).

I think you'd find the 16-85 to be sharper than the 18-55 in most areas, and while the 17-70 is sharper at certain focal lengths and apertures, it will be less consistent across the frame.

FWIW, photozone.de also has good reviews of the 18-55 [photozone.de], 16-85 [photozone.de] and 17-70 [photozone.de]. I think it shows the 17-70 having some of the best center sharpness, but the worst corners, which is think is what you'd find... the 16-85 is the sharpest across the frame, followed by the 18-55, and the 17-70 is more inconsistent, but in parts, more impressive. The sigma will also have the most distortion at its widest focal length, too, which may require post-processing correction.

Quote from blahblahyoutoo : what do you guys think about the 16-85mm for $550? i have the kit 18-55, 55-300 and 35mm prime. thinking about getting rid of the 18-55mm since it doesn't quite get wide enough for me indoors, but the f/3.5 on the 16-85mm isn't much better for low light.

3.5 on the 16-85 is the same as the 18-55 at the wide end anyways. If you want REAL wide and fast look at the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, it's pretty much the only answer to that question. If you just want a little wider and a decent bump in speed the 17-50 Tamron or Sigma are good choices. Nikon's 17-55 I feel to be overpriced given its relative performance to the 17-50 3rd party lenses. Keep in mind any of those choices at f2.8 is still only 2/3 of a stop faster, which may or may not make the difference.

The real "advantage" of the 16-85 is sharpness and distortion while giving you a wider walk around range on both ends of the spectrum. Unfortunately for indoor photography DX doesn't have a lot of fast lens options that cover the gap you're looking at. Depending on what you're shooting you may need to look at a better body, going FX or a good flash. What sort of stuff are you looking to do with the lens and what body do you shoot with now?

For those who have discover card cash back money, you can buy crutchfield.com gift cards ($40 CB = $50 GC) and buy nikon lens at crutchfield.com. I had $300 CB and converted them into $375 crutch field GC. I just bought Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G Prime Lens for $399 at crutchfield.com.

Quote from big mike : 3.5 on the 16-85 is the same as the 18-55 at the wide end anyways. If you want REAL wide and fast look at the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, it's pretty much the only answer to that question. If you just want a little wider and a decent bump in speed the 17-50 Tamron or Sigma are good choices. Nikon's 17-55 I feel to be overpriced given its relative performance to the 17-50 3rd party lenses. Keep in mind any of those choices at f2.8 is still only 2/3 of a stop faster, which may or may not make the difference. The real "advantage" of the 16-85 is sharpness and distortion while giving you a wider walk around range on both ends of the spectrum. Unfortunately for indoor photography DX doesn't have a lot of fast lens options that cover the gap you're looking at. Depending on what you're shooting you may need to look at a better body, going FX or a good flash. What sort of stuff are you looking to do with the lens and what body do you shoot with now?

thanks.

shooting a d5100 currently (first dslr).
mostly special occasion stuff like bdays and family gatherings (no kids).
might take it with me on a trip to aruba this spring.

Quote from kahluatex : It's hard to say; how much wider do you need to go? You could grab a wide angle zoom, like the Nikon 12-24 (review [slrgear.com]), or a comparable but half price Sigma 10-20 (review [slrgear.com]). A wide angle zoom won't replace the 18-55 as an all purpose lens, but if you really want something noticeably wider than 18mm, those might serve you better. My recollection from reading about the 16-85 (review [slrgear.com]) a few years back is that people who spent the money to get it almost always felt they got exactly what they wanted and post positively about the lens on forums, but there seemed to be an equal number of people who tried it or considered it and admit that it's better than the 18-55, but not much better than the 18-105, and find it to be overpriced at 2x the cost of the 18-105. The new rebates may mitigate that, however. You could also consider the sigma 17-70 (review [slrgear.com]) and save yourself $200. Search [bit.ly] for threads like this one [dpreview.com] which point out the plusses and minuses for each lens (I think slrgear actually discusses the 17-70 relative to the 16-85). I think you'd find the 16-85 to be sharper than the 18-55 in most areas, and while the 17-70 is sharper at certain focal lengths and apertures, it will be less consistent across the frame. FWIW, photozone.de also has good reviews of the 18-55 [photozone.de], 16-85 [photozone.de] and 17-70 [photozone.de]. I think it shows the 17-70 having some of the best center sharpness, but the worst corners, which is think is what you'd find... the 16-85 is the sharpest across the frame, followed by the 18-55, and the 17-70 is more inconsistent, but in parts, more impressive. The sigma will also have the most distortion at its widest focal length, too, which may require post-processing correction.

thanks. just read some reviews on the 16-85mm and it has me leaning towards the 18-200mm for the same price.
was looking to consolidate to one lens since I find that i'm not really using the 55-300mm as much as i thought due to the hassle of switching lenses (it came in a package deal with the d5100 and 18-55mm).

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews...dict.shtml

i know, i'm sorta all over the place now, haha.

Quote from blahblahyoutoo : thanks. shooting a d5100 currently (first dslr). mostly special occasion stuff like bdays and family gatherings (no kids). might take it with me on a trip to aruba this spring.

Based on your usage, I'd invest in a decent flash like the SB-700 or a used SB-600. Even the cheap SB-400 used with the bounce swivel might really help out. A lot of people have a hard time getting used to how to use flash correctly and therefore try and stick with faster lenses, but especially with a "budget" camera you'll get much better results indoors with good flash techinique than you'll ever get with high ISO and a fast lens. They really just don't make a fast lens that's going to be both wider than say a 35 1.8 nikon and still be affordable. If you really don't want to learn to use flash you can drop 5-600 bucks or more on a wider prime (sigma 20 1.8 comes to mind) but those are real expensive as they're designed for full frame cameras. I'm actually surprised Nikon still hasn't released a cheap wide prime for DX only. Though it could be a case of desiginig the lens for DX doesn't save that much (really long telephotos and really wide lenses have to be almost big enough to cover an FX sensor anyways in most cases so it's not worth making a only slightly cheaper DX lens in real wide or real long focal lengths).

Quote from mrksale : For those who have discover card cash back money, you can buy crutchfield.com gift cards ($40 CB = $50 GC) and buy nikon lens at crutchfield.com. I had $300 CB and converted them into $375 crutch field GC. I just bought Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G Prime Lens for $399 at crutchfield.com.

Hmmm.. that's how much it really costs today.. I hope you are talking about having bought it a while ago when that was a great price

Quote from k000 : Hmmm.. that's how much it really costs today.. I hope you are talking about having bought it a while ago when that was a great price

I just bought it. I had to pay $24 from my packet (plus $375 GC)