I love fast glass. Fast, f/2.8 lenses have brighter viewfinders, focus much better in low light, have greater ability to freeze action and isolate the subject from the background. Plus, these lenses often have a better build quality, so they are designed to take more abuse, and handle sustained damp weather with environmental seals. Once you try a fast pro lens you will likely be hooked. I know I was. So why is a slow Nikon 16-85 f/5.6 VR lens now part of my lens collection?
In the past year I have taken my landscape photography from the easy roadside or short walk from the car shoot to the more challenging and lesser photographed backcountry. I have gotten into hiking and camping and this lets me explore little known mountain waterfalls or spectacular vistas. These are the type of shots one earns because the price is often a long and sometimes grueling hike. These captures require not just camera, lens, and tripod, but also a few bottles of water, snacks rain jacket... which can get heavy over time. My go-to lens for hikes into the unknown up through May has been my Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 lens, sometimes accompanied by a superwide 10-24mm. It is just a bit heavy but also a bit short at times. Including a 70-200 f/2.8 lens on long hikes is useful but just not something I am willing to do. I would rather go lighter and longer and further so I picked up a Nikon 16-85mm in June for these situations. The range wonderful, weight is easily manageable, and the sharpness of this lens at f/11 exceeded my expectations and held its own with fast pro glass. At first I was reluctant to seriously consider this lens since I shoot more waterfalls than I can count these days and that work is often in soft low light. I figured once I screw on a CPL or ND filter the combo of slower glass, low light and ND filters would make it tricky to focus. So far that has not been a real problem and I have put this lenses through its paces including two hikes of 3 - 4 hours in the rain.
When I ordered this lens up I planned on taking both it and my 17-55 f/2.8 with me on major trips. Happily, after two trips and some local shoots, I can say that my heavier f/2.8 can stay home and come out to play when I need its virtues. The smaller, lighter, wider field of view of the 16-85mm on a Dx body is simply great, and it has VR. Also, unlike my larger 17-55mm, it does not attract as much attention. Optical distortion at the wide end, as opposed to perspective distortion, is there but this is easily corrected and rarely a concern for landscape. If I am shooting architecture around 17-20mm this would not be my lens of choice, but neither would my faster 17-55. For that range I would use my Nikon 10-24 which has insignificant distortion in its midrange. But getting back to backcountry landscape shooting, the 16-85mm can be the only lens I need to take for many hikes. If I know my destination is ultimately a mountaintop I would add a 10-24 and possibly a fisheye in my pack. When I am up high I tend to look for the grand vista compositions and not focus, pun intended, so much on longer extractions. If my destination is exclusively a mountaintop AND it is a long trek, the 16-85 would not make the trip and I would just go with a superwide and plenty of water and snacks. I believe in the right tool for the job, faster and heavier glass can be an anchor that slows me down in certain conditions where I might prefer that extra pound to be another bottle of water. The 16-85mm is perfect for me now that I have gotten into hiking. So far I have found no practical downsides to this lens and I can highly recommend it.
