16-80 f/2.8-4 ED VR vs 17-55 f/2.8G IF-ED on a 7100

and is f/2.8 from 16-40 (someone correct me if I am wrong here)

The maximum aperture for the 16-80/2.8-4 changes with focal length as follows:

• 16mm = f/2.8
  
• 24mm = f/3
  
• 35mm = f/3.3
  
• 50mm = f/3.5
  
• 80mm = f/4
  

Looking for recommendations from folks who have used both lenses on a 7000-series camera

Can't help you with that specifically. I owned the 17-55 and used it on a D200 and D300. Liked the rendering but not the limited range and not the bulk and weight either. Used a 18-140 and 16-85 on a D7100/D7200. Liked the range on the 16-85 but found the 18-140 a tad sharper. Then got the D500 and the 16-80/2.8-4. Main drawback of the lens is the price - not an issue if purchased together with a body at a discount (and used/refurbished prices are finally coming down too). Focal length range of the lens is close to ideal for a wide range of shooting scenarios and the lens performs very well. I would not trade it for the 17-55 - or any other 16/17/18-50 f/2.8 lens out there (all of which are smaller and lighter than the 17-55 and some are optically as good if not better). Lacking VR, I consider the 17-55 now more a specialized than a general shooting lens - and if I wanted a constant fast aperture and superb performance, then I would get the Sigma 18-35/1.8 and Sigma 50-100/1.8; to me the 16-80 suffices though.

I haven't tried the 17-55 but really like the 16-80 on my D7100. I like the range for traveling, and would miss both extremes if I didn't have them. On a D7100 it's sharp enough that if 80 is a little short you can get away with some cropping,. The VR is quite good too. I can''t compare it to the 17-55 but it seems better for flare than either the 16-85 or the 18-140, and the front element stays clean and doesn't seem to fog up as badly in harsh weather.

It may not matter much, but I like the squared-off hood on the 16-80. Though bulky, it's fairly sturdy, latches on well, and has enough clearance that you can turn a polarizing filter with it on.

e.t.a. and, again perhaps not worth much, but the hood, though it still shades the internal flash close up, is not as bad as some, and it sits nicely on a table top.

and if I wanted a constant fast aperture and superb performance, then I would get the Sigma 18-35/1.8 and Sigma 50-100/1.8

Spot on!

If you're going to carry them a long way, yes they are heavy, but for shorter trips and studio use etc they're unbeatable. They have a limited zoom range, but the degree of cropping possible, because they are so sharp, adds to the long end considerably.

I hated my 16-85mm. Maybe I got a lemon? Never tried either the 17-55mm or 16-80mm.

Way back in 2004, I bought the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX, and it was excellent on the D2X (12MP, 2005) in those days. You D7100 has 24MP and much better high-ISO results. I would get a modern lens. The 16-80 is a good choice.

Thank you, Shun.

I haven't tried the 17-55 but really like the 16-80 on my D7100. I like the range for traveling, and would miss both extremes if I didn't have them. On a D7100 it's sharp enough that if 80 is a little short you can get away with some cropping,. The VR is quite good too. I can''t compare it to the 17-55 but it seems better for flare than either the 16-85 or the 18-140, and the front element stays clean and doesn't seem to fog up as badly in harsh weather.

 

It may not matter much, but I like the squared-off hood on the 16-80. Though bulky, it's fairly sturdy, latches on well, and has enough clearance that you can turn a polarizing filter with it on.

 

e.t.a. and, again perhaps not worth much, but the hood, though it still shades the internal flash close up, is not as bad as some, and it sits nicely on a table top.

Thank you, appreciate the info.

I have only used a friend's 16-85mm AF-S VR and also a loaner 16-80mm/f2.8-4 AF-S VR from Nikon as part of a kit with the D500. Both are fine lenses. I found corner sharpness at 16mm quite good for the 16-85, which my friend purchased used. However, neither the 16-85 and 16-80 has the "pro" type construction. On the other hand, the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX has similar construction has the various 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S from Nikon.

I am not particularly interested in the Sigma 18-35mm/f1.8 and 50-100mm/f1.8. Sigma Art lenses are well make and optically very good, but they are heavy and those zooms have limited zoom range. If you buy both of those, you will have a pretty big gap in the middle between 35mm and 50mm, and you will be changing lenses very often unless you use two bodies, one for each lens. DX is not going to give you the best high ISO results. IMO f1.4, f1.8 lenses are best for FX to get shallow depth of field and high-ISO results indoors and at night.

50-100mm/f1.8. Sigma Art lenses are well make and optically very good

For high fps without a D5, a D500 with the 50-100mm 1.8 makes a good sports camera if ISOs don't need to go > 6400.

Shun,

OK, a controversial approach reference the statement “DX is not going to give you the best high ISO results” :)

If you are looking for fast, cost effective standard range zooms I don’t think that statement applies. I’m assuming by high ISO results you are talking about the best noise and dynamic range possible in an image for the given available light.

D7500, Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 at 1.8 for £2,300

For an FX equivalent of 27-53 and 75-150 at 2.7 I guess you’ll need something like: D750, 24-70 and 70-200 at 2.8. This kit is £3,500-£4,500 depending on lens brand.

Across the shared ranges there is no sensor advantage as you are a stop slower on FX (so higher ISO and so increased noise and lower DR). The physics says the photos are exactly the same.

System weight and maybe size are similar, again depends on FX lens brands. So if DX Sigmas zooms are too big and heavy I don’t think going FX zooms will change things for either size or quality.

For all that extra money spent you do get the 53-75 range filled (is this range that popular “you will be changing lenses very often”?) and the longer 150-200 range and probably VR.

Maybe worth the £1,000-£2,000+ (+50%-100%) extra cost? I’ve certainly been drifting to this set up over the years.

Fast primes on FX will get you that extra light but at a significant cost, weight, lack of DoF and lens changing compromise. What 1.4 or 1.8 prime can you use for the “pretty big gap” between 35-50 DX (53-75 FX)? The 58mm 1.4 at £1,500 fits nicely in the middle.

But if you just want top class standard range zoom photography a DX system is difficult to beat for the price and performance. If you are OK to stop there fine, but in the future if you want big diameter fast glass and the benefits that can bring you will need to ditch DX as FX is where they are.

Just food for thought,

Jon

@jon_savage

The Sigma 50-100/1.8 is a great lens, but it needs more reach to compare with the FX 70-200.

Sigma had a comparable 50-150/2.8 but discontinued it, in favor of the faster but shorter 50-100/1.8.

The shorter zoom range was the design compromise to get the faster f/1.8 aperture.

Similarly the 18-35/1.8 is faster but shorter in zoom range than the FX 24-70/2.8 or the DX Nikon 17-55/2.8 and Sigma's own 17-50/2.8.

Will the shorter zoom range hurt? Will the faster speed off-set the shorter zoom range? Yes/no, it depends on the specific shooting situation.

A 2:1 zoom has always been tough. The zoom range has to land just right, or it becomes a tough sell.

As a set the 18-35 + 50-100 have reasonable coverage and transition. Individually, less so.

In LOW light, FAST glass generally wins, and that extra stop may be the winner.

About FX vs DX in low light. It is the capture area of the pixel.

The theory is for a similar sensor capacity, say 24MP, the FX pixel is larger than the DX pixel, thus capturing more light.

This is the same discussion the MF guys have over the FX guys. MF has an even larger sensor, thus at the same MP, the larger MF pixel captures even more light.

How well the faster f/1.8 DX lens offsets the larger FX sensor, that needs specific testing. It may wash and be similar, it may not, I don't know.

About changing lenses, it really depends on the situation and what you are shooting.

If you are shooting at that transition point, it can be a PiA.

The 35-50 DX / 53-75FX gap was a common gap in the film days. Actually the gap was even bigger back then, 28-50-105/135. But that was back when we only shot primes.

hose zooms have limited zoom range

I think they need to be viewed not as zoom lenses but a narrow selection of primes in one package. In FX-equivalent terms, a DX 18-35 contains the FX-equivalent focal lengths of 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm focal lengths and the DX 50-100 contains the FX-equivalent 85mm, 105mm, and 135mm. In other words, an FX 35mm prime and an FX 105mm prime with "wiggle room" that encompasses at least two more popular FX focal lengths. Given the sparsity of Nikon DX primes, the two Sigma Art lenses actually filled a niche/gap. Not many would carry 28, 35, 50, 85, 105, 135 primes simultaneously - those who do might be quite happy with the 18-35 and 50-100 "zooms".

he 35-50 DX / 53-75FX gap was a common gap in the film days

It's only a gap if compared to zoom lenses; when carrying primes, there's no gap at all as there barely a focal length available that fits in between.

Shun,

OK, a controversial approach reference the statement “DX is not going to give you the best high ISO results” :)

 

If you are looking for fast, cost effective standard range zooms I don’t think that statement applies. I’m assuming by high ISO results you are talking about the best noise and dynamic range possible in an image for the given available light.

 

D7500, Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 at 1.8 for £2,300

 

For an FX equivalent of 27-53 and 75-150 at 2.7 I guess you’ll need something like: D750, 24-70 and 70-200 at 2.8. This kit is £3,500-£4,500 depending on lens brand.

 

Jon

Jon, I am afraid that is a totally unfair comparison.

As I mentioned before, if you buy a 18-35 and a 50-100, for DX, you have a huge gap between 35mm and 50mm, equivalent to approximately 50mm and 75mm for FX. That is a very useful focal length range that is completely not covered.

On the other hand, a 24-70mm/f2.8 and a 70-200mm/f2.8 will give you continuous coverage from 24mm to 200mm. IMO that would be a much better arrangement, not to mention that 200mm on FX is considerably longer than 100mm on DX so that your zoom range is much wider. Additionally, if one gets a D750 or a Z6, both if which I own, the high-ISO result is phenomenal. and I would couple that with a fixed f1.8 or f1.4 lens if I need to shoot under low-light conditions. I happen to have the Sigma 35mm/f1.4 Art in the F mount and Nikon's 85mm/f1.4 AF-S, as well as the Nikon 35mm/f1.8 S for the Z6.

Due to sensor cost, an FX body is always going to be more expensive than an equivalent DX body. That is a given, but some of the lenses that can give you great low-light results are not necessarily expensive. E.g. Nikon's 85mm/f1.8 AF-S is well below $500 in these days.

35-50mm is truly a gap, but cropping the 35mm to 40/45/mm has very little effect on IQ, just a loss of pixels. I expect it's a similar loss to the difference between a D850 and a D750.

If I can't zoom with my feet, I always have the monstrous Sigma 40mm 1.4 to fill the 'gap'.....:cool:

Now if Sigma made a 30-60mm 1.8....;)

Shun,

“I am afraid that is a totally unfair comparison” - I disagree. For someone looking at standard DX zoom options the comparison was intended as useful information to consider in the cost, performance, size and weight trade-offs they might be willing to take. It was especially a fair comparison as it was highlighting all the differences.

The comparison is:

Two lens DX system covering, “27-150”/”2.7” with a 53-75 gap £2,300 (less if as the op already has a DX body)

Two lens FX system covering “24-200” “2.8” with no gap and maybe VR for £3,500-£4,500.

“Low light performance”: exactly the same. Weight and size: in the same ballpark.

You added a third/forth comparison (that may or may not be considered a totally fair comparison to a zoom kit :)):

Multi 1.8 prime lens FX system, lens examples could be some of: 24mm £650, 35mm £435, 50mm £125, 85mm £425, 135mm f2 £1190 180mm f2.8 £750

Multi 1.4 prime lens FX system, lenses like 24mm £1,800, 35mm £1,600, 50mm £390, 58mm £1,500 85mm £1,500, 200mm f2 £5,000,

That “very useful focal length range” of 53-75 is hard to fill with a fast prime. Obviously, these FX prime systems have the best light gathering capabilities (biggest diameter glass) but at cost, weight and the lens swapping and missing focal range inconveniences.

The point I was picking on was you stating that DX is not going to give you the best low light performance. If you are talking zoom DX then the circumstances described can give DX the best (if best = FX) image quality but only in the above focal ranges. The DX price you pay to equal the FX zoom low light performance is it's only in the limited zoom ranges and also, if it’s important to you, it saves you money.

You pays yer money and you takes yer choice. I’m just describing one of the many choices.

Gary,

“About FX vs DX in low light. It is the capture area of the pixel.

The theory is for a similar sensor capacity, say 24MP, the FX pixel is larger than the DX pixel, thus capturing more light.”

That theory is really only applicable if you use the sensor like a solar panel in a field under the sky. Like a camera body with the lens removed.

With a camera system there is also a lens to consider. The lens must focus the available light from the field of view onto an image circle the size of the sensor or you obviously can’t get an image! You can choose to spread that amount of light either thinly (dimmer) over a larger area or thicker (brighter) over a smaller area.

So if camera systems have different sensor sizes but have the same size* lens and have the same field of view they will in theory perform the same in every aspect when you view the final image. Any differences we see will be in things like manufacturing and technology limitations and not due to the different sensor sizes.

A sensor can only collect the light it’s given. What you are taking a picture of doesn’t get any brighter because the sensor the other side of the lens changes size, the amount of light passing through the lens stays the same.

Jon

* same lens size as in the aperture area that lets the light in

Shun,

 

“I am afraid that is a totally unfair comparison” - I disagree. For someone looking at standard DX zoom options the comparison was intended as useful information to consider in the cost, performance, size and weight trade-offs they might be willing to take. It was especially a fair comparison as it was highlighting all the differences.

 

The comparison is:

 

Two lens DX system covering, “27-150”/”2.7” with a 53-75 gap £2,300 (less if as the op already has a DX body)

Two lens FX system covering “24-200” “2.8” with no gap and maybe VR for £3,500-£4,500.

 

“Low light performance”: exactly the same. Weight and size: in the same ballpark.

.

Jon, once again, your Sigma 18-35mm/f1.8 DX + 50-100mm/f1.8 DX actually had three gaps, 18-35 DX is like 27-53 FX, and 50-100 DX is like 75-150 FX. You are missing 24-27mm on the wide end, 53-75 in the mid range, and 151-200 on the long end. I by far prefer the 24-70mm zoom vs the older 28-70mm precisely because the extra few mm on the wide end makes a big difference. To put it bluntly, IMO 18-35 + 50-100 is a totally unacceptable two-lens combination for DX, unless you add other lenses to fill in those gaps. That means additional cost and weight, and you will be switching lenses like crazy. The problem is those Sigmas are 2x zooms with limited ranges. 18-35 in FX is a great zoom range for wide since it pretty much covers all your wide-angle needs, and in fact I love my 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S. 18-35 DX is not that useful zoom range.

Concerning lens prices, as I mentioned above, if I need to capture very high-ISO under low light, I would use lenses such as the 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, etc., either f1.4 or f1.8. A lot of those f1.8 versions are quite affordable. You don't necessarily need those expensive 24-70mm/f2.8 and 70-200mm/f2.8, although Sigma has made some of those that are not as crazily expensive as the Nikon versions. There are simply no DX lens that are so fast that can give you equivalent performance as f1.4, f1.8 FX lenses.

Shun, it’s not my Sigma!

I don't mind what the op buys but I obviously do care that he gets exposed to many options and understands their compromises. Otherwise I guess I wouldn’t contribute to the discussion to hopefully help him make the right choice for his situation.

Dieter brought up the suggestion “if I wanted a constant fast aperture and superb performance, then I would get the Sigma 18-35/1.8 and Sigma 50-100/1.8” and made the interesting comparison seeing them as a full set of standard primes without the cost and changes.

Mike agreed with the suggestion (“spot on”) and suggested cropping may be an acceptable way to get the gaps filled.

You said DX couldn’t get the best image quality and suggested it was too heavy and discussed primes on a different system. I was trying to add some factual data to various opinions to put all the pros and cons in some context. Only the op knows what his budget, usage and acceptable compromises are and if they are totally unacceptable to him or not.

My choice was a £200 used Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VR for my D7100. Very nearly bought the Sigma but in the end decided to save and upgrade to FX.

Dieter brought up the suggestion “if I wanted a constant fast aperture and superb performance, then I would get the Sigma 18-35/1.8 and Sigma 50-100/1.8” and made the interesting comparison seeing them as a full set of standard primes without the cost and changes.

I was at one point seriously considering the 18-35/1.8 - I was willing to deal with the size and weight if only the lens started at 16mm instead of 18; there simply wasn't (and still isn't) an option to cover that range with fast AF-S primes (FX or DX) on a DX body. Adding an FX body to my bag ended any further consideration of the 18-35/1.8. With regard to the 50-100/1.8 - I only tried it once in the store and was taken aback at how heavy that lens is. It nonetheless would be my first choice if I was into portrait shooting and for whatever reason would not want to move away from DX.

I wouldn't want the 18-35/50-100 pair for general shooting - too large and heavy; I could only justify those two lenses for applications that require shooting wide open or close to it at almost all times. Similarly, I wouldn't want the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 combo for general shooting with an FX body - too large and too heavy and to me only justified if most of the shooting requires f/2.8 or close to it.

To me the decision between the 16-80 and 17-55 is an easy one - for general shooting all the advantages are with the 16-80. For scenarios where the constant f/2.8 is an advantage or even a necessity, I'd pick the 17-55 (or more likely one of the third party offerings as the Nikon is just to hefty and bulky).

I was at one point seriously considering the 18-35/1.8 - I was willing to deal with the size and weight if only the lens started at 16mm instead of 18; there simply wasn't (and still isn't) an option to cover that range with fast AF-S primes (FX or DX) on a DX body. Adding an FX body to my bag ended any further consideration of the 18-35/1.8. With regard to the 50-100/1.8 - I only tried it once in the store and was taken aback at how heavy that lens is. It nonetheless would be my first choice if I was into portrait shooting and for whatever reason would not want to move away from DX.

 

I wouldn't want the 18-35/50-100 pair for general shooting - too large and heavy; I could only justify those two lenses for applications that require shooting wide open or close to it at almost all times. Similarly, I wouldn't want the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 combo for general shooting with an FX body - too large and too heavy and to me only justified if most of the shooting requires f/2.8 or close to it.

 

To me the decision between the 16-80 and 17-55 is an easy one - for general shooting all the advantages are with the 16-80. For scenarios where the constant f/2.8 is an advantage or even a necessity, I'd pick the 17-55 (or more likely one of the third party offerings as the Nikon is just to hefty and bulky).

I agree about the weight of the 50-100/1.8, about the same as the 70-200/2.8. I went with the 70-200/4 at half the weight.

Not being young anymore, weight has become an issue. And my style of shooting does not work with a monopod, as I find the monopod too restrictive for panning.

Also, the 2:1 zoom range of the f/1.8 Sigmas makes them too specialized for me. As a hobbyist, I need a more GP lens.

IF I was in the business, my needs may be different than for me as a hobbyist.

re 17-50/2.8, don't get the Sigma for fast action/sports. The zoom ring turns the WRONG way (for a Nikon user). :eek: Using the school's Sigma was so frustrating, that I gave up. I am now looking at the Tamron, where it's zoom ring turns the same way as the Nikon zoom.