Nikon 16-80 vs Nikon 16-85 vs Sigma 17-70?

Does anyone have experience with these lenses? I sold my 16-85 VR last year to help fund an SB-700 and I'd like to know how much better the newer lens is compared to the 16-85? I picked up an 18-140 which is a great lens, my copy is very sharp but I miss the 16mm end of the range. If the image quality and VR isn't significant I'll buy another 16-85 or possibly the Sigma 17-70 OS but then I'd only gain 1mm of extra width. What would you recommend?

Have a look at this thread: Nikon 16-85/3.5-5.6 vs Nikon 16-80/2.8-4 lens

 

Adding to and changing what I wrote there: in addition to my wife's 16-80, I now have one too - used on a D500; I got lucky on a Nikon-refurbished sale where Nikon USA offered an additional discount that brought the price down into the same price territory as the "discounted kit". Obviously I have no longer "given up on mid-range zooms" (as stated in the above linked thread) - the 16-80 to me is the best compromise between the constant f/2.8 16/17/18-50/55 zooms (range too limited) and the other larger-focal length range but f/5.6-at-the-longer-end zooms. Luckily, I never had to decide whether I'd be willing to purchase the lens at full price; even used the lens isn't exactly cheap.

 

I did own the 16-85 (used on D300 and D7100) and 18-140 (used on D7100 and D7200) at some point (as well as the 17-55/2.8 (used on a D200 and D300). The 18-140 performed slightly better than the 16-85 on the 24MP camera - I have never done a direct comparison of the 16-80 to either of the lenses mentioned though.

Dieter, thank you, that was the kind of information I was looking for. I've been looking for a deal that's too good to walk away from regarding the 16-80. I've used the Sigma in the past and really liked it but the 16-80 wasn't around at that time. You don't realize how much you miss a lens until it's gone.

You don't realize how much you miss a lens until it's gone.

Luckily, so far I've always managed to get something better or more suitable and hence have not had the feeling of missing a lens that I have disposed of. There have been a few I thought I would miss (Nikon DX 12-24/4, Micro-Nikkor 70-180) but once they were out of sight they were quickly out of mind too.

I have had both, and both work pretty nicely, but my 16-85, an older one with hard usage, developed an intermittent aperture problem (in the midst of a trip to Bhutan, of course!), along with a bit more flare than I would like. It is decently sharp, but was never as good as the 18-140. For a while Adorama was selling refurbished 16-80 lenses for a killer price, less than any good used ones I saw, and I indulged in a new one of those, and it's been very nice. It's a little sharper than the 16-85, right up there with the 18-140 I think, and of course with the E aperture it does not have any aperture lever issues, and it behaves well with regard to flare. Unlike the 16-85 the new lens, with some kind of high-zoot coating, never seems to fog up. As a bonus, although the supplied hood is very large and cumbersome, it does not block the flash as badly as a round one, and it has space to turn a polarizing filter. I think the VR works a little better too, and together with the little increase in aperture, it makes the lens a little nicer to use in low light. I just got back from a trip to New Zeland and Australia with mine, and it worked surprisingly well even for hand held night shots.

 

Anyway, I like mine.

Matthew appreciate you sharing your experience with the 16-80VR, I'm looking and waiting for a good deal. It'll be used this summer with my D7200 when I vacation this summer. Last year it was the D800 + 24-120 f4 VR but that is a heavy combination. Looking forward to the weight savings.