Nikon 16-85/3.5-5.6 vs Nikon 16-80/2.8-4 lens

I currently have the Nikon D 7100 SLR with a Nikkor 16-85/3.5-5.6 G AFS-S DX ED (VR) lens. I have been happy with it for the last several years. I am wondering whether getting the Nikkor 16/2.8-4 E AF-S DX ED (VR) makes any sense for the extra $400 minus resale for the 16-85. Is the extra stop of light and perhaps better VR worth the extra money spent? Is the IQ, lens coating, etc. also worth springing for essentially the same focal length? I plan to stay with my D 7100. Thank you.

Do you find yourself having trouble getting a slightly faster shutter speed or slightly lower ISO setting when you're at the longer end of your current lens? Such designs always have some noticeable compromises, so whether the minor improvements are worth it to you has more to do with your shooting style and subject matter (and lighting) than it does the small technical differences. Only you know if that extra little bit of light gathering will help you. It's worth looking over your previous work to see how often you appear to be shooting with the lens wide open, vs stopped down some.

I have the same lens as you, with my 7000. I also have a bunch of full frame lens I also use on my F6 and F100.

 

This lens is plenty high quality and I don't see you needing to waste money on a DX lens you will likely not see any difference in. Save your $$ and upgrade to a full frame lens, when you can. The added advantage of using full frame lens on a DX sensor is it only uses the centre of the lens......the flaws tend to be on the outside of the lens.

".....the flaws tend to be on the outside of the lens."

- Too true, too true! The major flaws, at least in my case, are located about 6 inches behind the viewfinder.

 

I'd consider spending the money on something like a Tamron SP 70-300mm VC telezoom. It'll extend your picture opportunities, rather than just duplicating them. Or a 60mm macro lens if you're into close ups.

Edited August 16, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

My wife uses the 16-80 as her main lens on a D500 and is very satisfied with it. I owned the 16-85 and 18-140 and the 16-80 performs slightly better than either of them - but not sufficiently so as to warrant its exorbitant asking price (not that the 16-85 is worth its $700 asking price either). We purchased the lens as part of a kit with the D500 when said kit was discounted heavily, otherwise we most likely would have passed on that lens altogether.

 

I like Matt's advice - whether or not replacing the 16-85 with the 16-80 makes sense depends on what and how you actually shoot.

 

I had a hard time deciding between the 16-85 and the 18-140 with the latter having the more convenient larger range, being optically slightly better but lacking the 2mm at the lower end. In addition, I always considered f/5.6 at the long end of the 16-85 to be too slow in some circumstances. Despite them being rather convenient, I have now given up on mid-range zooms altogether as they entail just too many compromises and seem to be the range that every company struggles with to get performances up to a high level. Either the range is too narrow (as with the f/2.8 17/18-50 lenses) for walk-around, or the optical performance suffers even though prices are sky high (16-80 and 24-120); for good optical performance one needs to spend on a 24-70/2.8 and then needs to haul around 2 lbs of lens (plus one more to cover the wider focal length).

 

If optimizing optical performance is the goal, then the set Tokina 11-20/2.8, Sigma 18-35/1.8, and Sigma 50-100/1.8 is hard to beat but it costs a pretty penny and will certainly add some weight to your bag. On the plus side, there's no need to add primes to the bag anymore.

It depends on what you shoot and under what light conditions. If you take primarily landscapes and set f 8, I doubt if you will see any difference. My advice is to always rent a lens you are thinking of buying and use it the way you would use it if you owned it. Evaluate the images taken with it against the ones taken with your current lens and then make your decision. In the US there are good lens rental firms. And one might exist in the city where you live. Check out lensrentals.com and borrowlens.com.

I purchased the 16-85mm lens a few years ago to replace my 18-105mm lens. I didn't see a significant increase in quality, but I did like that extra 2mm on the wide end. And, I didn't like the f/5.6 on the long end either. So, I sold the 16-85mm and applied the proceeds towards my purchase of the 10-24mm lens. But, the D7500 kit with the 16-80mm(when it becomes available) may provide me with the opportunity to upgrade at a "reasonable" cost; The full price for that lens is just too much for me to pull the trigger. I'll then be taking my 10-24mm lens with me less often.

While I own neither one, I have used both the 16-85mm/f3.5-5.6 DX and 16-80mm/f2.8-4 DX. I had a loaner 16-80 with the D500 for testing. Both of those are fine lenses optically, but the 16-85mm is f5.6 on its long end and therefore is quite slow. Also both are mostly plastic "prosumer" lenses. If you need a faster f2.8-4 lens, by all means get the newer 16-80mm. Otherwise, I doubt that you will see much optical improvement (other than AF speed and accuracy from a faster lens).

 

As usual, the better way to get the 16-80 is from those who purchase a D500 kit with deep discount and re-sell the 16-80 that they don't need. However, Nikon's warranty doesn't transfer to someone other than the original owner.

I thank you for all your comments. Skip

the better way to get the 16-80 is from those who purchase a D500 kit with deep discount

There's currently also a $470 discount on the D7500/16-80 kit - total cost $1847 instead of $2317. The discount is $570 for the D500/16-80 kit ($2497 instead of $3067). Prices of used 16-80 from reputable dealers still hover above $850 and on ebay most are above $700 (though occasionally once can get one for less). Sigma's 17-70/2.8-4 Contemporary is a direct competitor (with less range) that costs $500 new but from the reviews I've seen doesn't quite catch up to the Nikkor.

I've had the 16-85VR, and was generally very pleased with it, especially as a landscape-type lens. However, I practically always carried a second lens with it, for those occassions where shallow DoF was what I wanted, or where I really needed shutterspeeds. To me, the 35mm f/1.8DX made a very natural companion to it, especially since that lens is small, cheap and performs well at wide apertures.

As said above, you need to determine for yourself whether the 1 extra stop of the 16-80 is worth it; but consider getting a cheap, fast prime as the 35mm DX or the 50mm f/1.8G alongside if aperture is the main concern.

 

My 16-85VR once dropped from a table on a tiled floor, and landed on the long side of its barrel - luckily. Not a scratch. Yes, it's a prosumer lens and plastic, but it's not the bargain-build of lenses as the 18-55's either.