16-85 F2.8

[jenkins]

<p>Might be a silly question but would this be a colossus in size and weight if they were to make one? I love the focal length of this lens but I have been thinking about a 2.8 zoom for a while now and having some difficulty, I don't really fancy the 17-55mm without VR.</p>

<p>Do any of you use the 24-70mm with a cropped sensor? How do you get on with it? Would this be a strange purchase seeing as I already have a 16-85, I mainly shoot people and landscapes.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>A 16-85mm/f2.8?? Simon, are you talking about a DX lens or FX lens?</p>

<p>If we are talking about FX, as far as I know there is no FX lens that starts at below 18mm on the wide end and is longer than 40mm on the long end. Canon has a 17-40mm/f4, which is a full 35mm frame lens. All other FX lenses that start from 16, 17mm such as Nikon's 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR, 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S, and Canon's 16-35mm/f2.8 are all within the wide-angle range.</p>

<p>If you are talking about DX lenses, Nikon has the 16-85mm/f3.5-5.6 DX, 18-200mm DX, 18-300mm DX, etc. But those are much slower lenses at f5.6 on the long end.</p>

<p>Any 16-85mm/f2.8, even DX, would have been huge and expensive, with questionable image quality since it would be a 5x zoom. Needless to say, any lens that is expensive and with poor image quality is hard to sell.</p>

[georges_pelpel]

<p>The 24-70/2.8 is not VR either. Yet it is excellent and so is the 17-55 if you shoot DX.</p>

<p>A 16-85/2.8 would be very big, even without VR, but it would be a great range. :-)</p>

[jenkins]

<p>Ah I forgot the 24-70/2.8 was no VR also, it's quite difficult to consider a new zoom after owning the 16-85mm as it covers so much.</p>

<p><strong>A 16-85mm/f2.8?? Simon, are you talking about a DX lens or FX lens?</strong><br /> <br /> For DX Shun, I just wondered if it was feesable to produce as I love this focal range.It makes me want to go full frame sometimes when I look at their lens line ups, I'm thinking about it a lot lately. I am toying with the idea of a 24/70 but it's not going to do very well for landscape on a D7000.<strong><br /></strong></p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>The fact that there isn't a 24-85/2.8 for FX and nothing with more range than 17-55 on DX seems to indicate that a 16-85/2.8 DX is indeed out of the realm of possibility (as is its FX equivalent: 24-120/2.8). Though one cannot be certain as there is also the possibility that it isn't produced because of the overlap with the 70-200/2.8 (really begs the question why in the evolution from 35-70 to 28-70 to 24-70 not a single millimeter was added at the longer end?). Also, it might be technically feasible but too expensive and/or large/heavy to attract buyers. A 16-60/2.8 DX might be possible but even a 16-70/2.8 DX might already be pushing things too far. In addition - none of the camera manufacturers is exactly bending over backwards to put out high-end DX lenses nowadays (or ever).</p>

<p>Technology has progressed since back then - but I recall reading in an article about the then new 25-50/4 that in order to add one millimeter at the short end the optical designer has to give up several at the long end.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>There is a lens that come to my mind... the Tamron 28-105/2.8. It sounds nice with such a long range for a f2.8 lens, but it was not a big success. It has a compact size... probably in accordance with its performance. A "longer ranged" 16-85 with a f2.8 constant aperture could be even less feasible to produce.<br>

<br /> The closest in this range could be the 24-120/4 on FX, still with a constant aperture but one stop slower.<br /> Personally, on a cropped sensor camera, I`d not use a 24-70. If I were in DX I`d have kept my 17-55. The lack of VR has never been an issue to me. And I liked the smaller size. My other lens could have been your 16-85.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>The D300 (DX) was expensive enough when released, at least to me it was. Why would they not make quality zoom lenses for it? Would the result be that much worse than a quality zoom lens on a FX camera?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>Why would they not make quality zoom lenses for it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They do: 17-55 f/2.8, 16-85VR - these are certainly high quality zoom lenses. The kitlenses are good quality too. The gap in DX lenses is fast wide primes, otherwise it really is not some stepchild in the line-up; plenty good zooms for it. Their results are not worse than FX cameras.<br>

In moving to FX, I replaced the 16-85VR with the 24-120 f/4VR. For landscapes, quality-wise, I find them extremely close. The 16-85 was a lot lighter and more compact, though - and a good 30% cheaper too.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>Don't ignore third party 17-50 f/2.8 lenses, which do have vibration reduction, Tamron (VC, vibration control) and Sigma (OS, optical stabilization). I have the Tamron find the VC very useful, even at these shorter focal lengths. They might not be 100% equal to the Nikon 17-55, but they are 90%, at almost 50% of the price. Sigma also has the 17-70 f/2.8-4 Macro OS.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>Wouter, I guess I will be, and have always been, the first one in line to tell people that the 16-85VR is a very good zoom lens. In fact, if I were to name my favorite lens today, this lens would probably be the one. But I would like to move on to a faster lens, with the same or better quality and with the same range. The range is the main reason why I am "stuck" with this lens. I do, however, have three dogs, and with a camera not good enough on high ISO values, a faster lens is a must. It would be nice and very convenient to have a lens both for landscape shooting and for my furry babies. They are my companions most of the time when I am out chasing motifs.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>If the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 both don't have image stabilization, let that tell you something. Maybe they realize that it isn't as important for these shorter focal lengths, especially considering that they are already f/2.8, and camera bodies can effortlessly shoot at higher and higher ISOs as the years press on. If you MUST have image stabilization, consider the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS. And as to whether a 24-70mm could work on your camera: put any zoom lens on your current camera, and see whether you could live with something that only zooms as wide as 24mm on DX. I'd venture that you couldn't.</p>

<p>And a 16-85mm f/2.8 would be huge. Given that it's a 5.3x zoom range, instead of the 24-70mm's 2.9x zoom range, and that as lenses get progressively wider, the increasingly retrofocal design to make the lens clear the mirror makes the lens much more complicated, your hypothetical lens would probably 3 times the size of the 24-70mm, and 4 times the cost. Look at the 14-24mm size, front element, and weight, for example to see what covering such wide angles makes you have to do to a lens. And read this about lens design:<br>

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/09/lens-genealogy-part-2<br>

Also, look at the 17-55mm, which covers a sensor that's 1.5x smaller than full frame, but the lens isn't 1.5 times smaller. Which is why at a certain point with SLRs, it just makes sense to take the plunge and get a larger sensor camera. You could always just get a D600 with 24-70mm, for example, and crop it down at the wide end and still get superior to equal performance compared to an FX camera. Which Dieter, I think answers your question: having wider angle is useful and gives you something you couldn't otherwise achieve, but on the long end, you can crop an FX photo down, and even just to 1.3x, you still have better image quality than a DX camera. Last, when you factor in that a 24-120mm f/4 on full frame gives you the same exposure quality (due to better high ISO performance) and same capability to isolate subjects, then it seems a foregone conclusion that no, there will never be a 16-85mm f/2.8 DX.</p>

<p>And Ann, I agree with you about DX zooms! The Nikon 16-85mm is very cool, and wonderful image quality, but is f/3.5-5.6 which is annoying. The 17-55mm in my opinion is WAY too large and expensive. It's a lens from the baby days of digital photography, and despite being optically good, could stand an overhaul. We've seen Nikon since overhaul the 28-70mm to 24-70mm, the 12-24mm to 10-24mm, the 18-70mm to 18-135mm to 18-105mm, etc. There must be some tricks that Nikon has learned, to make the lens better, but this would of course dissuade people from upgrading to FX, which Nikon seems hesitant to do. Unwilling to make DX products TOO good, which in my opinion hurts them.</p>

[kj_thomas]

<p>A 16-85mm f/2.8 lens would be a dream come true if it didn't have to be ridiculously large and expensive. When I used a DX camera, I loved this lens on a D300s. The weight was perfect, the range was substantial, and the optics were excellent (best of all the Nikon made DX zoom lenses in my opinion).</p>

<p>A 24-70mm f/2.8 is not a great idea for FX in my opinion, and I don't think the 24-120mm f/4 would get you much more either. I find the 24-120 just good enough on FX, and it can't touch the 16-85 on DX. I would give the 17-55mm f/2.8 another look, or look at some third party f/2.8 options. Personally, I would couple the 16-85 with a 35mm or a 50mm f/1.8 and call it a day.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I think a "16-80 f/4 DX" should be do-able (after all, it exists similarly for FX) and relief a bit the "ache" of the current 16-85VR. But redesigning the 17-55 f/2.8, while maintaining its professional built, makes little sense - those who benefit most from such a lens (event, PJ, wedding) frequently already went to FX, and the price would remain out of reach for most hobbyists - like it or not, but the high-end DX market is shifting from the generic-do-it-all solution to wildlife/sports where the crop factor adds significant benefit.<br>

So, I'd think Nikon would hurt themselves more spending their lens-development resources on redesigning a 17-55 f/2.8 that will sell in very small quantities (also consider competition from Tamron and Sigma there is considerable). A constant f/4 high quality DX generic zoom would make more sense to me, and would likely sell in decent numbers.</p>

<p>Personally, I do not see this as Nikon persuading customers to move to FX, or being particularly unwilling, but rather the way the market has already moved and is moving (which Nikon won't lament, for sure). FX is persuading on its own for many styles of photography. And whoever went to FX was a photographer willing enough to spend a serious amount of money, taking away the market potential for a €1500 (current regular price in Europe) 17-55 f/2.8. It's self-feeding circle.</p>