Nikon Introduces 16-80mm DX and Updated 500mm/f4 & 600mm/f4 Lenses

[ShunCheung]

<p>Very much as expected, after introducing 800mm/f5.6 E and 400mm/f2.8 E AF-S VR lenses, Nikon is now updating their 500mm/f4 and 600mm/f4 lenses to E (with electronically controlled aperture diaphragm) with fluoride elements.</p>

<p>The 500mm/f4 E AF-S VR is about 2 pounds lighter than the previous version and is priced at $10299.95.<br>

The 600mm/f4 E AF-S VR is 3 pounds lighter than the previous version and it priced at $12299.95.</p>

<p>The more interesting lens is a new 16-80mm/f2.8-f4 DX lens that is over $1000. It is the first "high end" DX lens after a long time and it is also an E lens. In a way it is the DX version of the popular 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR 5x zoom, but it is a faster f2.8 on its wide end. It is much faster than the existing 16-85mm DX AF-S VR and its suggested price is $1069.95, which is rather steep so that we expect it to be a high-quality lens.</p>

<p>Nikon Japan news articles:</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.nikon.com/news/2015/0702_lens_02.htm">AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.nikon.com/news/2015/0702_lens_01.htm">AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4E FL ED VR</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.nikon.com/news/2015/0702_lens_01.htm">AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR</a></li>

</ul><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>500mm</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>600mm</p><div></div>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>16-80 specs: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-16-80mm-f%252F2.8-4E-ED-VR.html<br /> 72mm filter, 480g (which is about the same as the 16-85). Same length too. Certainly lighter and smaller than the 17-55/2.8 (755g, about one inch longer).</p>

[dilom_ski]

<p>The MTF on the 500mm is simply amazing!At 3kg weight only (as low as the old manual focus P) the 500mm combines superlight weight with supreme optics.A instant dream lens.<br>

However, I am more interested in the DX body which will go with the 16-80 zoom.Do Nikon have a ready to go d400?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Some $400 difference between a D750 with 24-120/4 VR and D7200 and 16-80/2.8-4 VR - Nikon sure makes their own competition now. What was that argument again that there can't be a DX body in the same price range as an FX body? Sure looks like that this doesn't apply for a "kit". </p>

<p>Except for that $400 difference - what argument can be made in favor of the DX combo? Less bulk and weight? Its about 1/2 lbs. Anything else?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The argument in favour of the DX kit are the same as ever; situation where tele is prefered (birding, wildlife, sports) on a budget; I imagine they'll also want a good quality normal zoom. And many complained that the 16-85 was too slow aperture, so here it is.<br>

<em>It is much faster than the existing 16-85mm DX AF-S VR - </em>But is it really that much faster? 2/3rd of a stop on the short end (f/3.5 is not that slow), and one stop on the long end. Welcome, sure, but not super-much faster, I'd say. Whether it's worth the extra money, each has to decide for itself, obviously.<br>

This 16-80 does look a good deal more compact than the 24-120VR, and comparing a D300+16-85VR with a D700+24-120VR, the D300 with 16-85VR always felt a lot lighter and smaller to me, so I think there is still an advantage to DX there.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Dieter, the advantages of DX include e.g. a wider focus point spread (which makes achieving certain images a bit easier), a bit smaller camera body and lens, and more pixels on the subject with long lenses. Many DX users who use that format for their photography with long lenses will still need a lens for wide angle scenery and environmental shots without having to carry a separate FX body and lenses for those shots. I think f/2.8-f/4 is a more useable range for general photography than f/3.5-5.6, at least if the optics are quite good at maximum aperture. Existing Nikon standard zooms for DX have been either with small maximum apertures or quite large (17-55/2.8 DX), the latter being from a different era. The 16-80 presents a balanced compromise.</p>

<p>The weight loss of the superteles seems quite substantial. There seems to be a typo in the first paragraph of the OP; there are fluori<strong>t</strong>e elements (and fluori<strong>d</strong>e coating).</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>From Nikon`s literature on the new 16-80; <em>"There's even a specialized Tripod VR mode, a first for this zoom range*, that eliminates the effects of tripod vibration".</em><br /> I`m surprised. I cannot figure how the VR system could help a modern camera with a 80mm lens to be more steady than on a tripod itself.<br /> Has been this already applied to other Nikon lenses? On super telephotos, maybe?<br>

If the lens is good, paired with a smallish D5x00 seem appealing to me. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>And many complained that the 16-85 was too slow aperture</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To me, the disappointment was always with the f/5.6 at the long end - the lens should have been either f/4 or f/3.5-f/4.5. The new one does one better - but somehow I can't seem to get excited about it given the about $370 increase over the already overpriced 16-85. The 16-80 costs about $670 more than the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 - whose short-end MTF curve looks quite similar and the long-end one actually looks better. Seems a hefty premium for 1mm more at the one end and 10mm more at the other. <br /> Is a 16-80/2.8-4 really an alternative for all those who currently have a 16/17/18-50 f/2.8 zoom? All of which (except Nikon's 17-55/2.8 behemoth) cost substantially less. I certainly would welcome the additional reach of the 16-80 - but I imagine that many will bemoan the loss of speed that comes with it. Would a 16-70/2.8 not have been a better option?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This 16-80 does look a good deal more compact than the 24-120VR</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed it is - 1/2 pound lighter and about 1 inch shorter, 72mm filter vs 77mm filter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>comparing a D300+16-85VR with a D700+24-120VR, the D300 with 16-85VR always felt a lot lighter and smaller to me</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because the additional weight of the D700 makes the FX combo weigh almost 1 pound more; the D750 is actually lighter than the D300. The differences between D7200/16-80 and D750/24-120 are smaller than for the D300+16-85VR with a D700+24-120VR.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the advantages of DX include e.g. a wider focus point spread (which makes achieving certain images a bit easier)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>good point. But then there is the DOF penalty and the penalty in high-ISO performance. And the fact that there is no DX body with a D810-style control layout.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>There are some super telephotos with tripod mode either as an explicit setting in the switch panel (VR 400/2.8G, VR 500/4G, VR 600/4G) or the system automatically recognizes when the lens is on tripod and adjusts the VR system behaviour accordingly (VR 200/2G II, VR 300/2.8G II, VR 200-400/4G II). Source:<br /> http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/IMG/Images/Micro-Sites/VR/technology/normal/tripod/</p>

<p>VR behavior in normal mode is optimized to reduce the kind of shake that occurs when the camera is held in the hands of the photographer (biological rhythms etc.) and in tripod mode the system is optimized to correct for typical vibrations that may occur when the camera is mounted on a tripod. These vibrations have different statistical properties (frequency content etc.) and thus the corrective algorithm can be optimized for each situation. E.g. on tripod the camera and lens are normally very still but occasionally there can be vibration due to wind (not sure if VR can recognize the effects of wind and how well it can compensate for it) and also the shutter and mirror cause vibration of their own and the presence of the tripod may alter the mechanical response of the camera and lens to these sources of vibration. Finally if the photographer's hands are around the camera and lens, this results in some additional vibration. Tripod mode seems to be intended to alleviate the effects of these smaller vibrations that take place when the camera is on tripod. In the case of the 16-80mm, a tripod that is designed to manage a much longer and heavier lens would practically eliminate the shutter and mirror shake as well other sources of vibration but if a slimmer "travel tripod" is used, it would still vibrate with the slightest perturbation. Perhaps Nikon designed the tripod mode of that lens for typical travel tripod use in mind. I think flimsy tripods are very common among travelers in cities; it is the nature photographers that typically carry the heavier and more sturdy tripods. On one of my trips to in Venice, I used my 1-series Gitzo Traveler which is rated to up to 135mm lens but quite frankly it was very susceptible to the slightest of wind and I could see slight vibration in shorter focal length shots as well, especially when the center column was extended. I since removed the center column and use it without (it is configurable in this way), this makes me more confident that the tripod actually does something useful. ;-)</p>

<p>There is now quite a plethora of different VR modes in various lenses (active, normal, tripod, sports). Sports mode is for when photographing actively moving subjects that can change direction of movement quickly; I find this to work nicely in the 300/4E. In normal mode the system recognizes panning movement and tries to hold this trajectory steady; sports mode assumes that the direction of turning the camera can be happening all the time and resists the change in trajectory less. Active mode is for photography off a vibrating or moving platform, and quite frankly I've never been able to figure out where it is useful. When I've used it on a small boat, I got better results in Normal mode than Active mode. So I've always used Normal mode with lenses that I have had in the past, but now that I have one lens with Sports mode I find that quite useful; it is easier to compose on a moving subject in that mode. I don't use VR when my camera + lens is on a tripod with lenses that I currently own, but find that with much longer lenses (e.g. 200-400/4+2X at 800mm) VR is helpful in stabilizing the viewfinder image and aiding in composition and focusing. I don't really know how well it reduces the vibration during the actual exposure, I didn't have enough time with the lens to collect such data. I did feel that VR is a useful feature also in some situations when using supertelephoto lenses, but in my own use with the much shorter focal lengths I prefer to turn VR off for tripod based shots.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I think f/2.8-f/4 is a more useable range for general photography than f/3.5-5.6, at least if the optics are quite good at maximum aperture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No argument there from me. (time to edit my previous post had ended - can't we have that time extended to 15 minutes?)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>there are fluori<strong>t</strong>e elements (and fluori<strong>d</strong>e coating)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fluorite is name of the mineral form of Calcium Fluoride (CaF2) - so the differentiation is a bit of a moot point. Strictly speaking though, they are indeed fluorite elements. Calling them fluoride isn't wrong - but omits the fact that they are made out of the fluoride of Calcium. Or to complete the confusion: fluorite is a fluoride but not every fluoride is a fluorite.</p>

<p>And Nikon chose to call their coating "fluorine" ;-) Not going there now though ;-)</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Thanks Ilkka! :)<br>

A "lightweight" tripod mode will be useful; I also have a series 1 which I don`t use often for that reasons. Very interesting.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I seem to be producing typos in trying present corrections, how ironic. The dirt resistant, easy to clean front element coatings are called fluori<strong>n</strong>e, not fluoride, so that was my typo. Other optics manufacturers are using the same terminology ( for these coatings which are apparently used for (and researched for use in) other applications. Wikipedia on the subject of anti-graffiti coatings: "Fluorinated coatings are some of the most effective in the field of graffiti prevention. Fluorine is the most electronegative element, meaning that it shows very little affinity for the electrons of other elements. When fluorine is attached to a surface it will decrease surface energy at the interface, minimizing the contact with the graffiti paint." I guess the compound that is used for the coating has covalent bonds with fluorine (instead of ionic) so that's why it's not a fluoride.</p>

<p>Fluorite is calcium fluoride, as you said. I seem to be coming a typical internet commentator, offering incorrect corrections to other people's writings. Sorry for that. ;-)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Dieter, difference in weight between a D300 and D700 isn't much (~120gr more or less), so the major contributor is the 24-120; it is simply a pretty heavy lens. Reason to compare the two combinations I did is the fact that I owned both, so part it might be subjective, but while shooting, the D700 feels more front-heavy with the 24-120 than the D300 did with the 16-85 (that balanced better, basically). So, DX still has the size/weight advantage in my view, even if this lens isn't the best example ever.<br>

I agree the official price of the new 16-80 doesn't make much sense. I find the gains over the 16-85 too marginal to warrant the extra cost. Yes, f/5.6 on the long end of the 16-85VR has always been slightly dissapointing (coming from the 18-70 especially), but given that the lens performs fine wide open, better than the 18-70 did in my case, it managed to make a case for itself, despite already being a tad too expensive. This new lens - well, let's wait for reviews, but it needs a touch of magic to command this price.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Yet another incredible shrinking lens. Nikon give the maximum magnification of the new "16-80 mm" lens as 0.22x, at a scale distance of 0.35m - meaning its true focal length at MFD is only 63mm. When will lens designers recognise that lenses of medium-telephoto length are almost <em>never</em> used at infinity, but at portrait and CU distances, where you actually want the true, marked focal length?</p>

<p>It'll also have to have stunning IQ to warrant the price, because the 18-140mm f/3.5~5.6 Kit zoom that comes with the D7200 is no mean performer - and practically given away with the D7200 body. Plus it (just) covers a true 80mm focal length at a slightly longer 0.45m MFD. Although at that distance it definitely ain't a 140mm lens either.</p>

[FPapp]

<p>Any guesses as to whether or not Nikon might upgrade the firmware of the F6 and maybe even the F100 to accommodate these new electronic aperture lenses going forward?<br>

I won't be purchasing the 500mm or 600mm anytime soon unless I win the lottery, but if the electronic aperture becomes the standard on new lens releases from Nikon, it would be nice to be able to use them on the film bodies.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Well, it might require more than a firmware upgrade (new electronics) to support E lens aperture control on those cameras.</p>

<p>Those big superteles probably would be used most of the time wide open so even with an E aperture it might still work on an F100/F6 (I can check this tonight for the F100). The 16-80 is a DX lens so it's not really sensible to use for 35mm film photography. In the PC-E lenses, the aperture can be stopped down and opened up by pressing a button assuming that the camera can supply the power (I believe the F6 and F100 can, though for the 24 PC-E there will be some shift limitations). In whole, the limitations to compatibility with film cameras are not as severe as one might first think. The 20/1.8 is a relatively new lens and one that you might want to use with a 35mm film camera, and it is G so no problem with the F100 or F6. Nikon seems to consider compatibility in their decisions quite carefully in most cases. They could have made the 20mm E if they were planning on going all out on E, but they didn't, and my own guess is that they still aren't.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I guess the compound that is used for the coating has covalent bonds with fluorine (instead of ionic) so that's why it's not a fluoride.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's my guess too - could be a fluorinated silane or siloxane, probably on some silica nanoparticle.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but if the electronic aperture becomes the standard on new lens releases from Nikon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe we have seen the last "G" lens and from now on, everything is "E"?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They could have made the 20mm E if they were planning on going all out on E, but they didn't, and my own guess is that they still aren't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Any particular reason then why the 16-80 is an E? Do DX bodies support changing aperture in live view or when shooting video?</p>

[nigel_farmer]

<p>I have been patiently waiting for the replacement to the 16-85mm for some time,as im not particularly happy with my copy.Its now finally here, but I can't see me buying it any time soon. Its looks a good upgrade, but its double the price - The (uk) price of the 16-85 is £429 and the 16-80mm launch price is £869. Compared to the old model and the ff 24-120 (£749) and ff 24085 (£549) it seems very expensive. Perhaps pricing dx lenses high is the new strategy for moving people to full frame - "I AM Out of your price range".</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Any particular reason then why the 16-80 is an E? Do DX bodies support changing aperture in live view or when shooting video?</em></p>

<p>Reportedly some DX bodies can adjust the aperture of an E lens during live view or video, but not with a G lens, so that could be one reason why this lens is E.</p>

<p><em>it seems very expensive.</em></p>

<p>It does seem expensive but the one stop increase in maximum aperture at the tele end is likely a significant contributor to the price increase. Perhaps the best way to get this lens is in a kit with the purchase of a DX camera. Some dealers are willing to break up parts of a kit and sell the lens separately; this is one way in which I've seen the 24-120/4 to be sold for as low as 600€. However, it is at this point unclear with which cameras the 16-80mm will be sold as a kit, if any.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>The zoom range of the Nikon 16-80 is a significant improvement over my Sigma 17-70 C but the close focus is 1.15 feet versus the Sigma's 8.66 inches. I do a lot of close up shooting so this could be an issue. It's going to be interesting to see the image quality difference between the 2 lenses. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>ive been saying for years the 16-85 should be an f/4, so nikon finally listened to me ;)</p>

[bob_h]

<p>The price for the 16-80 is insane for what you get. Almost as if Nikon was actually trying to send customers away, directly to the secondary lens makers. Nano coating is nice, but I will just hang on to the old 17-55 2.8 thanks.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>just checked prices on the sigma 17-70. $400 new, $300 used. so the nikon is more than 60% more expensive. at that price, it had better be insanely good.</p>