Nikon 16-80 f/2.8-4 VR (possible purchase) VS Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 (currently own)

[duncan_mcbride]

I’m thinking about the Nikon 16-80 f/2.8-4 VR as a standard carry-and-walk-around lens for my D7200. Currently I use the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, which I have had for 7-8 years, love, and use for about 80 % of my work, mostly taking candid and a few formal photos of people. I also hike, so I carry it on the street, indoors, and sometimes in rough terrain. I often shoot at large aperture, even with the good low-light performance of the D7200. The problem with the 17-55 f/2.8 is mostly the weight (755g).

 

Put another way, the 16-80 f/2.8-4 is lighter (480g), less bulky, has a longer reach, and has VR, all of which are positive. The negatives from what I can tell are mostly price, the fact that the aperture is f/4 at 80 mm (and f/3.5 at about 50 mm), and it has a somewhat lower build quality.

 

I can’t tell about image quality very well. The few reviews I have seen of the 16-80 are favorable (for example, Ken Rockwell is enthusiastic but not very critical and only includes a few photos wide open or nearly so, or taken under difficult conditions). DPReview has a few sample images at large aperture (and others), but no full review. Shun Cheung’s comments about the lens along with his D500 review on photo.net a while ago are useful.

 

I would especially appreciate comments from anyone in this group who has used both the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 16-80 f/2.8-4, particularly about how image quality compares and how practically the smaller aperture affects their work.

 

The fact that the D500 currently requires a premium of only US$600 for the lens as a kit, while the lens is US$1067 by itself seems steep, but I have seen no trend to drop the lens price. If the D500 had been available a couple years earlier I would have certainly upgraded to it from my D300, but finally I couldn’t wait, and I can’t see going for the D500 now.

 

Would appreciate thoughts and advice.

 

Duncan McBride

[ShunCheung]

When I reviewed the D500 last year, I had a loaner 16-80mm DX for a few weeks. It is a very good "pro-sumer" lens for serious amateurs. Optically it is very good and its construction is typical pro-sumer, not quite the robust pro-grade construction. I wouldn't buy this lens by itself as the > $1000 price tag is very high for what you get, but as the OP points out, the price becomes quite reasonable when you get this lens as a kit with a Nikon DX body.

 

If you are not buying a D500, maybe check the used market for those who have purchased the kit but don't need the lens. Just keep in mind that Nikon's warranty is officially only good for the original purchaser. Once the item changes hands, there is no warranty any more, regardless of how new it is.

 

Last year I bought my D500 very early since I had a trip to Africa coming up. At the time there was no kit discount. Otherwise, I probably would have bought the 16-80 as a kit.

[danny_weber]

I picked up a 16-80 unused out of a kit for about half price to replace my 17-55, primarily for the weight savings but also for the improved range and VR. I've been very happy with it so far. The image quality is fine and the smaller aperture is a non-issue for me.

 

Thom Hogan wrote a good, balanced review of it:

 

Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4E VR DX Lens Review | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

 

Danny W.

[Two23]

I had the 17-55mm f2.8 and it was a fairly good lens. Now using the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS and it is a better lens. Looked at the Nikon 16-80mm VR but decided against it because of cost and not straight f2.8.

 

Kent in SD

[rodeo_joe1]

My D7200 came with the kit 18-140mm f/3.5~5.6. It's a stunning lens that covers almost any walk-around eventuality. The extra reach over a "standard" zoom is something I'd find hard to give up now. The VR more than makes up for the lack of aperture in most circumstances.

 

No, the IQ doesn't quite match that of the 17-55 f/2.8, but it's close enough that its extra versatility easily outweighs (pun intended) the bloated "pro" lens.

 

I'm so impressed with it that if someone offered me a direct swap for a brand new 16-80mm f/2.8 then I wouldn't immediately jump at the chance.

 

The massive price difference only adds to the incentive to consider the 18-140.

[duncan_mcbride]

Thanks for useful comments all, especially Danny for pointing out Thom Hogan's review, which I had not seen. It's clear that a purchase would be much more palatable if I could find a 16-80mm detached from the D500 kit and thus at a lower price as Shun and Danny suggest.

 

Rodeo Joe, I appreciate your remarks about the 18-140mm and have heard other good things, but I definitely need the larger aperture for the photos I take.

 

I would still be interested in more comments from others who may have used both the 17-55mm and the 16-80mm, as Danny has, especially about comparative image quality and the effect of the smaller aperture at the long end.

 

Duncan McBride

[Dieter Schaefer]

I’m thinking about the Nikon 16-80 f/2.8-4 VR as a standard carry-and-walk-around lens for my D7200....The problem with the 17-55 f/2.8 is mostly the weight (755g).

Aside from the bulk and weight of the 17-55, my main issue with it as a walk-around lens was the limited range (just like it is with the 24-70 for FX). The 16-85/3.5-5.6 worked much better in that regard, as did the 18-140/3.5-5.6; the 16-80/2.8-4 makes for a nice compromise: faster but not excessively large and heavy. IMHO, that lens is currently Nikon's best mid-range non-constant f/2.8 zoom. When purchased at the discounted price in a kit, the price is adequate; purchased separately it is vastly overpriced (much like the 24-120/4).

 

Lately, I have been using the D7200 with the 18-140 (and I fully agree with Rodeo_Joe's assessment); I surely would have exchanged that lens at some point for the 16-80 if I hadn't come to the decision to abandon DX altogether (keeping only the D500 for use with tele zooms).

[ShunCheung]

I bought my 17-55mm/f2.8 DX way back in 2004. That was the era when Nikon had no FX DSLRs so that the 17-55 was my event lens, for parties, weddings, etc. When I used it in 2005 on a D2X, I thought that lens was great, but unfortunately that lens fell onto the ground once inside a padded camera bag. The lens mount was bent, and I am afraid that it hasn't been the same after the repair. Maybe I started using higher-pixel DSLRs later on is a contributing factor.

 

Today, FX is the obvious choice for event photography so that the 17-55 DX isn't as useful any more. Its zoom range is indeed kind of limited compared to the likes of 16-80, 16-85, etc.