16-80 f/2.8-4 ED VR vs 17-55 f/2.8G IF-ED on a 7100

[rodeo_joe1]

The Nikkor 17-55 is indeed a very sharp lens, but also incredibly big and heavy, making my D7200 unbalanced and a bit unwieldy. My copy also has a slight de-centring, making the corner image quality vary from side-to-side; not unacceptably so, but it's nigglingly noticeable.

 

From the service manual, it appears this could be quite easily adjusted out, but it really wouldn't justify the cost.

 

That aside: I also have a cheap Tamron SP 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC version), which quite honestly is optically every bit as good as the Nikkor. I would recommend that over the big and heavy Nikkor, simply because it's not big and heavy.

 

I have no experience of the Nikon 16-80, sorry. However, the 'kit' 18-140 Nikkor I have makes an excellent walk-about lens that can tackle most subjects more than adequately. Its VR and the camera's high ISO ability more than make up for the lens's slow aperture in most cases. Its one annoying feature is the VR 'jump' at the point of shutter release - enough to disturb a careful composition unless some margin for cropping is allowed. I'd be interested to know if the 16-80 also suffers from leaping VR.

[nishnishant]

From a quick comparison on the internet it appears that the 17-55 is significantly sharper than the 16-80 at all comparable focal lengths so modern does not always mean better. So is range and VR more important for your purposes?

Hey John, while VR and the additional range on both ends were important, weight was also a factor. And while I know some of this is subjective, quite a few folks said sharpness is comparable between the two lenses. Thanks.

[nishnishant]

Other 16-80 owners : do you find the zoom ring stiffer compared to other zooms like the 18-105? (it's not too bad but it's noticeable, hoping it'll get better with time)

[Dieter Schaefer]

One thing I noticed is that the zoom ring is a little stiff in the middle (as it crosses the 35-40 mm point). Is that normal? Will it get better with time?

I have two 16-80 in the house, both behave in a similar fashion: their zoom rings are stiffer between 16 and 35 and then loosen up a bit beyond that; I attribute this to the dual cam design of the zoom and consider it normal. One of our lenses has seen vastly more use than the other - the behavior of the two is identical.

[Matthew Currie]

The zoom on my 16-80 is a little stiff, but I think the slight increase in resistance at the 35-40 point has lessened a little over time, as I hardly notice it now. It's still there, though. I don't mind a little zoom stiffness as it beats my previous 16-85 which required a rubber band to stop the zoom creep.

[andylynn]

I don't have complete information here, as I last used a 17-55 on 12mp and never used a 16-80, but if the 16-80 is as good as people say it is it sounds like a great everyday option, if you don't mind $1000 for an everyday lens. The Sigma 2-lens kit sounds great, but it's 5 pounds of lenses! Personally that's not what I'd be looking for in a DX kit. I have a Nikon 24-70 lens at 2 pounds and even that feels like a burden to carry if I'm on my feet. If those are the focal lengths you want, and you want f/1.8, and don't mind the weight, the $1600 price tag for the pair isn't bad by today's standards. But I think I'd still go with the 16-80 because it's 1 pound and you can go all day without switching lenses. The 16-85 was a decent lens last time I used it (borrowed from my father, on 16mp; at the time I was back in school and doing a lot of eBay for fun and profit, trying to get as much as I could out of cheap used glass) but later I got lured away from DX DSLRs by Fuji, which does a better job as a travel kit. Three primes and a rangefinder, that's portable.

[nishnishant]

I have two 16-80 in the house, both behave in a similar fashion: their zoom rings are stiffer between 16 and 35 and then loosen up a bit beyond that; I attribute this to the dual cam design of the zoom and consider it normal. One of our lenses has seen vastly more use than the other - the behavior of the two is identical.

Thank you, glad to hear it's not an anomaly on my piece :-)

[nishnishant]

I have two 16-80 in the house, both behave in a similar fashion: their zoom rings are stiffer between 16 and 35 and then loosen up a bit beyond that; I attribute this to the dual cam design of the zoom and consider it normal. One of our lenses has seen vastly more use than the other - the behavior of the two is identical.

Just curious, why do you have 2 of them?

[nishnishant]

The zoom on my 16-80 is a little stiff, but I think the slight increase in resistance at the 35-40 point has lessened a little over time, as I hardly notice it now. It's still there, though. I don't mind a little zoom stiffness as it beats my previous 16-85 which required a rubber band to stop the zoom creep.

Yeah it's better stiff than if it's too loose :-)

[nishnishant]

I don't have complete information here, as I last used a 17-55 on 12mp and never used a 16-80, but if the 16-80 is as good as people say it is it sounds like a great everyday option, if you don't mind $1000 for an everyday lens. The Sigma 2-lens kit sounds great, but it's 5 pounds of lenses! Personally that's not what I'd be looking for in a DX kit. I have a Nikon 24-70 lens at 2 pounds and even that feels like a burden to carry if I'm on my feet. If those are the focal lengths you want, and you want f/1.8, and don't mind the weight, the $1600 price tag for the pair isn't bad by today's standards. But I think I'd still go with the 16-80 because it's 1 pound and you can go all day without switching lenses. The 16-85 was a decent lens last time I used it (borrowed from my father, on 16mp; at the time I was back in school and doing a lot of eBay for fun and profit, trying to get as much as I could out of cheap used glass) but later I got lured away from DX DSLRs by Fuji, which does a better job as a travel kit. Three primes and a rangefinder, that's portable.

I agree the pricing is steep. Funnily enough, the lens is 1050-ish but if you buy the D7500 with this lens, it's 1400. You get the 7500 for an extra 350 bucks when the camera body sells for 750. I guess if you are adventurous enough, you could buy the kit, then sell the body for say 600 and save an extra 250 on the lens. I just don't want to bother with the hassle myself.

[Dieter Schaefer]

why do you have 2 of them?

My wife and I both photograph - so there's one for my wife and one for myself (neither of us paid full price for the lens; her's was purchased as part of a kit and mine refurbished with a special sale discount directly from Nikon).

glad to hear it's not an anomaly on my piece

Thom Hogan states the issue in his review of the lens: Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4E VR DX Lens Review | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

From a quick comparison on the internet it appears that the 17-55 is significantly sharper than the 16-80 at all comparable focal lengths so modern does not always mean better.

Many newer Nikon lenses don't do well in the imatest (or similar) lens tests conducted by various sites but reveal their better optical performances in real-world image comparisons. Thom Hogan alludes to this also in the review linked to above.

[Gary Naka]

Yeah it's better stiff than if it's too loose :)

 

Well that depends on your PoV and how you hold the lens.

I like LIGHT smooth zoom rings, and the lighter the better.

 

As for the stiff turning. It could simply be leverage mechanics.

Example: The zoom ring on the Sigma 17-50/2.8 has about 60 degree throw, from 17-50. And it is an extending zoom.

So, to extend the zoom with only a 60 degree throw, the zoom cam has to be steep. As a result of a steep cam, the effort to turn the zoom ring is relatively high.

If Sigma made the zoom throw 120 degrees, the cam angle would be less steep, and the zoom ring would be much easier to turn.

Materials, tolerance and grease also affect how stiff or light a zoom ring turn.