Meaningful upgrade to Nikon 18-55mm AF-P

Hey @nandrews and welcome to our forum!

The 16-80mm and 16-85mm are both great lenses. The difference between them isn't really sharpness, but rather maximum aperture. The 16-85mm's maximum aperture is f/3.5-5.6, compared to the maximum aperture of f/2.8-4 for the newer 16-80mm. That works out to roughly 2x as much light that you can capture at each focal length with the 16-80mm, if you need to.

I'll also give a shout to the 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 and 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6. Both of them are sharper than you'd expect, clearly better than the 18-200mm superzoom. I used the 18-105mm extensively with the Nikon D3500 and really liked it. If you want to verify the sharpness, coincidentally, I posted some full-res RAW photos from the combination just a few days ago: https://photographylife.com/nikon-d3500-sample-images-raws

@spencer Thanks for the welcome and for the reply!

Great shots of HK/China there - I think that was good fortune with the weather so clear from Victoria Peak. Takes me back...

I will probably grab the 16-85mm to try, as it's only $150 used and I'll be using it at f/7.1 anyway. Would be nice to have the faster 16-80mm just in case, but not sure if the value is quite there... The 18-105mm seems solid, but I think I'll appreciate the extra 2mm on wide end instead of more tele. Thanks again :)

@nandrews That's a great deal at $150. I'm sure you'll like it!

@nandrews 16-85 is not bad, but 16-80 is far better, to my sense, especially when it comes to colours and contrasts (it is even better on D7200 than the D750/AF-S 24-120 F/4 G couple).

Only one thing I disliked from 16-80 is it's a bit fragile.

@prg-lagarde Thank you - seems like the 16-80mm really is the "buy once, cry once" solution. I really like that first pic, by the way, very relaxing somehow :)

@nandrews Thank you... the fact is that, when you put an eye in the viewfinder with this lens, you should instantly understand ;) 

To my sense, the only way to get a better 24-120 equivalent on a 24MP sensor is to buy a Z5 and the fabulous Z 24-120.

I have a D7100, and have had both the 16-85 and the 16-80.  At least for the examples I had, the 16-80 was distinctly better in sharpness, and of course it's also faster. 

My 16-85, a well used gray market one, developed a brief but annoying glitch in its aperture mechanism on a trip abroad.  It recovered, but I got the E-aperture 16-80 and much prefer it anyway. If you often use a polarizer, the squarish hood that comes on the 16-80 is designed to allow you to turn a filter easily without removing it, a feature that is really handy when walking around outside.

If you don't want that extra width (I do), a less expensive alternative which is about the only DX zoom with comparable sharpness is the 18-140, which was the higher-end kit lens on a D7100, and can be found used at a pretty decent price.  My wife has that one, and likes it a lot, being more inclined to zoom in than out.

Either one of these makes a very good all-around lens, and on a D7100 with its high density sensor they're sharp enough to crop a good bit.

The Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR is a meaningful upgrade, offering a wider focal range, better build quality, and excellent sharpness, especially at f/7.1-f/8 for urban exteriors. While the older 16-85mm is a decent option, it lacks the edge sharpness and modern features of the 16-80mm. If budget allows, the 16-80mm is worth the investment for its versatility and performance. Alternatively, consider the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 for a fast, sharp, and affordable option, though it has less range. Any of these would be a solid step up from the 18-55mm.