Recently I’ve been experiencing one of those existential photo crises. Low motivation, cliché results, slumping Instagram likes. When I get bummed about my photography I do what any self-respecting unprofessional photographer would do – put on some soft jazz, pour myself a fine single malt, then pull out my favorite Zeiss lens chart results and pleasure myself. But even that didn’t make me feel better. What’s a listless soul-wrenched photographer to do? Ha, I know what will do the trick – no better way to demonstrate my photographic élan and self-assurance than to dis on a kit lens.
Kit lenses are generally known for their convenience, light weight, and optical inferiority. Because one lens replaces many, it’s a recipe to turn one into an slothful photographer. Not the kind of lens we like to talk about here at Photography Life, but as a matter of due diligence someone has to review them so I’m taking one for the team ;) Recently (well not that recently), Nikon released the Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR. This is the DX equivalent of Nikon’s popular full frame 24-120mm f/4. Both sport an equivalent 5x zoom range – very convenient for all-around photography. The 16-80mm has been bundled with the D500 as a kit, albeit a high-end DX kit. By itself the 16-80mm boasts a MSRP of $1069.95. Ouch, for less than the 16-80mm alone you can currently pick up a D7100 with the 18-55mm kit lens plus the 55-300mm lens. The good news is that Nikon currently is giving $500 off the D500 + 16-80mm kit (regularly $3069.95, now $2569.95). I was in the market for a D500 so I took the bait. If I didn’t like lens, I’d just use it to pound out schnitzels.
From 16mm:
To 80mm:
1) Key Features
The 16-80mm sports the coveted “gold ring” at the end of the lens barrel. Unlike the magic ring that turns hobbits invisible, the Gold Ring brings attention to you and your camera, announcing you are pro material because you only shoot the best. Besides the hefty MSRP, what gives the 16-80mm this distinction? It pretty much has most of Nikon’s top end technologies – fluorine coating on the front and rear elements (makes it easier to clean with a dry lens cloth), Nano-coating to control flare, electromagnetic diaphragm for consistent results and stepless adjustment (good for video), 4-stop Vibration Reduction, extra-low dispersion glass, aspheric elements, silent wave focus motor, and Beyonce’s unlisted phone number (just checking to see if you’re still with me). But do these add up to good pictures?
Because I like to photograph nature, I’m a much bigger believer in actual field test results than in how well a lens shoots a flat target at a fixed distance in a lab somewhere. What you’re going to see in this review are shots from the field at a variety of focal lengths, apertures and distances. If you want MTF diagrams go here.
Below are the lens specifications.
2) Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR Specifications
| Lens Specifications | |
|---|---|
| Lens Type | Zoom Lens |
| Focal Length | 16-80mm |
| Mount Type | Nikon F |
| Format | APS-C / DX |
| Compatible Format(s) | APS-C / DX |
| Compatible with Teleconverters | No |
| Zoom Ratio | 5x |
| Maximum Reproduction Ratio | 0.22x |
| Vibration Reduction (Image Stabilization) | Yes |
| Aperture Information | |
| Aperture Ring | No |
| Maximum Aperture | f/2.8-4 |
| Minimum Aperture | f/22-32 |
| Maximum Angle of View (APS-C or smaller format) | 83° |
| Minimum Angle of View (APS-C or smaller format) | 20° |
| Optical Information | |
| Lens Elements | 17 |
| Lens Groups | 13 |
| Diaphragm Blades | 7 |
| Extra-Low Dispersion Glass Elements | 4 |
| Aspherical Elements | 3 |
| Nano Crystal Coat | Yes |
| Super Integrated Coat (SIC) | Yes |
| Fluorine Coating | Yes |
| Focus Information | |
| Focus | Autofocus |
| Built-in Focus Motor | Yes |
| Silent Wave Motor (SWM) | Yes |
| Internal Focusing | Yes |
| Minimum Focus Distance | 1.15 ft. (0.35m) |
| Electronic Diaphragm | Yes |
| Distance Information | Yes |
| Filter Information | |
| Filter Size | 72mm |
| Accepts Filter Type | Screw-on |
| Physical Characteristics | |
| Weather / Dust Sealing | No |
| Mount Material | Metal |
| Tripod Collar | No |
| Dimensions | 3.1 in. (80 mm) x 3.3 in. (85.5 mm) |
| Weight | 16.1 oz. (480 g) |
| Other Information | |
| Available in Colors | Black |
3) Lens Construction
Here is the lens construction:
4) Build Quality
The lens body is plastic. This in some minds make a lens feel cheap, but in my mind it makes it feel light and I’ve never had a problem with any of Nikon’s plastic lens bodies. I don’t reminisce about the days of all-metal bodied lenses except when I feel my hernia scar. The 16-80mm at 16.1 oz. (480 g) is almost nine ounces lighter than the Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 – hallelujah.
Out on a hike you’ll appreciate the light weight. There are three switches – M/A-M auto-manual focus switch, on-off VR switch, and normal-active VR switch. All three have nice positive secure action. The lens hood is a squared petal style. Along with the Nano-coating it controls flare quite well. The lens hood has a lock button – seems like an improvement on the old twist on/click hoods that would eventually wear out the click stop.
The lens mount is metal (not plastic like some cheap kit lens – remember the 18-105mm?). There’s a rubber seal around the lens mount to keep dust out of the camera body.
Filter size is 72mm, so not compatible with the 77mm filters that most of my other Nikkors use. Still, I’d rather buy a couple extra filters than lug a heavier lens around. I didn’t check to see if a step-up ring would fit inside the lens hood. It’s manufactured in Thailand. Cool – Nikon makes some really good lenses there.
5) Handling
The 16-80mm balances well on a D500 or D7200 (the two bodies I had available). On the D7200 if you have sausage fingers it’s a bit of a pinch between the lens and the camera grip (and likely as well with the D3400 or D5500 as they are even narrower bodies). No such issue with the pro-size D500. The zoom ring works fairly smooth and requires a fifth of a turn to encompass the whole range so in one twist I can get from 16-80mm no problem. There’s a slight bit of resistance zooming out past 28mm.
The 16-80mm suffers from zoom creep, but only from 28-80mm in my experience. Point the lens down to chimp at your last shot and if you were shooting at 28mm or longer and shake the camera a bit it will extend to 80mm potentially forcing you to recompose. From 16-28mm it doesn’t tend to creep.
The manual focus ring is narrow, can be hard to locate and is not as aggressively knurled as the zoom ring. It also has a slightly grinding feel to it. Perhaps this grinding is a sample issue, but I’ve heard another reviewer also mention this. It takes a third of a turn from infinity to minimal focus distance (I had to re-grip once between twists for the full range).
6) Autofocus Performance
The autofocus is accurate, but like it’s big brother the 24-120mm, not in a hurry (the 24-120 actually seems just a hair slower). Not that either are painfully slow, but they can’t keep up with quick or erratically moving subjects like Hank here.
If Hank had not been mesmerized by the burger bounty before him I would never have got this shot. Instead, most of my shots of Hank were out-of-focus images on an express path to the deletion bin. The 16-80mm is not a good choice for quick or erratically moving subjects. In comparison, the Micro-Nikkor 105mm prime seems to focus nearly twice as fast.
The AF is also louder than on other Silent Wave Motor lenses I’ve owned. It has a slight grinding noise to it. Again this could be a sample issue and I’ll update this if I get to shoot another copy.
7) Vibration Reduction (VR) / Image Stabilization Performance
All the shots in this review were done with the VR on and on Normal Mode. Everything was handheld except the star/light painting shots. I consider my hands to be a tad shaky, but even so realized three stops of improvement over the 1/focal length rule. Nikon claims four stops and for those with steady hands I’m guessing this is accurate. I got one in three shots acceptable at 4 stops under 1/focal length. When shooting low shutter speeds I’ll take multiple shots to up the odds of getting a crisp one.
At 4 stops under this was the one I considered acceptable of 5 shots. The VR has a “tripod mode” which detects the different frequency of tripod vibration (versus other camera movement) and corrects for it. As I was not shooting from a moving platform I didn’t use the Active Mode.
8) Optical Characteristics
Without further ado let’s go out to the field.
NOTE: I’ve post-processed these shots to my liking. Some might be cropped a bit (but only for aesthetics, not to crop away soft corners) and most have my default sharpening applied (50/0.8/50 in LR). Anything more than default sharpening is noted. These were all shot in RAW and contrast, clarity, color, white balance, dodging, burning, etc. has been done but I’m not a heavy post-processor. You are not seeing RAW images straight from the camera because what is important is can this lens deliver files detailed enough to produce good final results. If you want unretouched in-camera images of someone’s bookshelf there are plenty of other reviews out there that provide such shots.
8.1) Sharpness
The Toadstools looked cool in postcards so I headed out there. Problem is, it’s a 3/4-mile hike out there with almost 100 feet of elevation gain. Did I want to lug my standard landscape kit (D810 with 20mm, 50mm, 105mm and tripod) out there? Or just go lazy and take the D500 and 16-80mm and count on the VR to give good handheld results?
Lazy wins! Here’s a toadstool and at 80mm I didn’t need to hike any closer. At f/5.6 the main formation is looking darn sharp.
Getting closer to the subject still looking good in the center at 80mm and f/8 but some softening around the edges (some from shallow depth of field).
Another mid-range 80mm shot, this time at f/16 and without any sharpening beyond Lightroom’s 25/1.0/25 default. Diffraction is creeping in as expected with any lens at f/16.
Same shot but with 75/1.0/50 sharpening and some contrast added. Looking fine.
Zooming out through the range.
66mm about 3 feet from subject – looking good from corner to corner.
65mm from roughly 40 feet away – excellent corner to corner
50mm from 50 feet – terrific corner to corner sharpness. Something the 24-120mm lacks.
46mm ten feet away – again great from corner to corner.
46mm 3 feet away – ditto.
38mm from 6 feet – that’s right.
28mm from 20 feet. Yummy.
26mm from 8 feet. Anyone know of a state where you can legally marry a lens?
24mm from 20 to 70 feet. Tried this one at f/20 to push the diffraction, but sharpened to 75/0.98/50 looks better than I expected – certainly acceptable up to 11”x17”.
At 20mm this lens measures up impressively. Something tells me the indigenous folks might have a different name for this place. So tests from the toadstools left me wowed with the consistent corner-to-corner sharpness of the 16-80mm regardless of focal length or distance to subject. If there was any weakness it was slightly soft edges at the long end, but I mean just slightly soft, not “hit delete” soft. Bear in mind all these are handheld to boot. I’m liking this lens. Let’s have more fun.
Aware that the presence of a kit lens on my pro-DX body could lead to both image and moral decay, I decided I’d better head somewhere free from sin. What better locale than the Utah/Arizona borderlands in the vicinity of Colorado City?
It’s working – the photo gods send clouds. Going near-to-far with this one. 16mm f/10 and looking crisp throughout.
At 22mm and f/7.1 some slight softness along the bottom edge. f/8-9 would likely clean this up.
38mm and doing this fine landscape justice.
56mm, f/6.3 and a tad soft on the left side – maybe a very slight decentering issue? At f/8 I can’t discern this.
At last, an inferior shot sharpness-wise. Real soft along left edge. Right edge only a bit better. Stopped down to f/10 it got better but nothing I’d waste ink on printing out. Sharpness holds up well in my field tests. What about other optical issues?
8.2) Flare
With it’s Nano-coating flare is reasonably well controlled. Only with the light source in the frame did I have issues of which the above were typical.
Zoomed toward the long end and shooting into the sun would create some overall flare, but easily to eliminate by putting a hand out to extend the lens shading. Sunstars come out pretty fuzzy like the ones above unless you “pinch” the sun between objects.
8.3) Bokeh
So far we’ve been looking at Group f/64 style shots stressing sharpness throughout. Let’s shrink the depth of field and see what happens.
Now you know why I don’t shoot a lot of portraiture, but the out of focus areas look pleasingly soft in this 80mm shot.
Like father, like son, but this time at 44mm.
30mm and even closer.
Here we have some tiny donuts (doughnettes?) around the specular highlights off individual quartz grains in the sandstone this butterfly is perched on, but the background looks smooth.
Nearly wide open we get some hard-edged bokeh from the specular highlights, sometimes I got onion bokeh. I guess we have to thank the aspherical lens elements for this. This is crunchiest bokeh I managed to get.
8.4) Distortion
At 16mm there’s quite noticeable ravioli/mustache distortion.
None of this is a big deal as they are all easily corrected with one click of the lens profile button in Lightroom as above.
From 24-50 there’s not much distortion and around 65-80 there’s slight pincushion distortion…
8.5) Vignetting
There’s quite a bit of vignetting with the 16-80mm. On 99% of my shots this was quickly fixed with one click in Lightroom. However, I came across a couple files where it wasn’t so simple.
Here’s an example:
Here’s my horribly underexposed RAW image with zero post-processing by me. Oops.
Now I’ve lightened and adjusted contrast but haven’t clicked the lens profile button.
Here I’ve clicked the lens profile button and it attempted to fix the vignette but left a strange white ring which I then jacked the contrast way up so it’s easier to see. Ughh.
I tried to fix it with manual adjustments of the vignette and midpoint but this wasn’t enough. I ended up having to carefully burn in the ring to get an even sky. I wonder if this uneven vignette might have something to do with some of the lens elements. Whatever the case, I didn’t notice it until I had processed scores of files from this lens so it isn’t a prevalent issue.
8.5) Diffraction
Stop down beyond f/11 and diffraction starts creeping in as it will with any lens. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t hesitate to shoot this lens at f/16 and just add some extra sharpening in post.
This was at f/18 and 80/1.0/50 sharpening applied. I wouldn’t want to print this at 11”x17” but wouldn’t hesitate at 8”x12”. If you don’t print big or print at all (just share on the web) then this is a non-issue.
8.6) Close-Ups
Closer than 2 feet to the subject I had mixed results. This is likely user error on my part.
If I employed best practices and shot on a tripod and focused with live view this wouldn’t be a problem, but handheld I had trouble getting sharp focus. The 16-80mm has a 0.22x close-up ratio which translates to a subject about 3.5 inches wide horizontally filling the frame at 80mm and minimum focusing distance.
8.7) Astrophotography and Coma
For star shots it’s nice that the 16-80mm has a maximum aperture of f/2.8. At f/2.8 and 16mm, hyperfocal distance is about 15 feet and you get ~8 feet to infinity in focus for results like this:
At 100% view and scanning the corners of the frame I can see teardrop shapes with some of the brighter stars so this lens displays a touch of coma. The above stars have a bit of motion blur. Below are some crops from shots at a shorter shutter speed:
At f/2.8.
At f/4.
At f/5.6.
Dedicated astrophotographers will likely prefer one of the short list of minimal coma primes out there, but for folks like me who only grab a star shot occasionally, the 16-80mm does a passable job.
9) Lens Comparison
In its price range the obvious comparable is the Nikkor 24-120mm. This, however is comparing an FX offering with a DX offering. The following uncropped shots are done on the 20.9 MP D500 (with 16-80mm) and the 24mp D750 (with the 24-120mm). All have my identical default sharpening applied.
Despite the D750’s higher resolution, the D500 with 16-80mm looks sharper at all these focal lengths.
10) Summary and Recommendations
I went into this expecting to bash on a poor defenseless kit lens but came away with quite the crush on this offering. The 16-80mm is a great all-around lens for static subjects. It encompasses a 5x zoom range with an equivalent of 24-120mm which covers most subjects except super wide landscapes and long shots of wildlife or sports.
Need wider than 24mm? Just start stitching.
As far as sharpness goes, the 16-80mm is impressively well balanced throughout its range. What softness does appear is mostly in the corners at the longer focal lengths and wide apertures and improves quickly when stopped down between f/8 – f/11. The 16-80mm’s main weakness is slow autofocus which makes it a poor choice for quick or erratic action. Its other drawbacks (noisy AF, small focus ring, zoom creep) are quite minor and would not deter me from owning this lens. If you shoot lots wide open with lots of specular highlights you may not like the bokeh. For what I like to shoot, landscapes and intimate landscapes (nature details/abstracts) it’s a great choice.
This is a DX lens, hence won’t work on full frame bodies unless shot in 1.5x crop mode. DX files are noisier than their full frame siblings, but then again (at least at the wide end) the 16-80mm is a stop faster than the 24-120mm so you can shoot at lower ISO.
Many early reviews of this lens were critical, saying it was overpriced and not a spectacular performer. Its MSRP is $30 lower than the 24-120mm, which doesn’t get the same criticism, yet in my opinion is the lesser lens (I’ve shot three copies of the 24-120 – all consistently soft in the corners, but Nasim says his 24-120mm is excellent, so the sample variance is surely an issue with that one). Over a grand is a lot to pay for any lens so you should expect a lot in return. The good news is those early negative reviews may have inspired the deep discounts now available when this lens is purchased as part of the D500 + 16-80mm kit. These discounts have been in place for months now and hopefully will persist, but no guarantee.
If we compare both kits, the D500 + 16-80mm versus the similarly priced D750 + 24-120mm, I prefer the former for the nature photography I do. I’d rather have a bit more noise shooting DX, than soft corners that will never be sharp shooting the 24-120. At lower ISOs I think the D500 + 16-80 wins easily. If you shoot in a lot of dim light, then the advantages of the full frame sensor make sense, but for nature photography I’d skip the 24-120 kit lens and invest in some primes instead and commit to lugging the whole shebang around. If you shoot quick paced action then neither kit lens is appropriate. If you’re into portraiture/street photography/events then sharp corners probably aren’t your biggest issue so either lens will do, but if you’re shooting at high ISOs then the D750 + 24-120mm kit gets the edge.
Both kits are on sale as I write this. The Nikon D500 + 16-80mm kit, regularly $3069.95, is now $2569.95 and weighs in at 43.0 oz. The D750 + 24-120mm kit, regularly $3099.95, is now $2399.95 and weighs in at 51.5 oz. Both the D500 and the D750 are terrific camera bodies with the D500 having more pro features (in particular, higher frame rate, bigger buffer and more advanced AF module).
11) Additional Sample Images
Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR
- Optical Performance
- Features
- Bokeh Quality
- Build Quality
- Focus Speed and Accuracy
- Handling
- Image Stabilization
- Value
Photography Life Overall Rating
Great Shots! Great review! Thanks for sharing! Very good this lens.
Excellent review – very well written, and superb images. Thanks for the time and effort !
An entertaining read as always Verm. Nice review too!
Thanks for review John.
Really nice lens, but not too much better, than old 16-85.
Not for this price.
Verry well written. Thanks for the good read!!
Well, this review came at an opportune time, but you’re not doing me any favors….;) Looking at replacing a broken 18-55 that dates to my D40 days. I’ve managed to go a few months without a mid-range zoom, but how long can one go relying on primes and dedicated zooms at the focal length bookends. If Mr. Sherman can swallow a jack of all trades mid-range zoom, so can I. Seriously, I’ve been looking at this lens, the previous 16-85, the 18-140, Sigma 17-70 and a few outside the box candidates like the Sigma 18-35. No one easy answer as they all have compromises of one sort or another (I’m leaning towards the 17-70). If I’m honest when looking in the mirror, I don’t require the ultimate image quality for what will sit on my D7200 most of the time. If I’m pursuing a specific photographic goal or project where IQ is paramount, I have a variety of lenses to suit. But there are times when a “good enough” one-lens answer is all that is needed. My only concerns with the 16-80 come down to price and the moderate build quality. I’m not expecting Leica precision, but at $1000, it would be nice for a lens to have more of a silky/fluid mechanical feel when making manual adjustments. But ultimately, it comes down to results and your words and images make a compelling case. If they could knock $200 or so off that price….. Thanks!
Maybe the 16-80mm will get the Xmas rebate treatment.
I think it’s gonna take a convergence of Christmas, Black Friday, the Easter Bunny, and a data entry error at Amazon to see a $750 price.
N.
Hi Nick,
If you need a D500 the current promotion gives the camera, lens, battery grip and whatever else a top vendor will throw in for $2400. Obviously, that is a big purchase, but it really is a tremendous discount.
Well, I’m just about to replace my second Sigma 17-70 lens. It’s a wonderful everyday lens and it’s been the one I used all the time because it covers every situation from inside rooms to portraits except tele photos. But I won’t get another one and this time buy a Nikkor lens, probably the 16-80.
Why not a Sigma again?
The first one put mould on inside when I was in Vietnam. It was new. Hot and very humid conditions I must admit. But my Nikkor lenses never put mould on there. I had to throw the Sigma away. Now the second one doesn’t focus properly any more. I have used it for 6 years, in Europe only and I never dropped it.
I was also annoyed that the Sigma lens hood is really fiddly to put on the while the Nikkor hoods just slide on in an instant. A detail perhaps, but an important one if you need to be quick!
Great review John, and as always excellent images. Hopefully Nikon continues to flesh out the DX lens set, especially on the wide angle side.
Verm, you can make any lens shine! Wonderful photos!
Hi John, great review and great shots. You have not posted in months so Im very happy to read a review from you again. Since dx sensors are smaller, they gather less light then fx on the same aperture. this lens is an f2.8-4. So in terms of light gathering compared to fx format, it is effectively an f4.2-5.6. do you think that at the same aperture, the fx lens gives brighter images?
No its a 2.8-4. People are jumping up and down about crop lenses and how they let in less light, they don’t. It’s the same amount of light per square k ch, otherwise you would see massive differences in exposure between ff and crop lenses. The desire to multiple the aperture only comes down to depth of field. In my opinion there are too many factors at play with depth of field. You can say it would have the dof similar to 4.2-5.6 lens but it isn’t one.
John, those are some nice shots there! And a nice lens! Your intro was hilarious as heck; par for the course . . . ; )
Even since I started photographing with interchangeable lenses in 2010, I remain baffled why photographers continue to disparage these “kit” lenses. A few of my personal favorite photographs were made with a Nikon D5000 camera and a “kit” lens, the Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR . To this day, I have never been able to replicate those images with more “superior” lenses. Why? Because the moment and the mood are no longer there. Hmm . . .
Great job!
Nice review. Great pictures.
I have this lens on the D7200 for some time.
I travel a lot and to shoot my granddaughter it performs very good.
I had a noise problem to. It was the most noisy lens in my collection. I returned the lens immediately and the second one was “silent” as it should be.
Strange after all.
I might have to send mine in. Thanks for writing in.
Sent mine in and they fixed the grinding but it still has the hump around 28mm. But sharper than my 17-55,
Good review John as always. Recently sold the D750/24-120 kit and replaced it with the D7200/16-80 kit which were “open box” items bought from B&H at a a discount which saved a few dollars. Except for low light shooting the DX kit delivers as good if not better pictures thanks to the faster and sharper 16-80mm lens. Now in my 70s smaller and lighter is easier on the body and the VR is great to offset the “shakes”.
Craig
No comparison with the 16-85mm ? I’m shocked !
Sorry I didn’t have one to compare with.
I was hoping we’d get a Verm review of the D500, but I’ll take this too. Thank you Verm!
I was hoping to do the D500 review, especially after I went off on Nikon for not bringing out a pro-featured DX a year prior. However I’m glad John Lawson did a good job on his D500 review and I agree with his observations.
But you’re funnier! John’s review was terrific. I just prefer your faintly sophomoric writing and levity. Anyway, welcome back. I’m so sad about that poor papa-condor too ):
Faintly sophomoric???? I take offense to the “faintly”.
can Photography Life do a comparison between this lens and the SIGMA 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM | C, please? thanks.
I second that. I’m in the market for a similar zoom lens and the 16-80 and 17-70 are on my candidate list. Leaning towards the Sigma for the price. OTOH if that Nikon was $750 or so I would have bought it.
I wonder how much of a compromise the 17-70 would be over the 16-80 IQ wise.
I’ll third that. Any comments on Sigma 17-70 much appreciated whilst a mint example sits in my local shop for $275.
I have the Sigma 17-70 C on my D5500 and I love it. I find it incredibly sharp, only showing a slight softness at 70mm at the edges and then only at f4, and then only when pixel peeking. AF is plenty quick enough and very accurate. I did a lot of research prior to buying, and as much as I wanted the Nikon, given the price difference I could not justify it.
Having done that research, I narrowed it down to the Nikon having these advantages over the sigma:
– 1mm wider at wide end, 10mm longer at long end so giving 5x zoom rather than 4.1x. Personally I think the extra 10mm would be nice, but 1mm would not be noticable
– Manual override on AF. As I use back button focusing, having the constant manual override available would be handy, saves flicking the switch.
There is always a risk when going off brand, and I am still not 100% on top of the zoom ring going the other way. I also might just have had a really good copy, though variation lens to lens does seem to be an issue that affects all manufacturers. However given the price saving I think it is absolutely worth it.
I really like the 17-70 and that is a great price for one in perfect condition. I do like the 16-80 a little better, but probably not for that much difference in cash.
I own both and the Nikon focuses much faster than the Sigma, especially if tracking a moving subject. My daughter rides and jumps horses and with the Sigma the frames per second were well below what my camera can do. With the Nikon it is lighting fast and nails focus even when the subject is rapidly moving toward me.
There is of course a substantial price difference but if you can get the Nikon second hand for a reasonable price it is worth it IMO.
I’ve been considering this lens, but now I’m wondering what kind of results I’d get from my 24-120 on my D500. (I bought the lens for the D750 originally.) That would knock off the soft corners and eliminate vignetting. And for me, an equivalent range of 36-180 on the D500 would be even more useful than an equivalent 24-120.
my 24-120 works amazingly well with D500. I also had it from my D800/D750 days.
s.yimg.com/pw/im…ilable.png
That sounds like a good combo for you and I’d try it before buying the 16-80mm.
Of course D500 with 16-80 will look sharper than D750 with 24-120, in your comparison!!!! But that’s not because of the lens differences. It is because you used them on D500 an D750! D500 lacks Low Pass Filter is thus consistently produces sharper and more detailed photos than D750 which has Low Pass Filter! So the D500 photos will often look sharper and more detailed than D750! You also own D810 which lacks LP Filter. You should have been using that camera with 24-120 for that comparison.
I have both D500 and D750. Other than somewhat cleaner results in low light and obvious benefits of DOF advantage due to being a full frame camera, I see no benefits of D750 over D500 Today. Including for landscape photographers – DXO results show DR range of 14 stops on D500 (first for a crop camera) and 14.5 for D750 so it is close. But there are tons of benefits of D500 over D750. This is one of the few times I actually agree with “Fro knows best!! Jared Pohlin” who says between the two cameras D500 should be recommended for most things these days.
By the way it appears I am another lucky owner of a very sharp 24-120/4 sample that is sharp from 24 to 120!
Yes, for what it was built for (sports and wildlife), the D500 is supreme. I can’t believe it, but my D3s and D4s are basically retired now because of the complete frame and low-light AF, and overall handling. The viewfinder is not noticeably worse than the FX bodies, which you could never say before. Carrying a couple of extra batteries is rarely a problem. The only time I go back to the big beasts is if I know I’ll be shooting outdoors for over 6 hours, and even then they are only the back up to the D500!
Hi David,
Your point about the OLPF on the D750 is very valid and explains the difference in overall sharpness. However, even when shooting on my D810 I find the 24-120 to be soft in the corners and not the lens I prefer for my nature studies. I’ve shot three copies of the 24-120 and have had the same results, but it sounds like you got quite tohe good copy so congrats! My choice to shoot the D750/24-120 was done to compare similarly priced kit offerings.
Verm
You need to read Depth of Field Myths: The Biggest Misconceptions, by Spencer Cox, on this sight. There is NO difference in DOF FX to DX.
How much was your D500?
Great review thank you.
Glad to see you are confirming my conclusions. I also have a 24-120 and D750, but I use the 16-80 on a D7200. When I first got the 16-80 over a year ago (I was an early adopter) I shot it on a D7100 side-by-side with my 24-120 on a D610 and decided the DX combo was definitely sharper overall. I didn’t do the detailed tests you did but I still think the D7200 with the 16-80 is probably the best travel photography combo available as long as you don’t have to shoot in really low light.
I also got the 16-80mm lens as a kit lens with the D500 and before I used the 17-55mm on the D300. The 16-80 I got at 42% less as a special as a kit with the D500. So that was a good price for that lens. The plastic build of the lens doesn’t bother me at all and I rather prefer it to the heavy build of the 17-55 which I don’t bother anymore to use just due to its weight. I can also confirm everything in this review and this lens is a joy to use. It is just a pity Nikon is not updating their 16mm lens, since it will be nice to have a fix 16mm for DX use.
I have owned the 16-80mm lens for over a year, previously having used the 24-120mmf4 on a D750. I was never happy with the performance of the 24-120 lens. It was soft in the corners wide open, and when any sort of filter was attached there would be severe vignetting in the corners at the 24mm setting.
When I first obtained the 16-80 lens I used it on a D7200. It was easy to compare the performance of the 16-80 and the 24-120 as both the DX and FX cameras were 24mp. In every way, the 16-80 was better. Sharper in the middle and corners, more contrasty, and most important, not vignetting from filters. I eventually purchased a step up ring so that I could use my 77mm filters. Again, no problem with vignetting with any filter attached, not even thick ones.
The less weight of this lens over the 24-120 is quite noticeable and a welcome side benefit.
One should note that Nikon’s current DX cameras do not have anti-aliasing filters and that also contributes to better image quality over Nikon FX cameras.
As this lens goes to F2.8 at the wide end, it evens the playing field in regards to overall noise levels of FX vs DX as the 24-120 can only go to f4 at the wide end.
This lens is really best suited for landscapes and as a general travel lens. The DX format does have an advantage for greater DOF, less weight, and excellent image quality. The 24-120 lens is just not up to the task here and so I sold mine on Ebay 6 months ago.
i currently used the 16-80 lens on my D500 with just as excellent results as with the D7200 if not better.
“The DX format does have an advantage for greater DOF…”
You have stated a common urban myth that has been totally, utterly, and endlessly debunked. Using the same f-number, a smaller sensor yields an increased depth of field; it also yields a corresponding increase in diffraction. Therefore, smaller formats do not, and cannot, yield a DOF advantage. Optical physics does not dictate the rules of optics, it just thoroughly explains the laws and limitations imposed by our universe.
photographylife.com/senso…h-of-field
just as a dx 16-80 lens is comparable in fov as an fx 24-120 lens, there is not any real appreciable difference in an fx aperture of 4.0 compared to a dx aperture of 2.8 since the crop factor of is applied to both dx focal length and aperture.
using the example of a dx aperture of 2.8, it’s an approximate fx equivalent aperture of 4.2 so both lenses at the same fov would result in almost the same dof.
Great review! Very focused on the practical performance rather than test charts.
I wish I had read this review earlier! Now to have a laugh at my expense. I purchased a second Nikon D500 and got the kit with the 16-80. I was thinking it would be fine to sell or whatever. You see, I have a Sigma 17-70 that I completely love for travel. This little gem is sharp everywhere but wide open at 17mm. It’s light and the focus is fine for travel and things that move but not erratically.
I took a trip to Myanmar in late October and was debating on what camera to bring. Should I bring the big bulky D500 or the nice small Olympus OMD M5 mk2? What to do, what to do, what to do? Well, through some convoluted logic, I decided to take the D500. I know, what WAS I thinking? The Olympus is great…and small, and I have wonderful pro lenses for it. So, why did I take the Nikon…well in retrospect, it wasn’t the best decision. Regardless, that is not the reason for this post. The reason for this post is this….why didn’t I bother looking at the 16-80? It is only better in every way. I love the Sigma and I got some great images with it (and its ever present big brother, my 70-300 VR. This light weight gem is perfect for the maybe 10% of shots I can’t get with the 17-70. Did I mention it’s light?) but it isn’t as good in any way. They both focus at about the same speed, but the Nikon is better everywhere else. It’s sharper, wider, longer, and has better VR. It is only bulkier because of the lens hood. So, the Sigma is now retired and gone. I should have looked at this overlooked “kit” lens before heading off….
Hello sceptical1
I recently bought a D7200 and have a Nikon 12-24 and Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 to capture the wide to mid range. While the constant aperture of the Sigma is very useful, it is very soft at 17mm and I am pondering about swapping it out for the Nikon 16-80. As one who has made the transition, how would you compare the Sigma and Nikon from 17-50mm?
Your perspective would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers.
FYI: My 16-80 also had the grinding noise and the hump in the middle whike zooming. I sent it in to Nikon January 2017 and after several weeks received an email stating they were waiting for parts. Several weeks later I got the lens back, repaired. The grinding noise is gone but the hump’s still there Your review is spot on. The lens is OK but slow, and for the price, disappointing. As are all recent DX zooms. The new 70-300, while fast, accurate and affordable, is cheaply made, and not what I had hoped for to pair with my fantastic D500. I echo all the others who yearn for pro DX lenses. The best combo I currently use is the older but excellent Nikon 12-24 F4, the Nikon 70-200 F4 and 4 Nikon FX primes: 24, 35, 50, and the newer 300 pf (beautiful lens). I also have the FX Nikon 24-70 (non VR) but would prefer something lighter. The 16-80 is For Sale and I regret having paid full price for it when the D500 kit first came out.
Hi Steve,
I must say, I must be a very lucky person. My copy of the 16-80 is about as good as it gets. Obviously, it will not outperform my prime lenses, but it is as sharp as any zoom lens I have, including a very sharp 70-200 2.8 and Sigma 18-35. It is also noticeably sharper then an old 24-70 by far (to be fair, this lens is quite old and I never thought it was as great as the reviews, maybe a marginal copy).
I thought it would be marginal based on some of the negative reporting, but I really love mine. Obviously, it’s not a 2.8 lens throughout, so it’s not as fast, but for its intended use, it’s plenty fast enough. It’s also sharp enough to use on a professional shoot in a pinch (no, I have not done that) Regardless, I think you probably got a dreaded “bad copy”
Hi Steve,
Any idea how does the Nikon 16-80 f/2.8-4 compares to the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8?
Thanks!
Thanks John,
I laughed a lot with this.
Thanks for the great article! I’m in the market for a great all around wedding / portrait lens so I’m researching!! I have a Nikon D7200. I’m confused! If I buy a DX 35mm f1.8 (for example) is it actually 35mm or are all lenses given a FX equivalent?? Idiotic question I know but I keep seeing confusing information as I research. I understamd if I buy an FX lens the crop sensor will change everything. I just bought the new Tamrom 70-200 f2.8 G2 and it is the eqivalent of approx. 105-300mm as I’ve been told. My main question after all this is if a DX lens is as stated in terms of focal length. Is DX 35mm really 35mm? Thanks a ton!
Hi Chet,
I just bought a D7200; fabulous camera! You can use either DX or FX lenses on your D72000; they will both work fine. However, if you wish to upgrade to a full frame camera in future, your DX lenses will for the most part not work. A DX specific lens is especially designed to match up with the smaller sensor in a DX body, whereas the FX lenses will work on both formats. The focal lens of a lens is exactly what it says on the barrel, regardless of whether its is an FX or DX lens. A 35mm lens, whether it is the DX or FX version, will give you a field of view that is 1.5x that of the same lens on a full frame body – i.e. the 35mm lens ( DX or FX version) mounted on a DX body will give you an FX equivalent view of 52.5mm. You have been correctly told that your Tamron 70-200mm (which is actually an FX lens) when used on your D7200, will give you the equivalent of 105 to 450mm on a full frame body. I hope that I have clarified things a bit for you.
Cheers
Hi ! Could you please compare the 16-80mm to the 16-85mm ? Thanks a lot !
Very nice review, and one I needed , I just got this lens in a second hand market , and was thinking if I made the right choice after watching a review from an angry guy in youtube. Thanks for this. Will share some photos by this lens when I got a chance to go out in my blog
there have been a few comments re the noisy (and possibly slow?) AF mechanism on the 16-80. while at the local official Nikon showroom, i had a chance to play with the 16-80 on a D7500. compared to the 18-55 kit lens and a 10-24, AF felt quite leisurely, particularly when using AF-C to move btwn 0.5m to near infinity. I didn’t have a timer but through the viewfinder, you can literally see the focus come in, whereas on the other lens it was more of a “snap” to focus. Granted the 10-24 is UWA with narrower focal range and lighter glass but I’m wondering if this would even keep up with tracking kids/toddlers indoors (rather erratic little critters). AF was also quite loud and grinding (the noisiest I’ve seen since my old non-digital Sigma driven by the screw drive)
is this a batch-specific problem? i see some people saying they brought their noisy 16-80s back to Nikon for repairs; is the grinding indication of poor AF. I understand AF is not just lens dependent but all things constant, I can find a sample w/o that, the AF is good? there are also posters here who seem to love their 16-80 and find AF to be trouble free
Looking to upgrade my Nikon D90 and 18-70. Considering a D7200 or D7500 with 16-80 lens, or a D750 with 24-120 lens. I shoot mostly outdoor family outings, (at the beach, and around the countryside) occasionally some portraits, and little league. I like nice clean vibrant photos without a lot of post processing. Any thoughts?
Thanks, Nelly