what your opinion for street and travel? Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4E VR Anyone?
Jon
August 17, 2020 12:20 pm
The comparison between the D500 and D750 is interesting. The D500 looks sharper but colors are more pleasant on the D750
Duffy Doherty
December 8, 2019 6:12 pm
Based upon this review, I went ahead and purchased a used copy from Adorama to use on my newly obtained, refurbished D7200. It is match made in heaven. I must he received a very good copy of the lens. It takes full advantage of the 24MP… Thanks so much for the great review!
Matthew Currie
November 22, 2019 8:32 am
I guess results and samples can vary, but like the person above, I had a 16-85 on my D7100 and the D3200 before it, and thought it a pretty decent lens, although not as sharp as my wife’s 18-140. After a discouraging aperture lever glitch spoiled some shots in Bhutan I bit on a refurbished 16-80, and at least in my case the difference is quite tangible. The 16-80 is considerably sharper and better overall, and I’m happy to stay with it.
I would mention as a small but rather nice aside, the big squarish hood on this lens is pretty robust, and has saved my lens from damage when I tripped and fell, and it also is designed so that you can turn a polarizing filter with the hood still attached, which is not the case on many lenses. It’s a little clumsy to carry on trips, but it’s a nice touch.
John Moyer
June 11, 2019 7:07 pm
Largely based on this review, I bought a Nikon 16-80 lens to use on my D7200. I had decided to keep my 16-85 due to the high price ($1080!) of the 16-80, but then the Nikon website offered it in Dec. 2018 “refurbished” for $600, so I bought it. The lens came in a plain white box, but appeared NEW in every respect except length of warranty. After comparing the two side-by-side for a month I sold the 16-85, and have not regretted it. I just get better images with the 16-80. I think this lens makes better use of the 24 mp sensor. It stays on my D7200 most of the time. I have decided to stay with DX because I am happy with the photos from my D7200, and the total cost of switching to FX is too high for me to justify,
Chris Dann
November 30, 2018 4:23 pm
Well I got this lens so I could use my 7200 instead of my D600 24-120 f4 but it did not work for me. Sigma 17-70 gave better results +++++ on close up/ A lot of money for very little over 16-85 and have looked all over for close focus images (psuedo Macro) and they are not there. The most important lens for nikon DX and not an insect or flower in sight. SAVE your MONEY Nikon 16-85 and any old legacy lens you fancy
Thanks for the nice and comprehensive review, John. But it does leave one question hanging: what zoom lens of this or similar range *do* you recommend, for “quick or erratic action” with the D500?
Nelly
March 15, 2018 6:04 pm
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?
Hello Nelly – I was just in your position!! Went ahead and jumped to the d7500 – won’t look back – do need to invest in another lens tho – only kit lenses right now, but I did pick up the Sigma 10-20 wide or landscape – I am looking at the 160800 2.8mm from Nikon- do it!
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
Bhuboy
September 26, 2017 1:10 am
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
what your opinion for street and travel?
Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4E VR
Anyone?
The comparison between the D500 and D750 is interesting. The D500 looks sharper but colors are more pleasant on the D750
Based upon this review, I went ahead and purchased a used copy from Adorama to use on my newly obtained, refurbished D7200. It is match made in heaven. I must he received a very good copy of the lens. It takes full advantage of the 24MP…
Thanks so much for the great review!
I guess results and samples can vary, but like the person above, I had a 16-85 on my D7100 and the D3200 before it, and thought it a pretty decent lens, although not as sharp as my wife’s 18-140. After a discouraging aperture lever glitch spoiled some shots in Bhutan I bit on a refurbished 16-80, and at least in my case the difference is quite tangible. The 16-80 is considerably sharper and better overall, and I’m happy to stay with it.
I would mention as a small but rather nice aside, the big squarish hood on this lens is pretty robust, and has saved my lens from damage when I tripped and fell, and it also is designed so that you can turn a polarizing filter with the hood still attached, which is not the case on many lenses. It’s a little clumsy to carry on trips, but it’s a nice touch.
Largely based on this review, I bought a Nikon 16-80 lens to use on my D7200. I had decided to keep my 16-85 due to the high price ($1080!) of the 16-80, but then the Nikon website offered it in Dec. 2018 “refurbished” for $600, so I bought it. The lens came in a plain white box, but appeared NEW in every respect except length of warranty. After comparing the two side-by-side for a month I sold the 16-85, and have not regretted it. I just get better images with the 16-80. I think this lens makes better use of the 24 mp sensor. It stays on my D7200 most of the time. I have decided to stay with DX because I am happy with the photos from my D7200, and the total cost of switching to FX is too high for me to justify,
Well I got this lens so I could use my 7200 instead of my D600 24-120 f4 but it did not work for me.
Sigma 17-70 gave better results +++++ on close up/
A lot of money for very little over 16-85 and have looked all over for close focus images (psuedo Macro) and they are not there.
The most important lens for nikon DX and not an insect or flower in sight.
SAVE your MONEY Nikon 16-85 and any old legacy lens you fancy
Sorry bothering but, Chris Dann from aylesbury?…
No Sorry
Thanks for the nice and comprehensive review, John. But it does leave one question hanging: what zoom lens of this or similar range *do* you recommend, for “quick or erratic action” with the D500?
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
Hello Nelly – I was just in your position!! Went ahead and jumped to the d7500 – won’t look back – do need to invest in another lens tho – only kit lenses right now, but I did pick up the Sigma 10-20 wide or landscape – I am looking at the 160800 2.8mm from Nikon- do it!
ooops 16-80mm
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
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