Sell the Nikon 16-80/2.8-4 lens? I have 3 lenses to sell so I can get the Sony 24-105/4. Adorama wants them; but I won’t know their price for several days. For my D500, I usually grab...

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

I have 3 lenses to sell so I can get the Sony 24-105/4. Adorama wants them; but I won’t know their price for several days.

For my D500, I usually grab the 24-70/2.8 for special occasions and use the 16-80 for family events because it’s lighter and smaller. But, those two cover about the same range. Because of that, I just left the 24-70 on my camera to see if I would miss the 16-80. I didn’t; BUT, Sunday I had a party for my daughter’s birthday and there were 20 of us, including small children...SO...I put the 16-80 back on the camera, just in case someone else wanted to take pictures (that’s the only way that I get in them). I did that thinking it would be less intimidating and easier to handle for a non-camera savy person.

I think I just answered my own question. What say you?

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

I think there is a significant difference between the two lenses on the wider end. A few mm makes a bigger difference in that range.
I have used the phenomenal 24-70 lenses (both with and w/o vr) but only on full frame cameras. Never used the 16-80. Depends on where your priorities and shooting preferences lie. Good luck!

Drip Dry McFleye

Funny you should ask! I have been thinking exactly along the opposite line! I've been asking myself if getting the "famous" 24-70 2.8 would be enough of an advantage over the 16-80 that came on my D500 to justify the expense. For it's size, weight and price I find the 16-80 which I had planned to sell (before I saw it's capabilities) to be one really good lens. For now, I have managed to hold tight onto my purse strings.

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

GoofyNewfie wrote:

I think there is a significant difference between the two lenses on the wider end. A few mm makes a bigger difference in that range.
I have used the phenomenal 24-70 lenses (both with and w/o vr) but only on full frame cameras. Never used the 16-80. Depends on where your priorities and shooting preferences lie. Good luck!

That is true. Thank you for pointing that out. I do like the compact size of the 16-80 and it's better than the typical "kit" lens. I think I'll do some testing with both lenses to see just what they can do in comparison with each other.

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

Drip Dry McFleye wrote:

Funny you should ask! I have been thinking exactly along the opposite line! I've been asking myself if getting the "famous" 24-70 2.8 would be enough of an advantage over the 16-80 that came on my D500 to justify the expense. For it's size, weight and price I find the 16-80 which I had planned to sell (before I saw it's capabilities) to be one really good lens. For now, I have managed to hold tight onto my purse strings.

Well, I had the 24-70/2.8 first. When I upgraded from the D7100 to the awesome D500, I opted for the camera with lens because the lens costs a little less that way. I used nothing but the 16-80 lens for a while and really liked it; but always found myself grabbing the 24-70 for the really important pictures. I would never give up that lens. However, I don't especially like the 24-70 on a full frame camera. I need to do a little more research and practicing with both lenses. If I was in your shoes, I would probably hang on to my money, too.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

The 16-80 came with my D500 but now it pretty much resides on my D7200. I'd keep the 16-80.

theehmann

Keep it. It's a great lens.

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

rmorrison1116 wrote:

The 16-80 came with my D500 but now it pretty much resides on my D7200. I'd keep the 16-80.

Thank you for that. What lens resides on your D500?

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

GrandmaG wrote:

Thank you for that. What lens resides on your D500?

It varies depending on what I'm using it for. Usually my 28-300 but sometimes my 200-500 with 1.4 teleconverter.

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

rmorrison1116 wrote:

It varies depending on what I'm using it for. Usually my 28-300 but sometimes my 200-500 with 1.4 teleconverter.

Interesting. I don't have either of those lenses. I was considering the 18-200, though. I opted for the Sigma 150-600 instead of the Nikon 200-500. I haven't used it too much, yet, but I will!

Alans844

I've got a D750 and a D500. Also have 16-80, non-VR 24-70 (recent), 28-300 and a 300 F4 PF. I'm trying to get the 24-70 to give me the kind of results on the D500 I get with it on the 750. That notwithstanding I'd keep the 16-80 for traveling light and the wide-end. I also have a 24-120 which was kit with the D750 and turns out to be a really good focal length with the D500 to shoot my grandson's high school basketball games

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Your 24-70 f2.8 is an FX lens so it will perform to its best with a "full frame" body. The 16-80 was made for bodies like your D500 because it can use the whole sensor. By the way, I know the 16-80 is an excellent sharp lens.
If you do not have a full frame body the 16-80 will be a better performer with your D500.

Bike guy Loc: Atlanta

I get emails from Adorama inviting me to sell items but when I list them I never hear back.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

Keep the 16 -80mm it is a great lens and is appropriate for a crop sensor. I even bought a Panasonic 12-60mm for micro 4/3 as it has about the same field of view. This is a great focal length range.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I have a 16-80 and definitely plan to keep it. Handles well and the range is just right for my grab n' go crop body