Nikon 16-80 kit lens with D 500: I am on the verge of buying a D500 I use a D 7200 with an 18-200 as my daily lens Is it worth buying the 16-80 for better quality landscape I realize...

sdorfman

I am on the verge of buying a D500
I use a D 7200 with an 18-200 as my daily lens
Is it worth buying the 16-80 for better quality landscape
I realize the disadvantage of the shorter range
SD

nikonlad Loc: Venice, FL

sdorfman wrote:

I am on the verge of buying a D500
I use a D 7200 with an 18-200 as my daily lens
Is it worth buying the 16-80 for better quality landscape
I realize the disadvantage of the shorter range
SD

I love this lens. Used it for landscapes at Yellowstone NP and the Tetons.

rorsborn

I just returned from my first trip to SD, MT and WY. Most of my photos were with the 35-80mm 1:4-5.6 lens and the 55-250mm IS STM when I needed closer. Very pleased and hope to post some soon.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

sdorfman wrote:

I am on the verge of buying a D500
I use a D 7200 with an 18-200 as my daily lens
Is it worth buying the 16-80 for better quality landscape
I realize the disadvantage of the shorter range
SD

Lots of folks love this lens. I looked at it when I was looking for an alternative lens to my 17-55mm f/2.8 on my D500. My conclusion was that it was pretty average, especially considering that the price was almost $1100 and that it is actually f/4 over almost its entire zoom range. Instead, I bought a used, but like new 24-120mm f/4 (which is the full frame functional equivalent) for $425. (I did have to buy the hood separately at that price). That was a year and a half ago, and I have been very pleased with it on the D500. It does need a little more saturation to give results equivalent to most of my other lenses, but that is trivial to set up in the Picture Control of the D500. It is a massive improvement over the 18-200mm, which I also have. I have taken some photographs with it on the D500 that have done well in contests.

If I were in your shoes and liked the focal length and thought that f/4 was OK and the incremental price wasn't more than $500 (or maybe $600), then I'd probably consider it. Any more than that and I would not.

nikonlad Loc: Venice, FL

Saw one for sale on Fred Miranda for $485

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1665314/0?keyword=nikon,16-80mm#15357098

CO

I had the Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4 lens. I was disappointed with it. They seem to have lowered the quality from the previous 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6. It has a lower grade focusing motor and its build quality is not as good. It also has a lot of barrel and pincushion distortion. It's about a $500 to $600 lens that sells for over $1000. I ended up returning it. I had the previous 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 already. I found another 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 new and bought it. Some camera stores may still have some of the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 lenses new. Try to find one of those. If you can't find one new, you might purchase a used one that is in excellent condition. The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is an outstanding lens. The only thing is that it doesn't have VR. If you use a tripod, VR is not a consideration.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I've never been a fan of very wide range zooms. I would rather have two lenses to cover that range. The f4.0 lenses are less expensive that the f2.8's and that's the way I would go if the budget requires it.
To answer your question specifically, yes I think it would be worth it. And you can't go wrong with a D500. It's a fine camera that you will be very happy with.
I would do some research on the 16~80 lens. If it were me I would buy the D500 alone and pick my own lens, and it wouldn't be the 16~80. See what Ken Rockwell has to say about it.

Drip Dry McFleye

Consider this: If you are buying a D500 kit with the 16-80 you are probably getting the lens at a much lower price than list. If you don't like the lens you will probably be able to sell it and get most of what you actually paid for it in the kit. I bought the kit with the 16-80 a couple of years ago and I find the lens quite useful. Maybe it's not the best available but it didn't cost me nearly as much as the best available either.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I have never used the Nikon 16-80 lens, my favorite lens for DX is the 18-200 VR. I know that many people have their complaints on this lens but except for creeping its performance has been excellent. I took care of the problem with a rubber band.
Another lens I recommend, ideal for the negative size sensor (full frame) is the 24-85 VR. Small and very good optics.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

I'd consider a 35mm or 50mm1.8's primes, their sharp.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

sdorfman wrote:

I am on the verge of buying a D500
I use a D 7200 with an 18-200 as my daily lens
Is it worth buying the 16-80 for better quality landscape
I realize the disadvantage of the shorter range
SD

My last D500 purchase was the combo lens and body deal.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1214162-REG/nikon_1560_d500_dslr_camera_with.html?sts=pi&pim=Y One of the main reasons I did this was I got the lens at half price. Nikon did the same thing with the D850 and 24-120 mm lens, this lens focal length has always been one of my favorites. So, the 16-80 produces a 24-120 field of view on the D500, and, the 16-80 lens is lighter than the 24-120. Image quality is outstanding, tack sharp, really like this lens.
Your 18-200 will also give you outstanding results, it is slower than the 16-80 but not by much. If you own the second version of the 18-200 I would personally hold onto it.
As far as landscape photography goes, my two main landscape lenses are the Nikon 16-35 and 24-120 f4 FF lenses I use off my D850.
You may also want to consider the Nikon 10-20 mm lens for landscapes, it will give you a field of view of about 15-30 mm. That would be my ideal landscape lens. But I prefer to include a fore ground, others my not use this type of landscape shooting.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1341603-REG/nikon_20067_af_p_dx_nikkor_10_20mm.html?sts=pi&pim=Y
So, lots to consider.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

I had a 16-85 that was my go to lens on a national parks trip. Although not the same, I found that lens’s range met my needs nearly 95% of the time.

DanielJDLM

I switched from the 18-200 to the 16-80. Very pleased with it. No complaints.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Drip Dry McFleye wrote:

Consider this: If you are buying a D500 kit with the 16-80 you are probably getting the lens at a much lower price than list. If you don't like the lens you will probably be able to sell it and get most of what you actually paid for it in the kit. I bought the kit with the 16-80 a couple of years ago and I find the lens quite useful. Maybe it's not the best available but it didn't cost me nearly as much as the best available either.

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

I love mine.....although except for being 1 stop faster I don't think it is any better than the 16-85, which you can still find if you're willing to spend some time looking. The VR in the 16-80 is superb.