Nikon lens comparsion (Page 2): The 16-80 is wider, longer, less expensive, lighter, and in most cases, your photos will look much the same as shot with the bigger, heavier, shorter...

ELNikkor

The 16-80 is wider, longer, less expensive, lighter, and in most cases, your photos will look much the same as shot with the bigger, heavier, shorter, more expensive, less wide 24-70. I'd go for the more practical 16-80.

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

Gkiatta wrote:

I want to buy a lens for my d500 what is difference between 24x70 2.8 vr and a16x80 2.8 vr I know price is big difference one is dx and one is fx help

The 16-80 2.8-4 was a recent add lens by Nikon. It has a field of view on your D500 of 24-120, which is the same field of view of the great Nikon 24-120 FX f4 lens.
I own both of these lenses, the 24-70 2.8 would have a field of view on your D500 of 36-105 mm 2.8.
Both lenses are very sharp, it would be hard to see the difference in sharpness between these two.
The 16-80 was designed to be sold as a kit with the D500. I like it because I seem to have it on the camera much more than the 24-70 because of the weight of the 24-70.
The D500 can handle a high ISO and still deliver a great shot. So the speed difference between the two diminishes in effect.
Nikon currently offers a big discount if you buy the D500 with the 16-80 lens. You, in essence, get the lens at 1/2 off.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1214162-REG/nikon_1560_d500_dslr_camera_with.html?sts=pi

If you wait until they have their big sale, usually in spring and December, they throw in a vertical grip.
It is a great combo that will deliver great shots for you.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

If you have a DX camera get the 16-80mm. It is an excellent lens and has a very useful range of focal lengths. If you have an FX camera get the other.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

My advise, use DX lenses with the D500 body unless you need more reach in which case a FX lens will do the job.

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

Buy the 24-120, it gives you 36-180 on a crop sensor, that’s 90% of your likely focal length use. Add an ultra wide prime or zoom for those really wide shots

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Seems like I remember, that when the D500 was released, it was given the nickname as "little brother" to the full frame D5?

O2Ra

larryepage wrote:

The D500 sensor is essentially the same as one end... (show quote)

I concur! I myself have the d500, d850 and d810. I do have the Sigma 18-35 that basically lives on the d500. It is a dx lens. But I in my head know the ff equlivant size the ff lenses will be on the d500 and don’t think twice about using them. For one like this man said use good glass on that camera body. There is no substitute for good glass . The d500 deserves it for sure. I also had the d7000 16mp body and only shot ff glass on it .
Great optics and great motors in them all will equate to better results.
When it comes to shooting wide or ultra wide on that crop body it helps to find the right lens. I purchased the Sigma 8-16 and it is an apsc sensor coverage lens. And like was said earlier the 17-55 Nikkor is a great dx lens for this body.
Best of luck but let people tell you “unless you’re moving to full frame “ that’s a crap statement when you’re dealing with the f mount. Buy for performance and quality. But figure out the equivalent ff focal lenght.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

mas24 wrote:

Seems like I remember, that when the D500 was released, it was given the nickname as "little brother" to the full frame D5?

But there was no D850 at that time to compare it to. As stated...I don't have a D5 and have never shot one, so can't speak about it. But I do have a D850. Ultimately, a lot has been said about the D500 that doesn't hold up, has misled a lot of folks, and has probably unnecessarily cost a lot of sales of that camera.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Gkiatta wrote:

I want to buy a lens for my d500 what is difference between 24x70 2.8 vr and a16x80 2.8 vr I know price is big difference one is dx and one is fx help

The Nikon 16-80mm is the kit lens to the D500. It was a DX formatted lens for it. There was no way, that Nikon was going to put its traditional 18-55mm kit lens, on such a quality DX camera. I have a Nikon 18-55mm kit lens. It is not f2.8. The 16-80mm is not a cheap lens either. I have yet, to see that lens used by anyone but a D500 owner. Other Nikon DX camera models, are usually seen with the Nikon18-140mm, or the 16-85mm lens. Which are less expensive, and popular. I would rather have the FX 24-70mm f2.8 over the 16-80mm f2.8. Regardless of the weight difference. You could use that lens on DX and FX cameras. A DX lens, is not recommended for use on a FX camera.

O2Ra

larryepage wrote:

But there was no D850 at that time to compare it to. As stated...I don't have a D5 and have never shot one, so can't speak about it. But I do have a D850. Ultimately, a lot has been said about the D500 that doesn't hold up, has misled a lot of folks, and has probably unnecessarily cost a lot of sales of that camera.

Yes the d500 is a professional camera in all respects. I shoot it in with other two ff cameras the d810 and d850 . Most of the time I don’t think twice . Before i got the d850 I’d rather be shooting with the d500 over the d810 for most of what I do. I shoot live music photography. The speed , button layout and feel of the d500 just works. The full frame image holds up a little better in post when shooting high iso. Until I got the enel 18 battery in the grip of the d850 I Still was preferring the d500 over it. The bigger battery in the d850 brings it alive. The low light high contrast situations i shoot in begs for a great focusing system. The d500 is a beast . And not until I invested in that enel18 battery did the d850 best it in focusing performance .
The d500 is super for sports and wildlife. It’s a pro camera that I wish Nikon had developed more dx pro glass for . If they even still did for apsc I think they’d do well. The d500 just feels good in the hand and it’s hard to put down.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

larryepage wrote:

But there was no D850 at that time to compare it to. As stated...I don't have a D5 and have never shot one, so can't speak about it. But I do have a D850. Ultimately, a lot has been said about the D500 that doesn't hold up, has misled a lot of folks, and has probably unnecessarily cost a lot of sales of that camera.

You are correct. The D500 was released 3 years ago, before the release of the D850. I haven't heard any misleading comments about the D500 on this forum. It is obviously Nikon's best DX camera. It has features that no other DX camera has. I own a Nikon DX, 24 megapixels DSLR. It does not compare. I'm wanting it to be my next upgrade camera. Since, all but just one, of my lenses, are DX formatted.

Charlie C Loc: North Liberty, IA

Gkiatta wrote:

I want to buy a lens for my d500 what is difference between 24x70 2.8 vr and a16x80 2.8 vr I know price is big difference one is dx and one is fx help

I have both and they are very sharp. I had (and still have) the 16-80 prior to purchasing the 24-70. Love both. The DX is for a crop sensor Nikon only. It is not for full frame camera.For family, general photography or just walking around I like the lighter weight of the 16-80 on the D7200 and gives reach. However, for serious things like close ups, portraits or large prints I'll use the 24-70 on the D750 full frame. If I had to just have one or the other it would be a hard decision for me to make as I use a full frame and a crop sensor. Depends on your budget and what you think you'll benefit most from. Hope this helps.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

mas24 wrote:

You are correct. The D500 was released 3 years ago, before the release of the D850. I haven't heard any misleading comments about the D500 on this forum. It is obviously Nikon's best DX camera. It has features that no other DX camera has. I own a Nikon DX, 24 megapixels DSLR. It does not compare. I'm wanting it to be my next upgrade camera. Since, all but just one, of my lenses, are DX formatted.

I just feel that the D500 has been over-promoted as a sports and wildlife camera. It can, of course, serve those areas extremely well. But it has been under-promoted and deeply misunderstood as a great all-around camera with outstanding overall design and operation, and very significant benefits over the next available option. As I've stated elsewhere, I wish I'd gotten mine a long time ago.

O2Ra

larryepage wrote:

I just feel that the D500 has been over-promoted as a sports and wildlife camera. It can, of course, serve those areas extremely well. But it has been under-promoted and deeply misunderstood as a great all-around camera with outstanding overall design and operation, and very significant benefits over the next available option. As I've stated elsewhere, I wish I'd gotten mine a long time ago.

Ithas mainly been touted as a sports and wildlife camera. If it has the picture quality for that it can do just about anything. A friend on mine had it as his main camera. He does a lot of portraits. He also is my partner in a video production company. We have been building a soon to air tv show for a local pbs channel. We use all Nikon DSLRs. Well we just got a Panasonic gh4 because of that 30min record barrier. This is my 2019 setup for the d500.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

O2Ra wrote:

Ithas mainly been touted as a sports and wildlife camera. If it has the picture quality for that it can do just about anything. A friend on mine had it as his main camera. He does a lot of portraits. He also is my partner in a video production company. We have been building a soon to air tv show for a local pbs channel. We use all Nikon DSLRs. Well we just got a Panasonic gh4 because of that 30min record barrier. This is my 2019 setup for the d500.

I don't do video, but one advantage the D500 has is 4K Video. The Panasonic GH4/GH5, mirrorless cameras, have very good reviews for video recording. Mentioned, occasionly on this forum.