augieg27 Loc: Central California

Happy New Year!!

I am considering the Nikon 16-80mm lens, your opinion/experience
with it would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Augie

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

You are going to get lots of replies and different ideas in response to your question. Many folks like this lens and speak highly of it. I looked at it pretty hard a couple of years ago as a somewhat smaller and lighter alternative to the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX that has been around for quite a while. To me, it was too similar to the old 18-70mm DX zoom to be worth the $1100 or so price tag. The other problem for me was that it dropped to f/4 somewhere around 24 or 28mm. I ended up buying a very nice 24-120mm f/4 full frame Nikkor instead for $425 and have been very happy with that choice. The 24-120 is the full frame functional equivalent to the 16-80.

You don't say what your primary usage of the lens is going to be, or which camera you plan to use it on. The 16-80 might be perfect for you. I just felt it was overpriced for what I would have gotten. There may just be too many memories of the 18-70.

kavitykid Loc: Maryland

When I had my D7500 I picked up a very nice used 16-85 f4 for not a lot of money. Great lens, 1 stop slower.

augieg27 Loc: Central California

Thank you or your input. Me too had 18-70 and sorry I didn't keep i

augieg27 Loc: Central California

Thank you. I'll take a look at the 16-85mm

dsnoke Loc: North Georgia, USA

I acquired the 16-80 mm lens a couple of years ago to replace my much older 18-105 mm lens to pair with my D7500. For results using that lens, see seven-oaks.net/dickspics I found the 16-80 mm lens to be very sharp. It is also light enough and small enough that I carry it hiking the the mountains or north Georgia all the time. This is the full-frame equivalent of that 24-120 mm lens someone mentioned, but small and lighter. I highly recommend this lens. Just wide enough for the broad shots and long enough for most of my closer shots.

I also care the Nikkor 85 mm DX macro lens and, sometimes, the Tamron 100-400 mm lens (full-frame field of view equivalent to 150-600 mm). Those three are my kit.

augieg27 Loc: Central California

Thank you dsnoke for your input.

Drip Dry McFleye

I got my 16-80 as a kit lens with my D500. I have several other lenses to choose from (including the 24-120) but the 16-80 "kit" lens gets a lot of use because it's light weight, physically small and sharp as well. I just took roughly 400 frames of family Christmas activities over the last few days with that lens. I think that if you decide you want one it would be worth your while to check the used market from the known reliable re-sellers. Since it was sold as standard kit lens there are probably a lot of them out there. Best of luck with whatever choice you make.

augieg27 Loc: Central California

Thank you for your comments DipDry.
Augie

nervous2 Loc: Provo, Utah

I too have been very pleased with the 16-85mm.

CO

I purchased the Nikon 16-80mm lens new but ended up returning it. I had two of the Nikon 16-85 lenses already but I thought I would give the new 16-80mm a try. I was disappointed with the 16-80mm. They seem to have lowered the build quality when they went from the 16-85mm to the 16-80mm. The 16-80mm has a lower grade focusing motor that is noisy. The 16-80mm is physically larger in diameter than the 16-85mm but actually weighs the same. They seem to have done things in the construction of the 16-80mm to save money. If you have both lenses side by side, you can tell that the older 16-85mm is a more solid lens with better build quality. In my opinion, the 16-80mm should sell for around $600 but is over $1000.

ELNikkor

I would much prefer the 16-85 for the lower cost and extra 5mm at the long end. Ken Rockwell likes it, but decides that he'd rather have the similar sized 18-200.

ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

The 16-80 is IMHO one of the best DX lenses available. Yes, it is a variable aperture lens, but the wide open aperture is f2.8, which is highly desirable in many situations. I believe that it is also one of the last DX F-stop lenses that Nikon introduced, so the technology is more advanced than most others. When it was introduced, it got rave reviews. Thom Hogan called it the “new winner” for the best DX lens. The 16-85 is good, but the 16-80 replaced it. I even used it regularly with a Z50 (with adapter).

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The 16-80 mm lens is a lens that I have never used. From the images I have seen it is sharp and Ken Rockwell has a positive review of it. The advantage of its f2.8 aperture is confined to the 24 mm setting only. For use with DX cameras you should do fine.
What I have been using and still use is the old 18-70 f3.5-4.5 lens. It has no VR which has not been a show stopper for me and less so if I use a tripod which I prefer with or without VR for my landscape photography. This lens has been a great performer to me, it is small, well sealed at the back and produces sharp images. After years of use the AF failed and repairs were more expensive than the actual value of the lens in the second hand market. I use manual focus with it now.

Another lens that I use is the versatile 18-200 VR which I consider a great performer also but with more range. Nikon has many lenses starting at 18 mm, which is enough wide angle for me in a majority of occasions. As I said, the 16-80 VR from what I know is also a great lens although much more expensive than the zooms starting at 18 mm. You should do fine with it.

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

I have this lens for about 5 years now and like it a lot. It is very sharp and light and has a very useful zoom range for an aps c camera. Here's some shots I took with it in the past few days'

(Download)


(Download)