GAS attack or a good upgrade? Wondering if the Nikon 16-80mm 2.8-4E would be a good replacement for the older 24mm 2.8 and 35-70mm 2.8 AF Nikkors I've been using for years. My primary...

Overthehill1

Wondering if the Nikon 16-80mm 2.8-4E would be a good replacement for the older 24mm 2.8 and 35-70mm 2.8 AF Nikkors I've been using for years. My primary camera is a D500. I'm assuming the 4 means it has a variable aperture. Thanks in advance.

jamesl Loc: Pennsylvania

Overthehill1 wrote:

Wondering if the Nikon 16-80mm 2.8-4E would be a good replacement for the older 24mm 2.8 and 35-70mm 2.8 AF Nikkors I've been using for years. My primary camera is a D500. I'm assuming the 4 means it has a variable aperture. Thanks in advance.

---------
I don't think it would be a good replacement since the two lenses you have are both f:/2.8 at all focal lengths.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I've seen more than one person say that they preferred the 16-85 over the 16-80. You'll know yourself how important wide apertures are and if f/3.5-5.6 would be acceptable to you.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

The answer is yes...maybe!

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

If you are interested in optical quality, take the jump. The 35-70 might have been impressive when first brought out in the 90s but its day is long gone. Same is essentially true with the older 24s. I discarded them about 15 years ago early in the digital era. I am not as familiar with dx lenses but the reviews of the 16-80 are quite good and you should be able to pick one up used very reasonably.

If you really do need 2.8 speed then there are other alternatives anyway.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Overthehill1 wrote:

Wondering if the Nikon 16-80mm 2.8-4E would be a good replacement for the older 24mm 2.8 and 35-70mm 2.8 AF Nikkors I've been using for years. My primary camera is a D500. I'm assuming the 4 means it has a variable aperture. Thanks in advance.

I had never been interested in the 16-80 until recently. There are several nice things about it. The maximum aperture drops very slowly from f/2.8 and doesn't reach f/4 until right at 80mm. It is quite light weight, and is optically quite good, but not perfect. If you do video, the electronic aperture (the "E" in the description), is very quiet.

There are some negatives. The new price for this lens is almost $1100. It is not an $1100 lens. The full-frame 24-120 f/4 G is the same price and is a much better and better made lens. Also...the one I bought will often not initiate autofocus below 35mm or so. I haven't been able to determine if that is a common problem or not, but mine is getting ready to go to Nikon for repair.

If mine comes back operating more reliably, I'll have much nicer things to say about it. My main suggestion is to be careful about how much you pay. I wouldn't go more than about $500 or $550 for a very nice used one.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

Overthehill1 wrote:

Wondering if the Nikon 16-80mm 2.8-4E would be a good replacement for the older 24mm 2.8 and 35-70mm 2.8 AF Nikkors I've been using for years. My primary camera is a D500. I'm assuming the 4 means it has a variable aperture. Thanks in advance.

The 2.8-4 means that 2.8 is available only at some focal lengths. As you go up, 4 becomes the lowest f-stop available.

Bill_de Loc: US

Orphoto wrote:

If you are interested in optical quality, take the jump. The 35-70 might have been impressive when first brought out in the 90s but its day is long gone. Same is essentially true with the older 24s. I discarded them about 15 years ago early in the digital era. I am not as familiar with dx lenses but the reviews of the 16-80 are quite good and you should be able to pick one up used very reasonably.

If you really do need 2.8 speed then there are other alternatives anyway.

I swapped my 35-70 for a 24 -70 f?2.8 Nikkor a while ago. It is heavy, but it is very sharp. No regrets. I still have my very old 24 2.8 D. The 24 is more about nostalgia than lens quality. It can give a reasonable result, but won't compete with newer models.

---

dsnoke Loc: North Georgia, USA

I use that lens on a D7500. It replaced the very old 18-105 mm lens. I have not used the 16-85 mm lens. I find my lens to be very sharp, reasonably lightweight and reasonably small. I have recently been using my 35 mm lens exclusively, but if you look at seven-oaks.net/dickspics and scroll down a bit, you'll find many images taken with the 16-80 mm lens. It is sharp, easy to focus and a useful focal length (24-120 full-frame equivalent). On the Nikon website, I note that both my lens and the 16-85 mm lens are no longer listed. I assume that means they are no longer being produced.

User ID

The 16-80 is a very nice upgrade. Its the sort of thing I do as the budget allows, but not for my SLRs. They are frozen in time and are not included in the budget.

SLR frozen in time ? Heres how to thaw it out.

(Download)

User ID

dsnoke wrote:

both my lens and the 16-85 mm lens are no longer listed. I assume that means they are no longer being produced.

The used market is the source for SLR gear.

(Download)

Dean37 Loc: Fresno, CA

I have a couple of 35-70mm f/2.8 D and non D lenses which when I have compared to the newer lenses only come up short in the range and speed of action. Since I have other f/2.8 lenses that blanket the range and are just as capable, and the speed difference doesn't matter to me, I will stay with the older lenses as long as they will function.

I have found limitations with lenses not having f/2.8 or faster down to f/1.2., have prevented getting the photo I wanted. The speed of the older autofocus and number of frames per second are faster than I need and are inconsequential as compared to the f stop speed.

I am not against progress or I would not have bought digital and would have stayed with film. There just has to be a very good difference that helps me.

Bill_de Loc: US

Dean37 wrote:

I have a couple of 35-70mm f/2.8 D and non D lense... (show quote)

Are you sure you are in the right place? I read your post 3 times and it continues to make sense.

---

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

The difference is that the 35-70 2.8 is nowhere near as sharp as the newer designs. If you need the fast glass, at least the newer designs are a great deal crisper.

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

Overthehill1 wrote:

Wondering if the Nikon 16-80mm 2.8-4E would be a good replacement for the older 24mm 2.8 and 35-70mm 2.8 AF Nikkors I've been using for years. My primary camera is a D500. I'm assuming the 4 means it has a variable aperture. Thanks in advance.

I have used that lens, it is, on the D500, a 24 to 120 2.8-4 lens. And yes, it is extremely sharp and capable of delivering great images. The lens hood is of Nikon's latest design to snap off and take the impact to protect the end of the lens if dropped. It is one of the sharpest zoom lenses in Nikon's line up. With todays high ISO ranked camera's 2.8-4 is more than good enough in low light situations. I do miss mine since switching to Sony.
You WILL like this lens. Do not hesitate.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.