GAS attack or a good upgrade? (Page 2): Hmmm...probably best to stick to your 2.8s - as they say everything is great at 2 point 8! It really depends on your shooting locations...

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

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.

Hmmm...probably best to stick to your 2.8s - as they say everything is great at 2 point 8!

It really depends on your shooting locations, indoor/outdoor/low light, subjects, and whether you plan to migrate to mirrorless. AF Nikkors will not autofocus with the FTZ adapters, for example. If you plan on keeping the D500 indefinitely, then stick with the lenses you now have. It is nice to have a prime lens in the kit. OTOH, the 16-80 is a great all around "walk around lens". It will go down to f/4 at 80mm, but if you're shooting daylight would not matter too much. The AF-S lens will probably AF focus much faster than the AF lenses. The 16-80 will autofocus with the Z cameras, if that is in your plans. If you're shooting static subjects, AF is not that much needed anyway. Hope that helps you consider all the factors in your decision. If it were me, and just speaking for myself, I would keep the older lenses and get the 16-80 just to add to the repertoire in the kit bag...yes a bit gassy on my part!

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

Unquestionably an upgrade if only for the VR and the range. I’ve had and used both the 35-70 f2.8 and the 16-80, I can’t tell the difference visually, except where lower shutter speeds gave the nod to the VR lens.
I no longer have the 16-80 as I went to ff and the 24-120, I like it better but could live with the APS-C Nikon sensor and the 16-80 quite happily.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

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.

As I always say, look for online comparisons. I didn't find any comparisons, but there are lots of reviews of both. You could buy the new one and sell the old one.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Nikon+16-80mm+2.8-4E+vs+Nikon+35-70mm+2.8&sca_esv=599479785&sxsrf=ACQVn08PugHi4kofzlQFFuFh-fuAYMNLxw%3A1705589112752&ei=eDmpZcaxLZvi5NoPzbGBkAc&ved=0ahUKEwjGzcrJlueDAxUbMVkFHc1YAHIQ4dUDCBA&oq=Nikon+16-80mm+2.8-4E+vs+Nikon+35-70mm+2.8&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiKU5pa29uIDE2LTgwbW0gMi44LTRFIHZzIE5pa29uIDM1LTcwbW0gMi44MggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBEitLFCdClikFXABeACQAQCYAYIBoAHDBKoBAzQuMrgBDMgBAPgBAcICDhAAGIAEGIoFGIYDGLADwgIGECEYChgK4gMEGAEgQYgGAZAGAg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

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.

Mine works fine, but may not be a "Steller" lens. You could save some weight in your kit, but would give up the fixed 2.8 aperture.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

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.

If you are not married to Nikon, I can highly recommend the more in-expensive Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 - see the user reviews .....

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

imagemeister wrote:

If you are not married to Nikon, I can highly recommend the more in-expensive Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 - see the user reviews .....

Does the Sigma offer more of anything? Resolution? Color accuracy? weather resistance? lower weight? more durable construction?
Not a criticism, just curious since I have not had any Sigma lenses.

User ID

Orphoto wrote:

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.

Clearly youve tested the lenses involved and seen the inferiority the older lenses. The big problem for other users is that if one fails to consciously test and hunt for flaws, then the flaws remain invisible in real photographs.
This acoarst leads to the making of sharp photographs using inferior lenses, which is a flagrant affront to our UHH Sacred Tradition.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

DaveyDitzer wrote:

Does the Sigma offer more of anything? Resolution? Color accuracy? weather resistance? lower weight? more durable construction?
Not a criticism, just curious since I have not had any Sigma lenses.

It has always been very WELL reviewed ......tho not often - the best of the genre as of a couple years ago in one testing/comparison - it has has done very well for me for about 7 years now - in Canon mount - and, I AM fussy. Oh, and it will close focus to about 4 inches @ 70mm...AND, today, relatively cheap - especially in Nikon mount. This is an older lens now and it has always been hard to find reviews - for whatever reason ??

Bayou

R.G. wrote:

I've seen more than one person say that they preferred the 16-85 over the 16-80...

Count me among them. The 16-85 is my favorite lens...sharp and portable. The 16-80 is considerably larger and heavier, and more costly. While I don't own one, I have read numerous lukewarm reviews of the 16-80.

TOG Loc: Sacramento Valley

Yes! Not All will agree~ However, it works for Me. And the Price is Right!

flyboy61 Loc: The Great American Desert

I like mine, but...YMMV! It is better than my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8...In my Never-Humble Opinion.

btbg

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.

Your two lenses are better than the lens you are considering. Only advantage is larger zoom range.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

btbg wrote:

Your two lenses are better than the lens you are considering. Only advantage is larger zoom range.

Flawed logic. The true value of a lens exceeds its zoom range and maximum aperture. For one, try sharpness. There are many other salient characteristics.

btbg

Orphoto wrote:

Flawed logic. The true value of a lens exceeds its zoom range and maximum aperture. For one, try sharpness. There are many other salient characteristics.

Ken Rockwell likes the lens, but when you look at his entire review you will see that when shot wide open at both the wide and telephoto end the edge sharpness is not good. In addition in spite of what you are saying having f2.8 for the full range of the lens zoom is pretty important if the photographer shoots in low light.

So, yes, sharpness is important and the ops older lenses are generally sharper on the edges. As to other characteristics that are important, yes there are other considerations. However, lens manufacturers almost universally make their fixed f2.8 lenses with better sharpness and bokeh than their other lenses.

So, what exactly do you think is the advantage of the 16-80? I will admit it has one advantage and that is that it has good vr. Other than that I can't think of any advantage over what the op already has.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

btbg wrote:

Ken Rockwell likes the lens, but when you look at ... (show quote)

The electronic aperture is a real advantage also, especially if a person shoots video. It also has updatable firmware, although from what I can tell, there have never been any new versions subsequent to the original version 1.0.

I have not been able to detect any corner sharpness problems, but I am very curious to learn what has failed to make the whole focus system not good. I'll be able to speak more intelligently about that in a few weeks when mine gets back from Signal Hill and I can read the service report.