GAS attack or a good upgrade?
Jan 18, 2024 23:29:07 #
Orphoto
Loc: Oregon
btbg -- first of all i disagree with most of Rockwell's opinions (an in depth discussion would lead to the "attic"). I used this lens in the late 90s and 0s. It was pretty good on film. Once digital came along its weaknesses were exposed rapidly. This isn't surprising since it was introduced in 1987. Older lenses are sharper on the edges??? Where does that assertion come from?
You are issuing opinions based on features & specs rather than usage. A D500 deserves a higher quality optic.
You are issuing opinions based on features & specs rather than usage. A D500 deserves a higher quality optic.
Jan 19, 2024 01:18:11 #
btbg wrote:
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.
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.
VR would be a major benefit if the attraction of f/2.8 speed is for handheld low light use.
Jan 19, 2024 08:23:09 #
User ID wrote:
...if one fails to consciously test and hunt for flaws, then the flaws remain invisible in real photographs.
I don't want to hunt for reasons to spend money.
Jan 19, 2024 08:34:50 #
Rent one from LensRental or similar store and then you can review the output and compare with what you already have.
Jan 19, 2024 11:18:16 #
Orphoto wrote:
btbg -- first of all i disagree with most of Rockw... (show quote)
I also disagree with most of Rockwells opinions. He likes the lens. What can I say. He just pionted out that it is soft on the edfes when wide open.
I was not saying older lenses are sharper on the edges. I was saying that Nikons fixed f2.8 lenses are sharper on the edges that their variable f stop zooms when shot wide open.
That has been the case throughout the companies history.
Jan 19, 2024 11:31:30 #
User ID wrote:
VR would be a major benefit if the attraction of f/2.8 speed is for handheld low light use.
Yes vr is an advantage but if the lens is really soft on the edges when shot wide open then the vr is not going to fix that.
I have nothing against the lens I just fail to see how that lens is going to be an improvement for the op. There are lots of other lenses that would be bigger upgrades for the op.
For example the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 would give him a whole new focal range for less money and has pretty good sharpness.
The Nikon 24-120 f4 is not a dx lens but is a way better lens than the 16-80. Nothing against the lens but given what the op already owns it is a lateral move not an upgrade.
I own a d500. I don't use it anymore because I have upgraded. I like the body for the price and there is no need for the op to go mirrorless and ovviously he can purchase any lens he wants. I might even consider the 16-80 if I didn't already have the comparable focal length covered. The thing is he already has those focal lengths covered so what is the real upgrade. Wouldnt adding focal range on either end of what he already has ve a bigger upgrade?
Jan 19, 2024 11:39:00 #
DaveyDitzer
Loc: Western PA
btbg wrote:
The thing is he already has those focal lengths covered so what is the real upgrade. Wouldnt adding focal range on either end of what he already has ve a bigger upgrade?
I have a 16-80 and a 24-120 and had an 18-140 in the past. OP can gain a weight advantage with the 16-80 IF that is an important consideration. I am sorry I parted with the 18-140.
Jan 19, 2024 11:44:26 #
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I have a 16-80 and a 24-120 and had an 18-140 in the past. OP can gain a weight advantage with the 16-80 IF that is an important consideration. I am sorry I parted with the 18-140.
Yes he could gain a weight advantage. Since you own both, which is the better lens the 16-80 or the 24-120? Pretty sure it's the 24-120. Don't know anything about the 18-140 as I don't generally use lenses with that kind of zoom range because my lenses are all based on how fast they are. The only lenses that I own that aren't fixed f2.8 are the sigma 10-20, which I don't currently use since I am only using my full frame cameras, and the Sigma sport 150-600.
Obviously weight has not been a consideration in my evaluation. If that is a major consideration then yes, the 16-80 might be a good fit. Otherwise I believe he would be better served to select a lens that either adds to his focal range, or to stick with what he already owns.
Jan 19, 2024 11:59:53 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
btbg wrote:
Yes he could gain a weight advantage. Since you ow... (show quote)
It can be dangerous to choose a lens based of a single parameter. Even with the problems I'm having, I can see that the 16-80 mm zoom is a better lens than I have always thought. Just can't know how much better until it comes back repaired. I suspect that it is going to end up being a very good "consumer" lens, but not nearly as good a "professional" lens, despite the gold ring. It displays nothing of the feel and build of the 24-120mm zoom.
Where it can never measure up, in my opinion, is in value, based on its list price. The almost $1100 list price that it carried through its entire retail life was about twice what a reasonable value would vave been against similar lenses.
Jan 19, 2024 13:01:32 #
Jan 20, 2024 15:37:01 #
Its doesnt matter too much if a fast lens is a bit soft at the edges wide open. Those areas would be unsharp for lack of DoF even if the lens were optically perfect. This is just more UHH typical phony expert BS, muddying the waters with no connection to real world use.
Peeo the corners on these low light pix:
Peeo the corners on these low light pix:
Jan 20, 2024 17:07:38 #
Miamark
Loc: 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.
I had the 35-70 and it is a great lens. Sorry that I sold it. I would not buy a variable aperature lens because it it too slow.
Jan 20, 2024 19:07:39 #
User ID wrote:
Its doesnt matter too much if a fast lens is a bit soft at the edges wide open. Those areas would be unsharp for lack of DoF even if the lens were optically perfect. This is just more UHH typical phony expert BS, muddying the waters with no connection to real world use.
Peeo the corners on these low light pix:
Peeo the corners on these low light pix:
Shots with nice impact ⭐⭐⭐⭐
Jan 20, 2024 20:46:43 #
Miamark
Loc: Florida
I have to agree with you about the phony bs on this site, mostly from people who never used this lens. I used this lens for many years and it is great. I frequently carried this with a Nikon 80-200 f 2.8 and sometimes an 85 1.4 or a 28 2.8. All were excellent lenses and this is based on actual use. I regret selling all of these lenses as they served me well. Most of the time I only carried this with the 80-200 and my pictures were great (IMHO). I would not buy a variable aperture lens or trade the 35-70 for the one identified in the original post.
Jan 20, 2024 21:08:27 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
Miamark wrote:
I have to agree with you about the phony bs on thi... (show quote)
And have you used the 16-80mm zoom referenced by the OP?
I carried a number of wrong conclusions about it for a long time based on what I thought was a comprehensive tryout at my camera store. I own one now, and have had a chance to learn that a number of conclusions I was very certain about were incorrect.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.