btbg

Im the one that you are describing as phony bs. But it just so happens that your last sentence agrees with what I was saying. Whu woild anyone get the 16-80 variable aperture when they already have the 35-70 f2.8. That was the entire poont of all of my posts.

btbg

Os it better than the 35-70? No it isnt so what would the op gain by buying it?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have no experience with that lens, so it would be pretty silly for me to make a direct comparison. From what I can learn, it is an AF-D lens made from 1987-2005. Since it was in production for 18 years, I doubt seriously that it was a piece of junk. But since it is 28 years older than the 16-80mm zoom, it would be a real stretch to believe that it is a better or more advanced design.

I do not choose between one lens and another based on any one single performance parameter. Right now, there is nothing about the 35-70 that would compel me to choose it over the 16-80. Since I don't have one, I have no basis for saying I would keep one versus buying a 16-80.

From what I have learned, the 16-80 is not a perfect lens. But it is also not a bad lens. It offers a number of significant advantages, including really good VR and almost instant auto focus. I know that there is no way the 35-70 offers either of those (or offers VR at all). So...how important are those two functions?

I'm still learning about the 16-80 zoom. What I know is that it is a lot better lens than I thought it was.

btbg

Ibwouldnt necessarily choose the 35-70 over the 16-80 eitjer. It woild depend on what I intended to use the lens for, but I would not buy the 1680 when I already owned the other. Thats the point. Its at best a lateral move, especially when for the same o less money he can expand his focal range.

For example the sigma 10-20 costs less and would give the op more options. The nikon 24-120 would also expand his focal range. So my point is he has better options. Even the 80-300 which I dont think is really sharp still woild expand the ops options more than the 16-80.

This should not be about one lens. This should ve about what would give the op the most bang for his buck with what he already owns.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Understood. I might or might not. 35-70mm doesn't seem like a particularly flexible lens, especially on a DX camera, where it is a 2:1 normal-short telephoto. On a full-frame camera, it's an f/2.8 normal lens with a small amount of adjustment on either side. I'd just use a fast 50mm lens, which I already have, instead.

Whatever faults it has, the 16-80mm is fast, light, and generally just very agile and quick to handle. It offers a 5:1 zoom range from pretty wide to long enough to make a difference. The changing max aperture used to be a problem to me until I learned that it isn't.

To me, these are just different lenses for different purposes. Having one does not impact the value of having the other in any way.

btbg

Don't forget the op also already has a 24 f2.8 also. That means that most of the focal lengths covered by the 16-80 he already has covered. If you are on a budget doesn't it make more sense to get focal lengths he doesn't already have? So 10-20 gives him more on the wide angle end than the 16-80 does while the 24-120 gives him more on the telephoto end and the 18-300 is not as good of glass but is very versitile. My answer would ne different of he had said I had a 35-70 but it is broken what would be the best choice to replace it?

Whats the point of getting multiple lenses for one camera body that cover the same focal lengtjs?

Flyerace Loc: Mt Pleasant, WI

I have the 16-80 and love it. I leave it on one of my cameras all the time. I believe that most of my shots have been accommodated by this lens.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

[quote=larryepage On a full-frame camera, it's an f/2.8 normal lens with a small amount of adjustment on either side. I'd just use a fast 50mm lens,
I agree. Had a 35-70 and felt my fast 50 mm served 90% of my purposes withing this focal length range.

User ID

Yup. The trombone aperture thing ended as of the intro of the Maxxum line, and then shortly followed by EOS. Normal flash usage instantly became less fussy.

Overthehill1

Wow, never had this many responses to my previous posts. Thanks to all the hoggers who took the time. My idea in potentially upgrading had been to replace the 24MM lens, which I almost never use these days, with one that would give me the same focal length while retaining the 2.8 aperture, covering the 35-70 range and updating to a lens that would be more compatible with a newer camera than the D-100 and D-7000 I previously used. I'd also hoped selling the two older lenses would largely cover the cost of nice used 16-80. But after checking selling prices for my old lenses, that's not going to happen. It looks like an upgrade, which I would still like to do, will have to wait until I'm a bit more flush.

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

The lens I used the most on my Crop sensor Nikon was the 24-120, any of the iterations, the VR was a game changer. The 16-80 and 16-85 are both great, the 35-70 is superb on full frame but just too limited, I use mine for weddings. If you have a clean one, set it aside. I’ve tried Tamron and Sigma, never had a problem, just couldn’t get into them.

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

Unless absolute speed is necessary, or depth of field control is critical, then fast glass isn’t necessary, F8 and be there. In the film daze it was different when your top asa was 64, that’s when I learned to love the 35-70 f2.8