Nikkor AF-S DX 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR

Ironheart

Since we were hijacking the FX vs. DX thread, thought I fire this one up.

I'll post a bit of the history from the other thread to get us up to speed.

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/4330/fx-vs-dx-image-quality-comparison-yes-this-again-your-thoughts/p7

Perhaps we should start a thread on this one, given that it will be here in two weeks :-)
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/06/30/price-and-first-picture-of-the-new-nikon-af-s-dx-nikkor-16-80mm-f2-8-4e-ed-vr-lens.aspx/
It's got a gold ring, but at $899 probably won't compete with the 17-55, however would be great for a new high-end DX body (wink wink, nudge nudge)

Yes, great "kit lens" for higher end DX body. Also, I wouldn't be too quick to think it will not be very sharp just because it costs less than $1,000. The Nikon 85mm f1.8 costs $500 and is very sharp.

Oh I'm sure it will be sharp, it just doesn't appear to be the 17-55 replacement I thought it might be. It might very we'll have a place in my bag where the 18-55 sits today...

From the press release:
"This is also the first Nikon DX lens to feature an electromagnetic diaphragm; this innovation electronically adjusts the aperture within the lens, resulting in consistent exposure during high speed shooting. "
I wonder which high speed DX camera will require an electronic aperture :-??

I think/hope the D5 rumors indicate that Nikon will give all their cameras a substantial increase in fps. But I guess this new lense could also be an indication of a new dx camera. Maybe a high speed mirrorless dx camera is around the corner?

Canon have had an electro-magnetic aperture since forever and they aren't all hi fps bodies. Do you think the mechanical aperture is really the limitation to achieving higher fps?

Ironheart

The short answer, no. Longer answer, maybe. The mechanical linkage is only so accurate, and the faster FPS start to show the exposure "drift" from frame to frame. Nothing that can't be dealt with in post of course. I was really just quoting Nikon, and trying to suggest this could be the kit lens for a high-FPS DX body. (D400 cough cough)

NSXTypeR

If Nikon follows through with a high end DX body, that'd be great. Knowing Nikon, this may happen between tomorrow or the next ice age.

What we really need are wide DX primes. I don't really care about another kit zoom or slightly fast kit zoom.

To a smaller extent, maybe a fast DX zoom. That's a little less pressing as there are the 70-200 F4 and F2.8, but from what I heard the Sigma 70-150 was a great DX lens.

DaveyJ

Since the price and filter size (72mm) is now on the pre-order status we have a lot to work with, depending how the test results come out I may buy one. I would even consider teaming it up with a D7100.

DaveyJ

I doubt very much if the D400 comes out if I am going to buy one. I would look more to a D7200 or a D7300 as I don't want or need any over the top features. I am totally satisfied with the D7100 and D7200. IF I DID buy another DSLR camera right now it would be a D7200.

donaldejose

I expect it will be a very sharp DX lens when shot between f4 and f8 and will match well with the latest DX sensors. The lightweight f4 70-200mm zoom and the lightweight 300mm f4 PF prime will also be very sharp with the latest DX sensors. For speed the 35mm f1.8 DX lens is sharp. But what about wide angle for DX? While it would be nice to have a set of sharp modern DX primes I suspect Nikon won't produce them because Nikon will think people who seek a prime for the best image quality will go to FX anyway for the same reason.

Ironheart

I was seriously considering the 17-55 for my D7200, but was always put off by the weight, 1.66 lb (755 g). The 16-80 is a svelte 16.93 oz (480 g) by comparison. I feel a GAS attack coming on @-)

KnockKnock

I'd very much love to add this 16-85 to my collection, but the price is just a bit too exclusive. Maybe in a couple years refurbished/used, but certainly not straight out of the gate. I'm pretty confident it'll be great/sharp and probably the best looking of the DX zooms in subtle image terms. The one to have.

But I have the 35mm DX & 50mm f/1.4... my money is probably better spent on a 85mm f/1.8. Probably all competitive/better than this zoom's IQ at its equivalent f/stops. For wide angle the latest 18-55 and the 18-105 are both f/3.5 at 18mm. So f/2.8 for wide angle isn't a whole lot more light and at wide angle plus the stopping of motion isn't as demanding.

Admitting none of my zooms are f/2.8, and 16mm is nicer/better, and of course zoom flexibility is nice over primes. Still, until I get a little windfall (next tax return?) this just isn't rational.

(clearly rationalizing vs nas/gas :-)

NSXTypeR

I have a feeling I don't have much in the long to mid range portions of the 16-80mm. It's either going to be very wide or long for my photos. I do like the 16mm end, but 80mm just doesn't cut it anymore for me. I'm interested in actually getting the 70-300mm as it is.

At least it's good to see some DX love from Nikon, about 16 years into the DX system.

tcole1983

It would be a hard choice now between this and the 17-55. I love mine, but VR would be nice. Constant F2.8 vs F2.8-4 which wouldn't be a huge deal breaker. The 17-55 can probably be had for a significant amount cheaper now...I got mine like new for around $950 I think.

I have to say I am impressed with my 17-55 especially on my D5200. We just had family in town and I handed my camera to a relative to take pictures with it. I set it to the focal length I wanted them to use and they hit the button...I was pretty surprised at how sharp and good the pictures looked at even ISO 800.

@NSXTypeR - funny you mention that...I was in the same boat. I sold my 18-200 and then just had my 17-55, 35, and 105. I was tossing around getting the 70-300 and just said forget it and got the 300 f4 instead...I don't regret it.

BVS

I have a feeling I don't have much in the long to mid range portions of the 16-80mm. It's either going to be very wide or long for my photos. I do like the 16mm end, but 80mm just doesn't cut it anymore for me. I'm interested in actually getting the 70-300mm as it is.

It'd be cool if this was just the first in a new line of 'enthusiast level' DX lenses and they made an 80-300 F4 DX and an 8-16 or something to go with it.

KnockKnock

It'd be cool if this was just the first in a new line of 'enthusiast level' DX lenses and they made an 80-300 F4 DX and an 8-16 or something to go with it.

I like how you dream.
Might as well throw in compact DX 16mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8 set of primes.

DaveyJ

I use my 10-20 Sigma on the D7100 a lot and it is a very sharp lens, nice colors that match the Nikon lens. I also have the Nikon 12-24 DX and that lens is now used pretty much on a time lapse D200 set up. When I got the Nikon 35 mm 1.8f I thought I would use it a lot. Finally it got put on a D90 since i was happier with the very modest 18-55 VR kit lens versatility. The 16-80 new lens is something I have needed for some time. I tested the 16-85 and my results made me decide that the lens was NOT what I wanted. I wrote a very detailed letter to Nikon suggesting the 16-85 lens was in very serious need of a upgrade. I hope it tests well as I am decided to buy it if it gets good ratings. The recently introduced $10,000 TO $12,000 lens did not get much more than a glance from me. There is a price point with DX.

tcole1983

Being a gold ring lens and the price point I think it will be a pretty good lens. If I didn't have the 17-55 already I would think about this one.

Photobug

Being a gold ring lens and the price point I think it will be a pretty good lens. If I didn't have the 17-55 already I would think about this one.

I agree with you. Assuming the glass is really good and people want a sharper "gold ring" lens, there will be a good market for this lens. I would expect some people 17-55 owners will upgrade because they want a lighter lens and the VR feature.

As a long time owner and user (9+ years) of the 17-55 lens I loved that lens. The weight was never an issue with me and the IQ was excellent. I sold mine last fall when I transitioned to the FX body for my main body. If I was solely shooting DX I would consider the lens if the glass tested better. I look forward to seeing the lab and field test results.

NSXTypeR

It would be a hard choice now between this and the 17-55. I love mine, but VR would be nice. Constant F2.8 vs F2.8-4 which wouldn't be a huge deal breaker. The 17-55 can probably be had for a significant amount cheaper now...I got mine like new for around $950 I think.

I have to say I am impressed with my 17-55 especially on my D5200. We just had family in town and I handed my camera to a relative to take pictures with it. I set it to the focal length I wanted them to use and they hit the button...I was pretty surprised at how sharp and good the pictures looked at even ISO 800.

@NSXTypeR - funny you mention that...I was in the same boat. I sold my 18-200 and then just had my 17-55, 35, and 105. I was tossing around getting the 70-300 and just said forget it and got the 300 f4 instead...I don't regret it.

I think I like the field of view of 50mm on DX, so I do use the 35mm focal length on my 18-135mm. But unless I can't move and need to zoom or I'm too lazy, I tend to be in both extremes of my zooms.

I have a feeling I don't have much in the long to mid range portions of the 16-80mm. It's either going to be very wide or long for my photos. I do like the 16mm end, but 80mm just doesn't cut it anymore for me. I'm interested in actually getting the 70-300mm as it is.

It'd be cool if this was just the first in a new line of 'enthusiast level' DX lenses and they made an 80-300 F4 DX and an 8-16 or something to go with it.

I would love that, but Nikon seems to think otherwise.

PB_PM

I'm not sure I get this lens, Nikon really needs to be making DX primes, not more variable aperture zooms.

Photobug

Yes I agree that Nikon needs more "new" primes.

Well that guy called KR has posted the basic data on this new lens and wrote an interesting conclusionwithout even having touched one. Yea, I know that his how he operates. I don't have an issue with his initial post because he has great pictures and the basic lens specs. But what I don't like is has has already written the recommendation/conclusion without touching the lens. He needs to just write a statement that this will be written AFTER he has evaluated the lens. Okay, I will get off my soapbox on KR.

Anyway, here is what he said:
Recommendation

This Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4 VR DX is for the photographer with enough money to buy expensive lenses, but who doesn't want to step up to full frame.

Many people are going to love this lens because it's so versatile, small and light and convenient.

The 16-85mm VR DX is the same thing with the same performance, just a stop slower and much less expensive. Either is a good choice; if you care about the price; get the 16-85 instead and you'll love it.

Also before shelling out over a grand on this newest plastic consumer lens, also consider the fully professional Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens. It's faster over most of the range, and is made of solid engraved metal. The 17-55 is a fast, constant-aperture pro lens built to last a lifetime, while this 16-80 is an all plastic zoom with a variable aperture.

Personally, I prefer my 35/1.8 DX because it's smaller, lighter, tougher, over twice as fast and less than one-fifth the price, but that's a completely different kind of lens.
============================end of quote=================
For those that want a fixed aperture lens the 17-55 is the lens. But if you don't shoot wide open at 2.8 much and want VR and if this new lens is sharp, people will be selling those 17-55 on eBay a lot and buying the new lens.

Ironheart

"...people will be selling those 17-55 on eBay a lot and buying the new lens" I guess that means I'll eventually wind up with both. I was holding an excellent used 17-55 a few weeks ago that would have set me back only $1k. Only the weight and lack of VR prevented me from walking out with it. But for a bit less I would add to my arsenal.

spraynpray

The weight thing and no VR: I have the 17-55 and yes it is heavy. However, it compares to a bull barrelled pistol Vs a 2-1/2" inch snubby - the extra weight and its position makes it steadier to hold freehand and no VR in the world helps with moving subjects like low light in an old dark English church. There are lots of things to consider before switching, but one thing is for sure - KR is way off if he thinks there is going to be any comparison between the mediocre old 16-85 and the new 16-80.

Probably a lot of old geezers like me will sell our 17-55's to young guns like @NSXTypeR and get the lighter lenses. My bag is getting very heavy indeed these days. :-L

BVS

I'm not sure I get this lens, Nikon really needs to be making DX primes, not more variable aperture zooms.

This actually makes a lot of sense to me. Up to now there's been no upgrade path for DX users (within the Nikon lineup). You had small cheap DX kit lenses and big heavy expensive FX lenses and nothing in between. So, if you wanted a zoom better than the kit lens but didn't want the weight and expense of FX zooms you had to look to 3rd parties. This (hopefully) fills that hole and keeps people buying Nikon.

Sure, there is the 17-55 2.8, but as a newbie photographer (and no disrespect to anyone) I look at it online and see: old, big, heavy, limited zoom range, and doesn't score well on newer sensors in DXO vs. other zooms (for whatever that's worth). I'm sure it's probably a fine lens, but it's hard to love/justify it mentally.

Of course, more DX primes would be welcome as well.

KnockKnock

I just had a weird memory. I think the primary reason I went with Nikon when deciding to jump into DSLRs (2009?) was the 18-105mm DX lens. Canon didn't have anything like it at the time. I was all set to get a Canon 40D. But Nikon's 18-70, then 18-135, then 16-85, then 18-105 all showed experience with this range, and the moment they released 35mm f/1.8 DX, I was sold on Nikon DX. Low light. Check. Wide-to-telephoto zoom. Check.

Sure, many advanced shooters and pros will poo-poo these consumer zooms, but they are a great tradition for Nikon when you step back a moment.

Now I've been sucked in and am looking to fill out a fast prime set and that leans me toward FX. Still, if I had to start over, I'd probably look seriously at this 16-80 on a D7200.

jonnyapple

There are lots of things to consider before switching, but one thing is for sure - KR is way off if he thinks there is going to be any comparison between the mediocre old 16-85 and the new 16-80.

Yes, this lens isn't a consumer lens even if it's light. This is exactly the lens I wanted ten years ago and I might still want it. I love the 18-105, but the sacrifice in focal length gets you some top features like an extra stop and nano crystal coating. You would hope that means it performs more like its heftier FX sisters. I don't know if I could hand-pick better specs for a walk around lens, and the price is what I would expect.

I really hope Nikon is releasing this as a precursor to the D400; that would be a killer kit! But that's a story for another thread...

DaveyJ

I just checked KR. Nothing I could conclude on the 16-80. Checked Thom Hogan and he has the nice lens photo and specs and of course no review yet. WHEN his review comes out i will make my decision. Good to hear from johnnyapple!, myself I KNOW I can NOT afford a D400 at this older age and lower income. But I am totally OK with a D7200 and this lens if it looks right. The extra stop and nano crystal coating sounds right. And the two pricier lens are lens are never coming to this home to stay. My guess is this is a DX high end "kit" lens to be offered with something "new". I did myself try the old 16-85 and I was not sold on that! So Nikon KNOWS that this is a "necessary" range for a walk about lens! My crystal ball says this will be GREAT for Nikon!

heartyfisher

@jonnyapple !! you are back ? !

jonnyapple

Yeah, I'm still around, hearty. I've been busy with work and my free time has gone to other hobbies over the last year (I bought a season pass at the local golf course when I found out it was only $450!). I do miss this forum, though, and I'll probably be around more during my summer break in about a month.

I sold my D7000 so I currently don't own a Nikon body and I feel a little like a poser posting here. I have two Sony mirrorless cameras (soon to be one) and a D90 that my dad is lending me while he goes to live in Europe for a few years; he just wanted something smaller for traveling so he bought a Sony RX-100 (a fun camera!).

This lens announcement was exciting enough to me that it woke me up out of my stupor to put in my two cents.