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

jonnyapple

@DaveyJ, I think I'll most likely end up there (D7200) and not with a D400, but I guess I couldn't say since I was expecting the D400 about five years ago with everyone else; it may never get announced. In the meantime the D7XXX line has become a great compromise between price and features. I still love the D90, I just wish it had two card slots or built-in WiFi because it's hard to share images at family events, which is where I take some of my photos.

Ironheart

I like to think of the D7200 as the interim/backup to the D400, when it gets here. In any event very happy with the D7200 and I think this lens may be the "walk around" that I was looking for. I'm downloading the RAWs from the main blog link as I type this. The thumbnails look amazing )
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/07/06/first-nikkor-af-s-dx-16-80mm-f2-8-4e-ed-vr-lens-review-is-out.aspx/

DaveyJ

I saw the Czech lens review. Pretty much a Nikon "inside" evaluation, my guess. I also have checked the Sigma 17-70 and of the two with no price concerns would easily take the Nikon. Right now i find myself using the D7100, the 10-20 Sigma and the 18-55, and the 55-300. The 18-55 does very good for what it is. I think the 18-55 is better used on a D3200 or D3300. And I find myself using the 55-300 as much as possible and the Sigma. So the gap could be better filled with the 16-80. Question only now is the price and I deeply regret the many thousands I used to waste on larger formats.

The 16-80 does fill a very needed niche. Some of the top shelf attributes, build quality etc, do require a somewhat higher price. Guess I should have not "retired" so early....I just work many hours now and the cash flow is a trickle. Still I think the lens is worth every penny of $900 and the slight bit extra might just be the icing on the cake from Nikon's corporate side. Yes I could in the higher income earning phase of my life just bought a FX with what I decided on....but that was then and this is now! as soon as I see Thom and maybe one or two others I will make that decision.

As to johnnyapple's golf course membership....I have helped build golf courses, love to photograph over them, and have never ONCE hit one of those things with a golf club. But in terms of turf management it does make a farmer think.....

DaveyJ

Finally just ordered one of these. The specs look great. I believe in the nano-cyrstal lens coating. I need a primary lens for the D7100, D7200. So my USUAL suspect lens will be 10-20 Sigma, the 16-80, and then probably the 55-300 or possibly the 70-300VR. Might give another 70-300VR to my oldest grandson to use on his D7000. At this late stage of the game this seems to be the game plan. I'll let you know who this all works out.

NSXTypeR

That's very brave of you to take the plunge on such a purchase on such a new product.

Honestly, I hope there are more people like you, just so that Nikon sees there's a DX following.

Looking forward to your review!

tcole1983

Pictures on that Czech review look pretty nice. I can never judge from Nikon's sample pictures. I have no idea why they don't take better shots for them.

It seems like a nice lens for DX. I sometimes miss VR and having the 80 mm on long end and another mm on the wide end would be nice.

DaveyJ

My purchase of this lens was based on the principle that I know I am far enough into DX and Nikon and the significant improvement features to personally justify this expense. I have in the past spent a fortune on imagery (large and medium format) that was not as justified. With my lower senior income I had to get right down to what I could use well. I also see this as the single biggest objective in my style photography. Super wide I have already covered. Long (tele) has been shaky due to lens expense and unwillingness to get the new 80-400VR.

This 16-80 did not cost what the 80-400VR does. I still contend that Nikon would do better with a more modestly priced 80-400VR. I feel this lens is probably still a couple of hundred on the far side. The 80-400VR though is even further out there. If I had an opportunity to photograph more with a tele lens then maybe I'd have sprung for the 80-400VR. This 16-80 is an everyday great lens range. Also capable apparently of close photos. I will be giving a report as soon as possible, but so will outfits like our Thom Hogan who I am convinced will cover MANY of the bases.

heartyfisher

I must say i like the iq from the images on the Czech site. I am still considering the options .. for me its either the 16-80 or the 18-35 1.8 sigma...

spraynpray

I must say i like the iq from the images on the Czech site. I am still considering the options .. for me its either the 16-80 or the 18-35 1.8 sigma...

FWIW see if you can try an 18-35 to find out if you are happy with it's focussing.

jonnyapple

@DaveyJ, I'm really interested to hear your thoughts when you get it. Thanks for being the minesweeper here. With my non-senior income I'm thinking I might not be able to justify it until Christmas (and maybe not until Christmas 2016). In a kit with a D400 it might change my mind; that would strike me as a photographic emergency!

@heartyfisher, VR is enough to tip the balance for me to this lens, but I would love to have the sigma, as well.

DaveyJ

My reasoning with this purchase is not many purchases left in me...I really cannot wait until my still 20/20 vision starts to slide....I also find that these lens treated well last for a very long time. My DSLR cameras might have held up OK but even the D90 is not that great and the D100 always was pretty sad especially compared to say my F5. I would add the D7200 or possibly wait for a D7300 but figure that is quite a ways off. Not one single camera I have ever owned has done as well as the D7100. However my best photos are another matter. There it as always to me is being at the right place at the right time with a"good enough" camera. I have every assurance that buying any piece of gear will not bring your youth back. So this 16-80 is a make hay while the sun shines lens purchase! We still only have Nikon's estimate July 16th.....

heartyfisher

Vr is a good thing... but doesnt help if you cant focus...when its dark. I have had ocation to shoot in very low light recently and the f2.8 lens couldnt lock on.. that was the tamron 24-70 vc.. i didnt try with my f4 vr lense or f3.5 vr nikkor maybe i should have? Re the 18-35 sig i have seen reviews that say its as good as other f1.8 primes in terms of af.. yet i have also seen openion posts that say its not as good... so there is that... maybe my best option is the 35 f1.8 nikkor dx.. just for low light street...? I also kind of like the 20mm f1.8....which i can use on my dx or fx.....

nukuEX2

I may look into this lens as an alternative to 17-55mm f2.8 I know its variable aperture lens but it only goes down to f4 which is FF equivalent of 24-120mm. :-))

nukuEX2

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.

We already have a high-end DX Body and its D7200. )

DaveyJ

The D7200 would work just fine for me....

Ironheart

From a duplicate thread:

I have used the new Nikon 16-80 N DX VR lens for long enough to know it is a real keeper. I posted some first photos on the Nikon USA website. It is NOT a small lens. The lens hood is quite large. The focus is rapid and exact. I did all my initial shooting in fairly low light as that is what the conditions were. I am already convinced I will use the lens where I am unwilling to compromise on quality. For work photos and field use where sawdust and other hazards exist, I'll be still using the Nikon D3200 and the 18-55 lens and a Nikon 1 AW 1 with the UW kit lens. This is a sharp lens.

I'm not surprised. What I'm curious about is whether this lens is better than the FF 24-120 F4. That's widely regarded as a kind of "mediocore" pro lens, a lens that kind of meets the minimum for quality.

I did use the 24-120 lens for a couple of weeks. I tried it on my D700. I sold the D700 as it did not have video which I NEED. I shoot a lot of stills and find video needs tripod steadiness most of the time. I prefer the D7100 way over the D700. I also used the D750 for awhile and was pretty impressed with that. However I did NOT have the 24-120 F4 available when I was shooting the D750. I finally decided that FX cameras answered nothing for me as to be honest bigger I find VERY bothersome most of the time. I can't even tell you how many Go Pros are owned by my farm. They are pretty good for what they are. I find myself still using Nikons when much of the imagery taken in our farming operations (which are very diverse) is done with other stuff. On any given day the Nikon 1 AW 1 is on the work truck. Wish I could give you a fair assessment of the 24-120. Still my reaction to BOTH of those lens is THEY ARE BIG! Personally I want the cameras as small and light as possible. To me bigger is a liability. HOWEVER at some point smaller means quality compromise. If I had to pick a lens that has impressed me greatly for what it is then it would be the 18-55 VR Nikkor. Quite little, and often good enough. One thing I keep running into shooting D3200 with the 18-55 is the TINY focus points.

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.

We already have a high-end DX Body and its D7200. )

I meant the mythical D300s replacement, but I think you have some sarcasm in your post...

nukuEX2

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.

We already have a high-end DX Body and its D7200. )

I meant the mythical D300s replacement, but I think you have some sarcasm in your post...

Oh geez you think?!

DaveyJ

My favorite lens when I was shooting 35mm film and primes were pretty much what was available was the 24mm. I started with Minolta and they keep changing mounting systems. So I switched to Nikon. By the time I was using the Nikon F5 pretty much my favorite lens was the 20-35 .2.8. I kept comparing that to my prime lens and even with very large prints (which I did a lot as I was also shooting a lot of 8x10) and the zooms were doing well. Today the camera i would pick first would be the D7200. You do not hear me pushing Nikon to make a D400 anymore. I will look very close at the D7300 when it comes out. The D7000 is definitely somewhat off the ability if the D7100.

spraynpray

"Wish I could give you a fair assessment of the 24-120. Still my reaction to BOTH of those lens is THEY ARE BIG! Personally I want the cameras as small and light as possible. To me bigger is a liability. HOWEVER at some point smaller means quality compromise. If I had to pick a lens that has impressed me greatly for what it is then it would be the 18-55 VR Nikkor. Quite little, and often good enough."

I agree - funny how my 35-70 f4 Olympus zoom is absolutely tiny next to modern lenses of comparable range. It can't all be the AF motor?

CaMeRaQuEsT

First in-depth test of the AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E VR from Taiwan, with lots of picture samples, but unfortunately no comparison with other lenses:

http://www.mobile01.com/newsdetail.php?id=17102

PB_PM

I agree - funny how my 35-70 f4 Olympus zoom is absolutely tiny next to modern lenses of comparable range. It can't all be the AF motor?

It's not, just look at how many optical elements a modern zoom or prime has to the ones made 10-20 years ago. The number of elements, and lens groups, have almost doubled in some designs. Then add in the built in focusing motor, VR mechanisms and space for chipsets to send the correct information to the camera body and you start to better understand why lenses are so much bigger.

There are upsides to the fancy new stuff, like fast quiet AF motors, better absolute sharpness, less chromatic and lateral aberrations, but then there are downsides like additional weight, size, light loss and light wavelength distortions which effect the contrast and colour.

BVS

Another review here:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_afs_dx_nikkor_16_80mm_f_2_8_4_e_ed_vr_review/

DaveyJ

I have begun to take the 16-80 lens to construction sites which I ordinarily would not do. I have been amazed in slide shows from work that in a 3 second dissolve the 4K HD screen image is that much better on the 16-80 shots. It is very important to note I shot with my standard Nikon zoom lens as well. If something is out of focus it has a more pleasant presence, when it is supposed to be in focus it is tack sharp. Colors are rich and striking. I tend to shoot at upper limits of diffraction to give very wide depth of field and about 800 ISO. The ability to have 16mm wide is significantly better at times when you are on a scaffolding with no more room to move. The 80mm end is very useful although we did have two Bald Eagles overhead today for a while but they would have been high enough to challenge any 300mm let alone 80. All in all I have actually been even more impressed that I had hoped for. I should add that about $1,150 for this lens was only something I would do as a serious investment. I already am very happy and decided that I pulled the trigger this early.

NSXTypeR

I'm glad you guys like the 16-80 so much, as that means there is hope for more DX lenses.

Thanks for all the reviews!