16-80 or 18-140?

spraynpray

Surely Nikon wouldn't bring out a 16-80 f2.8-4VR that is worse than the old 17-55 f2.8 would they? I can't see it myself.

BVS

spraynpray said:

Surely Nikon wouldn't bring out a 16-80 f2.8-4VR that is worse than the old 17-55 f2.8 would they? I can't see it myself.

Well, they did make the D3400...

WestEndFoto

BVS said:

spraynpray said:

Surely Nikon wouldn't bring out a 16-80 f2.8-4VR that is worse than the old 17-55 f2.8 would they? I can't see it myself.

Well, they did make the D3400...

How is it worse than the D3300?

Pistnbroke

Strange enough I liked the Angry man....what he said in the first few minutes was an attack on the hero worshiping clique members of another N forum. And on the lenses I tended to agree 17-35 and never had any success with the 24-120 (two copies). And why buy a f 1.8 if you always shoot at f8...makes sense to me.
Some of his other stuff on wedding photography and equipment was spot on.
So I like him ..he is not bothered if the clique does not like what he says ...a bit like me,

donaldejose

Pistnbroke: I thought he might be your kind of guy! I think he is correct on a lot of things he says scattered in among his rants and odd personality which can be entertaining if you can take it and are not offended. Surely he is not everyone's cup of tea!

egosbar

the 16-80 is way overpriced for whats inside or so im told lol
(for less price i can get a 70-300vr11 and a 18-200 walk around and possibly even toss in a 35mm or 50mm 1.8 ) much better value i think

now im havent used either but im also reviewing my options

24-85 3.5-4.5g rated as one of the best kit lenses but not wide enough though imo for dx

16-80 to expensive ( when its 600 australian not 1400 ill consider)
16-85 might as well get the 140
24 -120 supposeldy not a great lens
im actually now convinced to get a 18-200 vr11 with zoom lock , as a great walk around lens for travel , then just use my 1.8 35mm and tokina 11-16 2.8 for low light etc

i actually think i trust the angry photographer now , he seems to know his stuff thats for sure , google him on must have nikon lenses etc on youtube

heartyfisher

@egosbar Cool another Aussie !! .. Welcome to NR mate!

16-80 may be a bit overpriced :-) it may drop in price .. but I dont expect by much, maybe in the new year...

24-85 3.5-4.5 : If you think its not wide enough for you it probably is. However, I have the 24-70 Tamron and its really an excellent portrait street photography lense on DX. Only thing is, I think it would be nice if I could have it longer.. ( like 85 ? ;-) ) I also have the old 35-70 f2.8 nikkor which I used for portraits(really nice). If you think about it, an equivalent FOV of 35-127 is really quite nice. I was actually considering it seriously before I got the tamron 24-70.

Old 24-120 not good, new 24-120 from what I have seen here in samples, its really very nice. Not sure why you may think its bad.

18-200 VR.. I have one.. its been good to me. I have done some testing and compared it to the 18-140. The 18-140 IQ is a bit better, bokeh is a lot better. My 18-200 needed repair so I gave it to my brother(who will pay for the cost of repair). So I am now looking at getting a replacement.. have been considering the tamron 16-300 and the nikkor 18-300 f3.5-6.3. I will probably get the nikkor since I plan to use it on the nikon1 cameras and the tamron may not be compatible. Otherwise I think the tamron is a nice option.

angry is ... ok, but he seems to be getting worse.. and there are many more reviewers out there in youtube land that need less .. user filter.

For low light wide consider the new Tokina 14-20 F2.0 ... hmmm yummy...

For travel though... I cant think of a better lense than the nikkor 16-80 F2.8-f4.0 ...
Paired with the D500 (or any of the latest nikons, D7200 or D5500) it would be really quite an awesome set for travel. I especially had a lot of trouble in the dim Japanese temples (and american museums) that didnt allow tripods. The 16mm, F2.8 and 4 stop VR would have been really really useful then.

BTW what camera do you have ?

Pistnbroke

Egosbar ..before you go to the 18-200 look at the ratings on DXO..( measurements then sharpness)....very bad ..you will do better with the 18-140 and crop the last bit to give you 200 equivalent .I have two and taken thousands of shots with them at weddings with no problem. The tamron 16-300 looks very bad but check it out yourself. Nikon never made a good 24-120 old or new IMHO . I once thought because it had Nikon on it it must be good but I have learned that is not always true...To quote the angry man I now have more perspective ..ha ha
Read Heartyfishers comments

egosbar

yeah might study the 18-140 v 18-200 again thought they were pretty close
16-300 tamron i dont think id trust
not interested in any 24 wide end , id rather 18 min
i do like the angry photographer he rates the 18-200 as a great walk around compared to the others , im sure he ranks the 18-140 bad but ill look again

he also ranks the 16-80 very bad for the price considering plastic focus motor , its like 1400 in australia , no thanks

@heartyfisher , i have a 11-16 2.8 tokina for inside shots if needed and also 1.8 35mm ,

at the moment i have a d7100 , ive made some nice images with my lenses , even the 55-300 , 18-55 , 50mm 1.8D , 105mm 2.8 nikon love this one , 11-16 tokina love this one as well , heres some shots of mine on flickr if your interested
the wedding was the first ive shot for 20 years lol , it was my sisters so a freebie and what a shocking day , into the sun across the water at 2pm in the harshest light lol , shot all day off the histogram pushed to the right

https://www.flickr.com/photos/markegan/

reason im upgrading to the 500 is simply the focus and buffer , i really want to get more wildlife , i got lucky and got some crisp birds in flight with the 55-300 but ive missed so many now with that lens its to slow.

i have about 400 bucks to go and the sale of my current 7100 and lenses and ill be upgrading hopefully the price drops a little more lol

heartyfisher

@egosbar nice images ! :-)

The D500 and 16-80 prices are criminal in Australia... $4,400 when first available ....

Prices are dropping though :-) quite nice trend .. dont know if I can wait for the next sale date....

egosbar

id wait until at least october after photokina , im ready to pull the trigger on the 500 not on the overpriced 16-80 though , hopefully tokina or someone make a great cheaper lens around the same range soon

Ironheart

Conventional wisdom say to invest in good glass before a body. What lenses will you pair with the D500?

heartyfisher

The sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.0 OS has been around for some time now.... it has a good rep.

egosbar

im not 100% yet except the 70-300gvr11 for sure , the mid zoom is the one that is giving me a headache , and a 35 1.8 definitely

im not upgrading just to have new gear , i can shoot and i know what im doing , the focus and better iso performance is enough for me to do it , just gonna hold of until end of photokina and see whats coming out to maybe push some of the gear i want to down in price

in the future thanks to giving up smoking a 200-500

Pistnbroke

fatman say 35-70 f2.8

egosbar

not wide enough

DaveyJ

I've owned every lens mentioned. Our two D500s are used this way.....one with a 16-80 full time, one with a Ikelite zoom port and that is rated at 200 ft. UW (deep) the lens is a Tokina 10-17mm......so the "ratings" are for those who have done put all these lens to the test. Underwater is a whole different deal......better have a good housing. They are not cheap! On land......the 16-80 is an awesome lens. These other lens that get "high" ratings.....are based on some bodies' take on their personal expererience, sure not what several of us here use. Since one of us is a full time photo pro, the other two with 20 to 40 years exposure to photography.......we are really thrilled with the 16-80! If you think you need the 18-140mm then buy it and use it. The 18-200 we own and use but I don't personally ever touch it anymore and it is used on a video camera, hardly a Nikon.

Ironheart

+1 @DaveyJ 18-140 would be better than the 18-200 or 18-300
I'd still consider the 16-80. I don't agree with the angry man, the 16-80 is a solid performer, esp on a D500 and a D7xxx

egosbar

id consider the 16-80 at around 6-700 dollars australian , its like 12-1400 dollars here , imo overpriced for a kit , maybe used down the track a bit , im seeing rumors of a 100-300 nikon f4 , be interesting to see that one , ill be holding off for a few more months to see what comes out in photokina , im in no hurry still got a good kit thats worked fine for the last few years

BabaGanoush

There was nothing wrong with my 24-120mm on the D800. I bought it used from my local Nikon shop. It was one of the few Nikon lenses that I found really easy to tune. It had a classic Bell-shaped tuning curve (vs. micro-adjustment value) that pretty much remain unchanged throughout its entire range of focal lengths. I liked everything about the lens and the IQ it gave me.

egosbar

good range on fx , i like to start with 1,8 on dx for my mid range zoom

heartyfisher

BTW i did a small shoot out test sometime ago of the 18-140 vs 18-200.. not a great test but FYI ... http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1664/nikkor-18-140-f3-5-5-6-vr

Unfortunately, Facebook ate some of my images ... Guess facebook is not a safe place for photos ... :-( swapped over to flickr for some of the images that were on FB.... :-(

spraynpray

Nikon improved my 24-120 greatly with their micro adjust, but IQ was still quite grotty around 80mm.

The 16-80 is on its way to me so we'll see.

Thanks for the viewpoints guys.

spraynpray

Well, it arrived and so far it doesn't look as good as the reviews have said but the D7100 took a knock at the last job so I'll send it off for a check-up.

heartyfisher