Nikon 16-80 vs 18-200

Hello all, my walk around vacation lens has been my Version 1 Nikon 18 - 200mm for my D7100. I have had it for years and it is pretty versatile but its super heavy and not great in low light. I am looking at the new Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E as a potential replacement/addition.

Has anyone used these lenses (specifically the 16-80mm, if not both) and if so your thoughts? I use my camera primarily for vacation pictures so I take a lot of wide shots.

Thanks.

I have not used the 16-80 f2.8 so cannot say anything about it. I recently (last year) bought the new Nikon 24-70 f2.8 it is pricy and is not a light lens but I love it, it is tack sharp and has VR. Which in lower light it helps add a few stops. So if you can afford a few hundred more this lens is incredible.

El_Paso_2016_2382.jpg

Hello all, my walk around vacation lens has been my Version 1 Nikon 18 - 200mm for my D7100. I have had it for years and it is pretty versatile but its super heavy and not great in low light. I am looking at the new Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E as a potential replacement/addition.

 

Has anyone used these lenses (specifically the 16-80mm, if not both) and if so your thoughts? I use my camera primarily for vacation pictures so I take a lot of wide shots.

 

Thanks.

Just my opinion, but the 16-80 is going to give you better quality but less reach.

I have not used the 16-80 f2.8 so cannot say anything about it. I recently (last year) bought the new Nikon 24-70 f2.8 it is pricy and is not a light lens but I love it, it is tack sharp and has VR. Which in lower light it helps add a few stops. So if you can afford a few hundred more this lens is incredible.

 

El_Paso_2016_2382.jpg

"few hundred"??:confused: Try $1300 more. Plus you are only gaining 1 stop and that is at the long end as they both are 2.8 on the wide end.

The 24-70 AFS f/2.8 is a very heavy professional lens, used mainly with Pro FX bodies. That 16 -80 AFS E DX f/2.8-4 is made for DX bodies but came out with the new D500 DX high performance body. I've heard good things about it. It also has the new electronic aperture. The 18 - 200 was never my favorite lens on the long end plus @ 200mm it was only a f/5.6 so it focused slow. The 16 - 80 adds nano coating for less glare and is 3 ounces lighter.

Unless you want to upgrade to an FX body the 16 -80 is the best standard lens for Nikon DX bodies.

framer

The 24-70 AFS f/2.8 is a very heavy professional lens, used mainly with Pro FX bodies. That 16 -80 AFS E DX f/2.8-4 is made for DX bodies but came out with the new D500 DX high performance body. I've heard good things about it. It also has the new electronic aperture. The 18 - 200 was never my favorite lens on the long end plus @ 200mm it was only a f/5.6 so it focused slow. The 16 - 80 adds nano coating for less glare and is 3 ounces lighter.

 

Unless you want to upgrade to an FX body the 16 -80 is the best standard lens for Nikon DX bodies.

 

framer

Thanks all, I bought the 16-80. I was going to attach comparison pictures but can't figure out how to do that. The difference in sharpness is quite significant, although I will miss the 200mm's reach. As I said in my original post, in low light the 18-200mm was pretty much useless. Looks like I will need a companion zoom for longer distance at some point.

Thanks all, I bought the 16-80. I was going to attach comparison pictures but can't figure out how to do that. The difference in sharpness is quite significant, although I will miss the 200mm's reach. As I said in my original post, in low light the 18-200mm was pretty much useless. Looks like I will need a companion zoom for longer distance at some point.

if you want to go with a nikon lens check out the 70-200 f4. about half the price of the 2.8 version and lighter. Plus you will only have the 70-80 range overlap. I use the 24-120 f4 on my D610 about 95% of the time and the f4 has never been an issue with me. With todays sensors you can just bump up the iso and its usually not a big issue.

Thanks all, I bought the 16-80. I was going to attach comparison pictures but can't figure out how to do that. The difference in sharpness is quite significant, although I will miss the 200mm's reach. As I said in my original post, in low light the 18-200mm was pretty much useless. Looks like I will need a companion zoom for longer distance at some point.

That's why they make INTERCHANGEABLE lens cameras. If 18-200 lenses were as good, they would just stick it on the camera and be done. For quality optical designs, I've heard they can't really do more than 3x or 4x. 16-80 is 5x. A typical high quality 70-200 is 3x. Etc. So if you want to maintain quality, you need to be prepared to change lenses for different ranges. And 1x lenses (primes) are the absolute highest quality.

That's why they make INTERCHANGEABLE lens cameras. If 18-200 lenses were as good, they would just stick it on the camera and be done. For quality optical designs, I've heard they can't really do more than 3x or 4x. 16-80 is 5x. A typical high quality 70-200 is 3x. Etc. So if you want to maintain quality, you need to be prepared to change lenses for different ranges. And 1x lenses (primes) are the absolute highest quality.

The reason I put up with my 18-200 as long as I did was I really only use my Nikon extensively on vacation and not having to lug a huge camera bag around with an extra lens or two, while wandering around Europe or some other place, is hugely convenient.

We just picked up a Olympus *****-D E-M5 MARK II mirrorless, I have a feeling that it will become my "Go To" vacation camera at some point in the future.....