Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4 test

Steve Bingham said:

Let me add a few caveats:

1- As a general rule, the wider the lens, the more the MTF falls off away from center.

2- Some lenses have a lot of copy-to-copy variation, some less. I have no way of comparing my copy!

3- Prime lenses tend to have less copy-to-copy variations . . . as would be expected!

4- Most zoom lenses have a preferred focal length where they perform best. Quite frequently this is found mid-range. (or around 50mm in this case)

5- Because of the above factors all testing can be relative.

Based on the number (15-20) of lenses I have tested (over 15 years) with my 2' x 3' ISO charts I have built up a pretty good understanding of what they mean - and what they DON'T mean.

Click to expand...

HighFive said:

Some samples here on DPreview. Some look very sharp to me, others not so much. I assume with the same lens copy. Click on "original" below the images to view original size to check sharpness. Maybe the photographer drank to muck coffee and has the jitters.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/r...kkor-16-80mm-f2-8-4e-ed-vr-real-world-samples

Click to expand...

aggiecutter2 said:

from a verified purchaser at Amazon.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful

Superb travel/walk around zoom lensBy Thejohnz on July 28, 2015 Verified Purchase

I purchased this lens from Amazon to go with my D7200. I have mostly been an FX user the last 4 years and currently also own a D750 and D800. My interest in going back to the DX camera and lenses started with using the D7200 as a way to get extra reach for my telephoto lenses such as the Nikkor 80-400mm VR and the newest Nikkor 300mmF4 VR.

I was enjoying how well the D7200 worked with these lenses but I no longer had any wide angle "walk around lens" to use with this camera.

I did have the Nikkor 24-120mmF4 VR and the 24-85mmF3.5/5.6 VR but those lenses are best suited for the FX format.

I purchased the 16-80mmF2.8/4 VR on a whim. Having previously owned the 16-85 version, I hoped that this lens would have the improvements necessary to make it a "keeper".

After a few days of testing and comparisons, I must admit that I will definitely keep this lens!

My first test was to compare the 16-80 on my D7200 to the 24-120 on my D750. This is an easy test to do as the equivalent zoom ranges and apertures are the same (except for the ability of the 16-80 to go to F2.8).

The result of this test amazed me. The 16-80 was sharper at all apertures from F4 through F16. It did not matter what focal length I was at. In addition, the 16-80 was better at contrast. Dark areas were darker, yet had more detail. A side benefit was the lack of any vignetting when a filter was attached to the 16-80 lens. This is not the case with the 24-120, when at 24mm focal length.

I then compared the 16-80 (set to 34mm on my D7200) with the Nikkor 50mF1.8 mounted on my D750. Again, I was surprised that the 16-80 actually looked better at all apertures but F4, where the 50mm was slightly better in the extreme corners. Again, contrast was noticeably better on the 16-80. This was the first time any lens I owned outperformed this 50mm prime.

I also own the Nikkor 20mmF1.8. Testing this lens directly with the 16-80 on my D7200 did show the superior performance of the 20mm lens, but the differences went away by F8. Both these lenses show the excellent contrast that comes with Nikon's latest coatings.

The Nikkor 16-80mmF2.8/4 VR is slightly lighter than the 16-85 but otherwise about the same size. The focus speed seems similar to the 24-120, and the VR seems to work as advertised.

At 80mm, I compared the 16-80 to my Nikkor 70-200F4 VR. The first test was done with the 16-80 on the D7200 (set for 80mm) and the 70-200 on the D750 (set to 120mm). The result of this test was almost a dead heat with maybe a slight edge to the 70-200.

I did a second test where both lenses were mounted on the D7200 (at 80mm). In this test the 70-200 clearly won. This is not surprising in that the FX format puts real demands on the corner performance of FX lenses whereas the DX format does not. in addition, the D750 has an anti-alias filter. The D7200 does not, allowing for better overall resolution if the lens can pull it off.(and the 70-200 certainly can!)

I would go on a hike with the 16-80 on a D7200 and feel confident that I would get as good or better photos than if I carried the 24-120 with the D750. In low light, or the need to have limited DOF, I might want the FX combo, but for most scenery shots, I want maximum DOF and high ISO's are generally not needed. Do remember that DX cameras have 1.5 times greater DOF than FX.

This lens is pricey. If I could not afford it, I would be temped by the Sigma 17-70mmF2.8/4. It looks to have similar performance overall.

The only caveat, is the distortion. At 16mm, this lens has lots of barrel distortion. Strangely, it goes away by 19mm and quickly becomes pincushion all the way to 80mm. Most zooms seem similar in this regard. Just beware that you will want to correct for this distortion if buildings or ocean etc. are predominant in your images.

I have not really tested this lens wide open at F2.8. It looked really good, but I just don't go there much, as I am mostly doing scenery shots rather than people shots, where one often wants to isolate the subject from the background. I can tell you this. Looking through the viewfinder one notices that the image is bright! That is an advantage of 2.8F worth noting.

All in all, it is great to see such lenses come onto the market. The latest 24mp sensors are very demanding. This lens will hold up to those kind of sensors.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NI...38200143&sr=8-2&keywords=nikon+16-80mm+f2.8-4

Click to expand...

aggiecutter2 said:

from a verified purchaser at Amazon.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful

Superb travel/walk around zoom lensBy Thejohnz on July 28, 2015 Verified Purchase

I purchased this lens from Amazon to go with my D7200. I have mostly been an FX user the last 4 years and currently also own a D750 and D800. My interest in going back to the DX camera and lenses started with using the D7200 as a way to get extra reach for my telephoto lenses such as the Nikkor 80-400mm VR and the newest Nikkor 300mmF4 VR.

I was enjoying how well the D7200 worked with these lenses but I no longer had any wide angle "walk around lens" to use with this camera.

I did have the Nikkor 24-120mmF4 VR and the 24-85mmF3.5/5.6 VR but those lenses are best suited for the FX format.

I purchased the 16-80mmF2.8/4 VR on a whim. Having previously owned the 16-85 version, I hoped that this lens would have the improvements necessary to make it a "keeper".

After a few days of testing and comparisons, I must admit that I will definitely keep this lens!

My first test was to compare the 16-80 on my D7200 to the 24-120 on my D750. This is an easy test to do as the equivalent zoom ranges and apertures are the same (except for the ability of the 16-80 to go to F2.8).

The result of this test amazed me. The 16-80 was sharper at all apertures from F4 through F16. It did not matter what focal length I was at. In addition, the 16-80 was better at contrast. Dark areas were darker, yet had more detail. A side benefit was the lack of any vignetting when a filter was attached to the 16-80 lens. This is not the case with the 24-120, when at 24mm focal length.

I then compared the 16-80 (set to 34mm on my D7200) with the Nikkor 50mF1.8 mounted on my D750. Again, I was surprised that the 16-80 actually looked better at all apertures but F4, where the 50mm was slightly better in the extreme corners. Again, contrast was noticeably better on the 16-80. This was the first time any lens I owned outperformed this 50mm prime.

I also own the Nikkor 20mmF1.8. Testing this lens directly with the 16-80 on my D7200 did show the superior performance of the 20mm lens, but the differences went away by F8. Both these lenses show the excellent contrast that comes with Nikon's latest coatings.

The Nikkor 16-80mmF2.8/4 VR is slightly lighter than the 16-85 but otherwise about the same size. The focus speed seems similar to the 24-120, and the VR seems to work as advertised.

At 80mm, I compared the 16-80 to my Nikkor 70-200F4 VR. The first test was done with the 16-80 on the D7200 (set for 80mm) and the 70-200 on the D750 (set to 120mm). The result of this test was almost a dead heat with maybe a slight edge to the 70-200.

I did a second test where both lenses were mounted on the D7200 (at 80mm). In this test the 70-200 clearly won.

Click to expand...

aggiecutter2 said:

This is not surprising in that the FX format puts real demands on the corner performance of FX lenses whereas the DX format does not. in addition, the D750 has an anti-alias filter. The D7200 does not, allowing for better overall resolution if the lens can pull it off.(and the 70-200 certainly can!)

I would go on a hike with the 16-80 on a D7200 and feel confident that I would get as good or better photos than if I carried the 24-120 with the D750. In low light, or the need to have limited DOF, I might want the FX combo, but for most scenery shots, I want maximum DOF and high ISO's are generally not needed. Do remember that DX cameras have 1.5 times greater DOF than FX.

This lens is pricey. If I could not afford it, I would be temped by the Sigma 17-70mmF2.8/4. It looks to have similar performance overall.

Click to expand...

aggiecutter2 said:

The only caveat, is the distortion. At 16mm, this lens has lots of barrel distortion.

Click to expand...

aggiecutter2 said:

Strangely, it goes away by 19mm and quickly becomes pincushion all the way to 80mm. Most zooms seem similar in this regard. Just beware that you will want to correct for this distortion if buildings or ocean etc. are predominant in your images.

Click to expand...

aggiecutter2 said:

I have not really tested this lens wide open at F2.8. It looked really good, but I just don't go there much, as I am mostly doing scenery shots rather than people shots, where one often wants to isolate the subject from the background. I can tell you this. Looking through the viewfinder one notices that the image is bright! That is an advantage of 2.8F worth noting.

Click to expand...

aggiecutter2 said:

All in all, it is great to see such lenses come onto the market. The latest 24mp sensors are very demanding. This lens will hold up to those kind of sensors.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NI...38200143&sr=8-2&keywords=nikon+16-80mm+f2.8-4

Click to expand...

aggiecutter2 said:

from a verified purchaser at Amazon.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful

Superb travel/walk around zoom lensBy Thejohnz on July 28, 2015 Verified Purchase

I purchased this lens from Amazon to go with my D7200. I have mostly been an FX user the last 4 years and currently also own a D750 and D800. My interest in going back to the DX camera and lenses started with using the D7200 as a way to get extra reach for my telephoto lenses such as the Nikkor 80-400mm VR and the newest Nikkor 300mmF4 VR.

I was enjoying how well the D7200 worked with these lenses but I no longer had any wide angle "walk around lens" to use with this camera.

I did have the Nikkor 24-120mmF4 VR and the 24-85mmF3.5/5.6 VR but those lenses are best suited for the FX format.

I purchased the 16-80mmF2.8/4 VR on a whim. Having previously owned the 16-85 version, I hoped that this lens would have the improvements necessary to make it a "keeper".

After a few days of testing and comparisons, I must admit that I will definitely keep this lens!

My first test was to compare the 16-80 on my D7200 to the 24-120 on my D750. This is an easy test to do as the equivalent zoom ranges and apertures are the same (except for the ability of the 16-80 to go to F2.8).

The result of this test amazed me. The 16-80 was sharper at all apertures from F4 through F16. It did not matter what focal length I was at. In addition, the 16-80 was better at contrast. Dark areas were darker, yet had more detail. A side benefit was the lack of any vignetting when a filter was attached to the 16-80 lens. This is not the case with the 24-120, when at 24mm focal length.

I then compared the 16-80 (set to 34mm on my D7200) with the Nikkor 50mF1.8 mounted on my D750. Again, I was surprised that the 16-80 actually looked better at all apertures but F4, where the 50mm was slightly better in the extreme corners. Again, contrast was noticeably better on the 16-80. This was the first time any lens I owned outperformed this 50mm prime.

I also own the Nikkor 20mmF1.8. Testing this lens directly with the 16-80 on my D7200 did show the superior performance of the 20mm lens, but the differences went away by F8. Both these lenses show the excellent contrast that comes with Nikon's latest coatings.

The Nikkor 16-80mmF2.8/4 VR is slightly lighter than the 16-85 but otherwise about the same size. The focus speed seems similar to the 24-120, and the VR seems to work as advertised.

At 80mm, I compared the 16-80 to my Nikkor 70-200F4 VR. The first test was done with the 16-80 on the D7200 (set for 80mm) and the 70-200 on the D750 (set to 120mm). The result of this test was almost a dead heat with maybe a slight edge to the 70-200.

I did a second test where both lenses were mounted on the D7200 (at 80mm). In this test the 70-200 clearly won. This is not surprising in that the FX format puts real demands on the corner performance of FX lenses whereas the DX format does not. in addition, the D750 has an anti-alias filter. The D7200 does not, allowing for better overall resolution if the lens can pull it off.(and the 70-200 certainly can!)

I would go on a hike with the 16-80 on a D7200 and feel confident that I would get as good or better photos than if I carried the 24-120 with the D750. In low light, or the need to have limited DOF, I might want the FX combo, but for most scenery shots, I want maximum DOF and high ISO's are generally not needed. Do remember that DX cameras have 1.5 times greater DOF than FX.

This lens is pricey. If I could not afford it, I would be temped by the Sigma 17-70mmF2.8/4. It looks to have similar performance overall.

The only caveat, is the distortion. At 16mm, this lens has lots of barrel distortion. Strangely, it goes away by 19mm and quickly becomes pincushion all the way to 80mm. Most zooms seem similar in this regard. Just beware that you will want to correct for this distortion if buildings or ocean etc. are predominant in your images.

I have not really tested this lens wide open at F2.8. It looked really good, but I just don't go there much, as I am mostly doing scenery shots rather than people shots, where one often wants to isolate the subject from the background. I can tell you this. Looking through the viewfinder one notices that the image is bright! That is an advantage of 2.8F worth noting.

All in all, it is great to see such lenses come onto the market. The latest 24mp sensors are very demanding. This lens will hold up to those kind of sensors.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NI...38200143&sr=8-2&keywords=nikon+16-80mm+f2.8-4

Click to expand...

Steve Bingham said:

I did find another review that was put up a few days ago on Photographyblog.com. However, I am a little dubious about their findings. On their sample page I download a few images and was a little taken back by how little file information was available. At the top of the page they state: The thumbnails below link to full-sized samples taken with the AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR lens mounted to a Nikon D5500. However, upon downloading the images I found almost no exif (xmp) information. My files have a TON of information.

However, many of the examples stated 120mm. Downloading and looking in the advanced section in I saw this on a couple of images: Created on 1-20-2013. This would indicate to me that 24-120 files got mixed in with 16-80 files. On the Budweiser beer bottle, taken at 75mm at f4 (wide open) looked tack sharp at 100%. They called it soft! Take a look yourself.

--
Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com
Latest postings are always at the bottom of each page.

Click to expand...

mosswings said:

It's also clear that this lens is a bit awkward on the small body Nikons. It is clearly better suited balance wise for the D7K and larger bodies. The D3K and D5K bodies are really designed for f/4-5.6 lenses. 77mm vs. 72mm doesn't sound like much, but...

Click to expand...

jmbass said:

mosswings said:

It's also clear that this lens is a bit awkward on the small body Nikons. It is clearly better suited balance wise for the D7K and larger bodies. The D3K and D5K bodies are really designed for f/4-5.6 lenses. 77mm vs. 72mm doesn't sound like much, but...

Click to expand...

Darn. I was thinking about buying one for my D5500. Any smaller alternatives with similar range and IQ?

Click to expand...

Steve Bingham said:

maybe . . . but it only weights 1 lb. What else would you use? Think about it.

jmbass said:

mosswings said:

It's also clear that this lens is a bit awkward on the small body Nikons. It is clearly better suited balance wise for the D7K and larger bodies. The D3K and D5K bodies are really designed for f/4-5.6 lenses. 77mm vs. 72mm doesn't sound like much, but...

Click to expand...

Darn. I was thinking about buying one for my D5500. Any smaller alternatives with similar range and IQ?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

jmbass said:

mosswings said:

It's also clear that this lens is a bit awkward on the small body Nikons. It is clearly better suited balance wise for the D7K and larger bodies. The D3K and D5K bodies are really designed for f/4-5.6 lenses. 77mm vs. 72mm doesn't sound like much, but...

Click to expand...

Darn. I was thinking about buying one for my D5500. Any smaller alternatives with similar range and IQ?

Click to expand...

HighFive said:

Seriously??? Ken Rockwell wrote his review on July 2 before the lens was even available. He never touched this lens but copied MTF charts from Nikon and made his usual assumptions and stupid opinions. Typical Ken.

Click to expand...

krikman said:

Ken Rockwell wrote that 18-55 is better lens than 16-80.

Click to expand...

Steve Bingham said:

Ha ha ha

krikman said:

Ken Rockwell wrote that 18-55 is better lens than 16-80.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

krikman said:

Ken Rockwell wrote that 18-55 is better lens than 16-80.

Click to expand...