Reading mode: Light Dark

DX 16-80 vs. 18-300

Go to last post
C

CMCM

Veteran Member
Messages
6,130
Solutions
5
Reaction score
2,653
Location
Sierra Nevadas of Northern California, US
I'm really conflicted about which lens to choose as a kit with the D7500. I like the idea of the 16-80 because it's 2.8 (which seems rare on a zoom these days) and this lens eems to be well reviewed and liked for sharpness, but I also like the idea of the greater range provided by the 18-300, although that one is 3.5. Has anyone got experience with both of these lenses? Any negatives to either of them?

I had planned to also get some sort of wide angle, perhaps a 10-20 or 10-24, but I've never used 16mm such as on the 16-80, so I don't know if that would actually be fine as a wide angle and I wouldn't need the wider lens after all.
 
CMCM said:
I'm really conflicted about which lens to choose as a kit with the D7500. I like the idea of the 16-80 because it's 2.8 (which seems rare on a zoom these days) and this lens eems to be well reviewed and liked for sharpness, but I also like the idea of the greater range provided by the 18-300, although that one is 3.5. Has anyone got experience with both of these lenses? Any negatives to either of them?

I had planned to also get some sort of wide angle, perhaps a 10-20 or 10-24, but I've never used 16mm such as on the 16-80, so I don't know if that would actually be fine as a wide angle and I wouldn't need the wider lens after all.
Click to expand...
There is no right answer.

If you absolutely hate changing lenses, then get the 18-300. It is heavier, not as sharp (though I've seen many perfectly fine images online fwiw) and slower. Here is a pretty creditable review:

Loading…

www.imaging-resource.com

I think my 16-80 is just superb. The 16 is significantly wider than the 18 on your 18-70 and the lens just performs well throughout the range. Put it this way - if you liked the 18-70 on your D70, you'll love the 16-80 on the D7500. If you need more range, look to the AF-P 70-300 DX (f6.3).
 
I own the 16-80 and still own the Nikon 18-200. The key advantage to a zoom range like 18-300, as mentioned, is the ability not to to have to change lenses. This “one lens does all” is great for hazardous (i.e., dust, rain) areas where changing lenses is not a good idea. An 18-300 is also useful when you have weight / size restrictions. I don’t use my 18-200 anymore because I chose to use two bodies. The 16-80 is a sharp lens for its intended use and I rather use two bodies with lenses that cover the 18-300 range (e.g., 16-80 with a Nikon 80-400) than sacrifice sharpness. Of course, my plans change when I have weight restrictions...
 
Virtual Photon said:
CMCM said:
I'm really conflicted about which lens to choose as a kit with the D7500. I like the idea of the 16-80 because it's 2.8 (which seems rare on a zoom these days) and this lens eems to be well reviewed and liked for sharpness, but I also like the idea of the greater range provided by the 18-300, although that one is 3.5. Has anyone got experience with both of these lenses? Any negatives to either of them?

I had planned to also get some sort of wide angle, perhaps a 10-20 or 10-24, but I've never used 16mm such as on the 16-80, so I don't know if that would actually be fine as a wide angle and I wouldn't need the wider lens after all.
Click to expand...
There is no right answer.

If you absolutely hate changing lenses, then get the 18-300. It is heavier, not as sharp (though I've seen many perfectly fine images online fwiw) and slower. Here is a pretty creditable review:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/18-300mm-f3.5-5.6g-ed-vr-dx-af-s-nikkor/review/

I think my 16-80 is just superb. The 16 is significantly wider than the 18 on your 18-70 and the lens just performs well throughout the range. Put it this way - if you liked the 18-70 on your D70, you'll love the 16-80 on the D7500. If you need more range, look to the AF-P 70-300 DX (f6.3).
Click to expand...
I'm actually leaning toward just what you suggest: 16-80 for most purposes plus perhaps a second, longer one of some kind. And yes, I've mostly been pretty satisfied with the 18-70 range on the old one, only occasionally did I wish for more zoom. I've now got a P900 for long reach telephoto fun, so I'm fairly happy with that as an occasional zoom. Right now I'm more interested in wide angle shooting and getting a second wide angle lens of some sort since I've never played around with that at all. I've read about an older 16-85 f/3.5, but it seems everyone much prefers the 16-80, and of course, the extra stop is nice.
 
I would get the 16-80. You will appreciate the extra range at the wide end. You will also appreciate the light weight compared to the 18-300. Plus the 16-80 is going to be much sharper, have better contrast, and less distortion. I would only recommend the 18-300 if you hate to change lenses or only wanted to carry one lens. After the 16-80, I have a 70-300 for telephoto which I recommend you get. Next purchase for me will be something like a 10-20 or 10-24 and I will be done.

I also have a 105mm macro and 150-600, but for general travel, the above three will certainly cover just about everything.

Have Fun!
 
CMCM said:
I'm really conflicted about which lens to choose as a kit with the D7500. I like the idea of the 16-80 because it's 2.8 (which seems rare on a zoom these days) and this lens eems to be well reviewed and liked for sharpness, but I also like the idea of the greater range provided by the 18-300, although that one is 3.5. Has anyone got experience with both of these lenses? Any negatives to either of them?

I had planned to also get some sort of wide angle, perhaps a 10-20 or 10-24, but I've never used 16mm such as on the 16-80, so I don't know if that would actually be fine as a wide angle and I wouldn't need the wider lens after all.
Click to expand...
..the 16-80mm is a great lens, especially if can get it as a kit lens, better in price..

..if find need something longer, there are two versions of the Nikon 18-300mm lens.. (see the below picture)..

..the two versions of the 18-300mm lenses..
..the two versions of the 18-300mm lenses..

..the 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 is a newer version, and works better with 24mp dx sensors.. because of it's smaller size & lighter weight, would be a better fit for the D7500 camera..

..Cheers..

--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
[YI M1 camera, Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens, firmware 3.0]
 
Last edited:
CMCM said:
I'm really conflicted about which lens to choose as a kit with the D7500. I like the idea of the 16-80 because it's 2.8 (which seems rare on a zoom these days) and this lens eems to be well reviewed and liked for sharpness, but I also like the idea of the greater range provided by the 18-300, although that one is 3.5. Has anyone got experience with both of these lenses? Any negatives to either of them?

I had planned to also get some sort of wide angle, perhaps a 10-20 or 10-24, but I've never used 16mm such as on the 16-80, so I don't know if that would actually be fine as a wide angle and I wouldn't need the wider lens after all.
Click to expand...
My DX kit comprised a 16-85, a 10-24 and a 70-300. Covered everything. I got the camera with a 16-85 and found that I was shooting landscapes at 16mm a lot and wanting it wider; the 10-24 fixed that problem.

It is generally claimed that the 16-80 is sharper than lenses such as the 18-300 but I don't have an 18-300 so I don't know that.
 
16-80 at 80



449b0dafac994a6f9fd91cfb0d7e0b0c.jpg



d46dc4d8900846ca8978dac12222bd36.jpg

18-300 at 300



4de9354ede5442d28e6967ca3bd279d3.jpg



b7739ad02365409686bf115ec1fd11a9.jpg



5af8964f5eb8449db3c1c5f858261e78.jpg



--
Best regards
 
Thank you. All images were processed IN LR and PS.

Here are couple more with 18-300 at different FL



044cda23c8f44b4eb00dba08c1b7f3b9.jpg





f03a163593fd47dab43c9e59ee706305.jpg



78558486fc1946239747b473b5e9cdec.jpg

I use 18-300 when I know I might need longer FL and changing lenses is not advisable. I use 16-80 when I might need wider aperture and when I am taking pictures insides.



--
Best regards
 
Probably not what you were looking for, however if I were in your shoes, I would definitely go for the 16-80 and then consider the newer 70 -300 for the longer reach. It's a small compromise compared to just having the 18-300.
 
volks 1 said:
Probably not what you were looking for, however if I were in your shoes, I would definitely go for the 16-80 and then consider the newer 70 -300 for the longer reach. It's a small compromise compared to just having the 18-300.
Click to expand...
 
You could also look at a less expensive option, like the 18-140mm, which kinda splits the difference. An 18-140 will probably be on your camera for 90-95% of your shots.
 
The 18-300 is pretty darn good for what it is. I have one and have not gotten rid of it because of it's versatility. I prefer my Tokina 16-50mm for most things, but as a travel lens lens(assuming you're not there solely for photography) it's hard to beat.
 
fotod7k said:
The 18-300 is pretty darn good for what it is. I have one and have not gotten rid of it because of it's versatility. I prefer my Tokina 16-50mm for most things, but as a travel lens lens(assuming you're not there solely for photography) it's hard to beat.
Click to expand...
My problem is I've had a hard time deciding what would be most useful. I can't really go on a buying spree with lenses, and I'd like to get something that is good quality and also useful through a reasonable zoom range so that one lens would mostly do all I want as a walk around camera. These newer zoom lenses are interesting because they are all relatively the same size and weight, whether it's the 16-80, the 18-300 or the 18-140. A long time ago, the longer zoom range would be much longer and heavier than now.

So it comes down to what is most versatile and also is capable of very good quality. I had the 18-70 on my D70s for 14 years and was generally satisfied with that range, but in those 14 years I had mostly abandoned photography as a hobby so I hadn't looked for anything else and wasn't missing having other lenses. I wouldn't bother with ILCs at this point EXCEPT I really want to play with wider angles than 16 or 18, so I need to be able to get a second lens for wider angle. Ideally I'd like the 18-300 for the range, but if the 16-80 is as good as most people seem to say it is, I'm interested in it for the extra width it gets (from 16mm), although I don't know how much wider than 18 that would actually be. Perhaps I'd be happy with 16mm and wouldn't even feel the need to find a 10-18 or 10-24 type wide angle second lens. And it would be nice to have the 300 at the other end. I like the idea of the 2.8 on the 16-80 (faster than most zooms out there), although it sounds like that shifts quickly out of 2.8 anyway so I don't know how useful that would be overall.

Decisions, decisions, but I appreciate all the viewpoints you folks are posting.
 
CMCM said:
fotod7k said:
The 18-300 is pretty darn good for what it is. I have one and have not gotten rid of it because of it's versatility. I prefer my Tokina 16-50mm for most things, but as a travel lens lens(assuming you're not there solely for photography) it's hard to beat.
Click to expand...
My problem is I've had a hard time deciding what would be most useful. I can't really go on a buying spree with lenses, and I'd like to get something that is good quality and also useful through a reasonable zoom range so that one lens would mostly do all I want as a walk around camera. These newer zoom lenses are interesting because they are all relatively the same size and weight, whether it's the 16-80, the 18-300 or the 18-140. A long time ago, the longer zoom range would be much longer and heavier than now.

So it comes down to what is most versatile and also is capable of very good quality. I had the 18-70 on my D70s for 14 years and was generally satisfied with that range, but in those 14 years I had mostly abandoned photography as a hobby so I hadn't looked for anything else and wasn't missing having other lenses. I wouldn't bother with ILCs at this point EXCEPT I really want to play with wider angles than 16 or 18, so I need to be able to get a second lens for wider angle. Ideally I'd like the 18-300 for the range, but if the 16-80 is as good as most people seem to say it is, I'm interested in it for the extra width it gets (from 16mm), although I don't know how much wider than 18 that would actually be. Perhaps I'd be happy with 16mm and wouldn't even feel the need to find a 10-18 or 10-24 type wide angle second lens. And it would be nice to have the 300 at the other end. I like the idea of the 2.8 on the 16-80 (faster than most zooms out there), although it sounds like that shifts quickly out of 2.8 anyway so I don't know how useful that would be overall.

Decisions, decisions, but I appreciate all the viewpoints you folks are posting.
Click to expand...
..the 16-80mm f/2.8-4.0 is an excellent lens, it has the 'gold ring', and if can buy it as a kit, the lens should be better priced than at retail..

..but, here's something to consider.. I have the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 lens, it's a great lens, but shooting with it sometimes I wished had a longer zoom..

..for my D7500, I'm mostly using the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 & 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 lenses.. they work well, and compliment each other..

..yes, there's plenty of decisions to consider..

..Cheers..
 
jshen808 said:
CMCM said:
fotod7k said:
The 18-300 is pretty darn good for what it is. I have one and have not gotten rid of it because of it's versatility. I prefer my Tokina 16-50mm for most things, but as a travel lens lens(assuming you're not there solely for photography) it's hard to beat.
Click to expand...
My problem is I've had a hard time deciding what would be most useful. I can't really go on a buying spree with lenses, and I'd like to get something that is good quality and also useful through a reasonable zoom range so that one lens would mostly do all I want as a walk around camera. These newer zoom lenses are interesting because they are all relatively the same size and weight, whether it's the 16-80, the 18-300 or the 18-140. A long time ago, the longer zoom range would be much longer and heavier than now.

So it comes down to what is most versatile and also is capable of very good quality. I had the 18-70 on my D70s for 14 years and was generally satisfied with that range, but in those 14 years I had mostly abandoned photography as a hobby so I hadn't looked for anything else and wasn't missing having other lenses. I wouldn't bother with ILCs at this point EXCEPT I really want to play with wider angles than 16 or 18, so I need to be able to get a second lens for wider angle. Ideally I'd like the 18-300 for the range, but if the 16-80 is as good as most people seem to say it is, I'm interested in it for the extra width it gets (from 16mm), although I don't know how much wider than 18 that would actually be. Perhaps I'd be happy with 16mm and wouldn't even feel the need to find a 10-18 or 10-24 type wide angle second lens. And it would be nice to have the 300 at the other end. I like the idea of the 2.8 on the 16-80 (faster than most zooms out there), although it sounds like that shifts quickly out of 2.8 anyway so I don't know how useful that would be overall.

Decisions, decisions, but I appreciate all the viewpoints you folks are posting.
Click to expand...
..the 16-80mm f/2.8-4.0 is an excellent lens, it has the 'gold ring', and if can buy it as a kit, the lens should be better priced than at retail..

..but, here's something to consider.. I have the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 lens, it's a great lens, but shooting with it sometimes I wished had a longer zoom..

..for my D7500, I'm mostly using the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 & 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 lenses.. they work well, and compliment each other..

..yes, there's plenty of decisions to consider..

..Cheers..
Click to expand...
 
Also consider the Sigma 18-200 "Contemporary", it is very small and light for its zoom range and has supposedly quite good image quality (I don't own it myself). That said, I love my 16-80 and find the zoom range extremely versatile.
 
Alnitak said:
You could also look at a less expensive option, like the 18-140mm, which kinda splits the difference. An 18-140 will probably be on your camera for 90-95% of your shots.
Click to expand...
If one were to make that kind of compromise (getting a 18-140 over a 16-80) you might as well immediately go for a 18-300. When not bought in kit, the 18-140 isn't that much cheaper, and the quality isn't that much better (if any better) than the 18-300, but you have twice the zoom range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
  • Question Question
Does the XF 16-80 feel out of place on the X-E5?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
7K
unceunce
U
L
Advice on body for Nikon 16-80
Replies
9
Views
226
NAwlins Contrarian
N
D
18-55 to 16-55
2
Replies
33
Views
530
Birdmanfriday
B
Yannis1976
So what is the verdict on the Sigma 16-300?
Replies
3
Views
125
GreatOceanSoftware
GreatOceanSoftware
Vasilis Delis
Nikon D7200 vs D7500
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
793
toomanycanons
T

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top