How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
jonikon Veteran Member • Posts: 7,294
Re: It is an f4 lens
2

Steve Bingham wrote:

OK. Looks like we disagree. That's fine. Thom Hogan also calls it the best DX lens Nikon ever made. Yeah, and I tested mine. At one time I owned a dozen Nikon lenses and used them to make a damn good living in photography (income easily in high 6 figures) - now retired. It was, however, and still is, over priced. By the way, I also owned, and tested, a Tamron 17-50. Not in the same class. Weddings? Hmmm. A retired civil engineer as a wedding photographer?

So you think an engineer isn't smart enough to use a camera? I would like to see you solve differential equations or do stress analysis. Get off your high horse. I only shot weddings for friends and family as a favor including my daughter's wedding and only got compliments on my work. Never did a paid gig, nor would I want to.

I grew up with an entire family of civil engineers. (Father, brother, cousin, and uncle.)

I don't see how that is reverent to anything. I have two sisters that are artists. So what?

jonikon wrote:

ASteve Bingham wrote:

The new Fufi 16-80 is an f4 lens. These are a lot cheaper to build than an f2.8/f4. I also TESTED the Nikon f2.8-f4 16-80 on a large ISO 12233 chart. It certainly had distortion at the wide end! (16mm). Although it had a few problems, it was a very well made lens . . .

Cough,cough...sputter! I can't agree and I doubt many others who can appreciate a well built lens would agree either.

Pretty casual statement.

I would put the build quality of the Nikkor 16-80 on a par with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VR, that sells for $650.

and the best Nikon made for the DX.

Not even close.

Damn, there goes my MS in Photography along with 40 years of hard work.

So you have a MS in the fuzzy studies. I am sure we are all so impressed. The fact is real photographers and artists don't need a degree because they have something infinitely more valuable... talent. Those who lack natural talent in the fine arts get degrees and then tell everyone they meet they have one in the hopes it will give them props.

The best DX lens Nikon ever made is the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 ED-IF AFS. It's built like a tank and out of the five times I have rented this lens for wedding shoots none showed defects such as decentering.

Obviously. Roger wouldn't rent a decentered lens.

No idea who you are talking about. I rented from a local camera shop.

It's weakest at 17mm at the edges, but between 20-55mm it is very sharp across the frame with no signs of distortion or vignetting. The Nikkor 17-55 f2,8 Is a real dependable workhorse of a lens that never let me down.

Your attempts to disparage me notwithstanding, I stand by my statements about the Nikkor 16-80mm f2.8-4. It could have, and should have, been a much better lens in every respect. But we all should know by now that Nikon reserves its best for full frame. Not even one DX lens is weather-sealed and only one DX prime lens, if you don't include macros. Pitiful.

-- hide signature --

Jon

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
afm
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow