New Nikon 16-80 2.8-4 coming.

[volks]

Nikon has just announced that it will start shipping its new 16-80 2.8-4
lens in Japan on July 16th. This is great news for those folks that have patiently been waiting for an upgrade to the 16-85 lens.

Just bought a new D7200 and a used 16-85 lens and will trade that lens for the new one when it becomes available in North America.
Price will be around $900.00
Go to Nikon Rumors site for technical info.

[Franglais]

Now that's interesting. I might get one of those, if the tests are good.

At the moment the killer lens on the D7200 is the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 constant. Apart from having a remarkable maximum aperture its also extremely sharp. Look at the DXOMark ratings - the amount of information that you can get on the D7100 is more than what you can get with some lenses on the D800.

Unfortunately I already have a 17-35 f2.8 (unstabilised) and I know that on the D7200 this range of focal lengths just is not useful most of the time. If I wanted to freeze motion by using a wide aperture then it might be useful

The 16-80 looks just fine - exact equivalent of the 24-120 I use on the D800. Just hope its sharp..

[srblough]

I've been using Sigma 17-50 2.8 ($469 on Amazon) on the 7100 and delighted with the results. Should be an interesting comparison to the new Nikon.

[volks]

I've been using Sigma 17-50 2.8 ($469 on Amazon) on the 7100 and delighted with the results. Should be an interesting comparison to the new Nikon.

We should know soon enough. It's scheduled for availability in a week or so. I will get one as soon as my dealer has one in stock. Many folks are complaining about the price, but it's just a bit more than Nikon's 10-24, so no big deal.

[Franglais]

I was out with the 18-140 on the D7200 at the 14th July parade yesterday. I was really impressed at how sharp and lively the results were - and this is from a high-end kit lens costing half as much as the 16-80, with a much greater zoom range.

OK - it was outdoors in bright sunlight. I figure that the 16-80 is more intended for use in low light.

My costing analysis says I don't need this lens. But when I look at the photos I've done over the past two years I can see a surprising number of cases where it would have been useful

[volks]

I was out with the 18-140 on the D7200 at the 14th July parade yesterday. I was really impressed at how sharp and lively the results were - and this is from a high-end kit lens costing half as much as the 16-80, with a much greater zoom range.

OK - it was outdoors in bright sunlight. I figure that the 16-80 is more intended for use in low light.

My costing analysis says I don't need this lens. But when I look at the photos I've done over the past two years I can see a surprising number of cases where it would have been useful

Most of my shooting is outdoors and mainly landscape. I just shoot so much at the wider end hence the 16-80 will satisfy 90% of my needs. I'm sure the 18-140 is a very good lens and gets favorable reviews and am glad to hear that you are happy with it.
Now if only the 16-80 would show up in stores. I guess Nikon will start shipping out tomorrow, so should not be too much longer.

[volks]

Well, this lens is now available in the US. Not in Canada yet.

[Franglais]

Ldlc.com (French site) say they have just ONE in stock. My guess is its going to be in short supply for a while. I think I'm going to wait till October and see what the new DX body is like.

I don't need it right now. Summer is a quiet time. Just getting ready to hand in my D800 to have its autofocus recalibrated, change the spark plugs, etc.

[volks]

Ldlc.com (French site) say they have just ONE in stock. My guess is its going to be in short supply for a while. I think I'm going to wait till October and see what the new DX body is like.

I don't need it right now. Summer is a quiet time. Just getting ready to hand in my D800 to have its autofocus recalibrated, change the spark plugs, etc.

Just forget about the wash ok :-)

[Franglais]

Seen it in Photo Cirque on Boulevard Beaumarchais when I took the D800 in to the Nikon shop across the way. There was no label and no price but it was easy to recognise by the "N" and "DX" markings on the side.

It looks short but fat compared with the other lenses on display.

I didn't ask to handle it. They were busy and there was no chance whatsoever of me buying it. I spent the money yesterday on the 70-200 f4 for the D800, which remains my primary body.

Looks like I'll have to work a few more weekends before the pre-Christmas sales, get some money before the next opportunity to get a 15% discount.

[volks]

ok fine am agree with you

Same again, useless post.

[Franglais]

Deleted it.

Haven't you got the lens yet? The first reviews are starting to appear. It looks like its sharp wide open but you still have to stop it down a bit to get the best out of it.

I've been looking back at my results from indoor model shootings with the D800 vs D7100/D7200. The D800 is clearly better, even with the 24-120 f4 (which I'm not over-enthusiastic about). I've decided to take the D800 rather than the D7200 on low-risk trips out of town. Not for holidays (I have a tendency to wander into dark and dangerous places..)

[volks]

Thanks Charles. Picking it up tomorrow. Don't know why it took so long for Vancouver to get stock.
Most reviews are very positive.
Once I had a chance to use it, I'll give you my thoughts.

Cheers

[volks]

Finally got the new lens. Just took a few shots in the yard and looks very good so far.
I guess any new lens would have been better than my last dud 16-85 :-)

[Franglais]

I would be interested in your observations compared with the 16-85 (the good one not the dud). What do the images look like? Do they leap out at you or do they look like the old lens? Does it seem to be more/less contrasty, sharp etc?

Example :

- I had the 16-85 for a long time on my D300. I thought that it was a good solid performer but not very exciting
- Right now I have the 18-140 on the D7200. The images look very sharp and contrasty, particularly in sunlight
- I have the 24-120 on the D800. The images are just fine but sometimes they look dull, especially indoors. I think it lacks a bit of contrast which I add if needed in post-processing
- My favourite is the 28-70 on the D800. There is a certain richness in the results which is difficult to describe. Sometimes it makes things look - more beautiful. However at f2.8 it lacks a bit of contrast and sharpness and as it has no VR its tough to get sharp images in low light on the D800

Etc..

[volks]

Charles just took a couple of shots in the yard and must say the colors were just awesome. Much richer and natural than any of my previous lenses.
Once I have some better subject shots I'll report back. So far looks real good.

[Franglais]

OK that's interesting. Its the sort of thing that technical reviews don't tell you.

Try and find a subject in subdued light with muted colours. I'm looking for a lens that can make such a subject look good. Here's one that I shot on my Gold-Ring 28-70 f2.8 (on the D800). I really like the way it looks:

- the 16-80 is also a Gold Ring lens i.e. Nikon's best
- the 24-120 f4 VR is also a Gold Ring lens but it doesn't have the same effect. I think its too much of a compromise to get the zoom range

I'm wondering if the 16-80 is going to be like the 24-120 or like the 28-70. You can only tell after shooting for a while with a lens then count the number of knockout shots you've got.

[volks]

Many folks report that it is better than the 24-120.

Here is one of those comments.....

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.

[Franglais]

That's what I was hoping. DXOMark test the same thing in their Sharpness test. The old 16-85 didn't put as much detail on the 24MPix DX sensor as the 24-120 on the 24Mpix FX sensor. I'm waiting to see the DXOMark tests for the new lens. But DXOMark is French and they are probably all on holiday in August:

Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR on Nikon D7100 versus Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED on Nikon D750 - Side by side lens comparison - DxOMark

All these tests are at 100 ISO. I want to do a test at 1600-6400 ISO and compare it with the 24-120 on the D800. You lose a lot of detail with the noise-suppression treatment.

Here is an example done on the D7100 + 18-140 at 4500 ISO. The lens was at maximum aperture f5.6. It's nice, I like it - but it has a soft look about it due to noise reduction that I wouldn't have had on the D800. I figure that with the 16-80 I could use f4 and 2000 ISO.

[volks]

Well Charles, just get the 16-80... a match made in heaven with the d7200

[Franglais]

Yesterday was a public holiday. My local supplier had 10% off the whole shop to attract the public. I was there at opening time.

Cute sunshield though it makes it look the lens bigger.

I did a comparison of the D7200+16-80 vs D800+24-120. The 24-120 f4 is my most used lens because it's so versatile but it's not as sharp as the others I have. I figured that if the 16-80 is as sharp as it's rumoured to be then maybe I could get the same amount of detail out of the D7200(24Mpix) as I can with with the D800 (36Mpix). This was my benchmark:

- Definition: The 24-120 did better in wideangle views and the 16-80 did better in telephoto views. Overall its about the same
- Light falloff at maximum aperture: About the same amount but it's not usually noticable. Beware when shooting people indoors against a uniform wall
- "Look" of the images: The 24-120 has fairly low contrast and the 16-80 is normal.

So the situation is about what I was hoping.

I can take the D7200 to Prague next week instead of the D800 - which just came back from servicing and is working wonderfully

[volks]

So does that mean you'll be taking a 16-80 to Prague ?

[Franglais]

Yes the scenario seems to include shootings in interiors and other dark places, like with the blonde girl in the farm.

Photogallery :: SHOOTPARTY workshop

I would like to avoid going over 1600 ISO on the D7200 to avoid noise and softness. I think that with the 16-80 and a monopod I can achieve this

[volks]

Yes the scenario seems to include shootings in interiors and other dark places, like with the blonde girl in the farm.

Photogallery :: SHOOTPARTY workshop

I would like to avoid going over 1600 ISO on the D7200 to avoid noise and softness. I think that with the 16-80 and a monopod I can achieve this

I knew you would end up with it sooner or later. Hope it meets your expectations.
Good shooting in Prague.

[Franglais]

About 4000 pictures later, several shootings with the 16-80 on the D7200 but also shootings on the D800 with 24-120VR f4 and 28-70 f2.8 I'm ready to give an opinion:

- 16-80+D7200 is great. The only thing wrong with it is a tendency to flare when pointed into the sun. But the colour and contrast are great. Can't distinguish images from those taken on the D7200+70-200 f4
- 24-120+D800 is even better. When I went back to the D800 after a while shooting with the D7200 I immediately noticed that the RAW files were easier to treat and the tones were smoother. In fact I can't really see why I criticised the 24-120 earlier
- 28-70+D800 didn't have the magical clarity and contrast I was expecting. And the range of focal lengths is wrong for what I was doing, it put me too close to the model. Put that one back in the bag