Is it fast enough

[nikon_peter]

G’day, I am looking to buy a new lens, I am wanting a good travel lens that isn’t too big, but is fast enough and wide enough, I am wanting the Nikkor 16-80mm F/2.8-4 but am wondering if it is worth the extra money from the Nikkor 16-85mm F/3.5-5.6. I have considered the 24-70 but always find myself reaching for the sigma 10-20 so am hoping to bypass the 10-20 with the 16mm, is it worth the extra$
Peter


Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[ac12]

If you tend to use the Sigma down at 10mm end, then NO the 16-80 will not be wide enough for you.
For me 24mm FF equivalent is generally "good enough." (16mm on DX)
Remember, you can also stitch, to make a WIDE image from 2 smaller images.

I used a m4/3, 12-60/3.5-5.6 on a 2 week trip and had no issues with the lens speed.

The fast 17/1.8 was used maybe 5 times.​

BUT, "it depends." What camera you are using, what you are shooting, what is the lighting conditions.

If you are in a DIM place, NONE of the zooms may work, without pushing ISO up to 25600, and shooting at 1/2 second; then you will have to pull out a fast prime.​

When I shoot with my Nikon 18-140, the 35/1.8 is my fast companion lens.

 

[Strodav]

G’day, I am looking to buy a new lens, I am wanting a good travel lens that isn’t too big, but is fast enough and wide enough, I am wanting the Nikkor 16-80mm F/2.8-4 but am wondering if it is worth the extra money from the Nikkor 16-85mm F/3.5-5.6. I have considered the 24-70 but always find myself reaching for the sigma 10-20 so am hoping to bypass the 10-20 with the 16mm, is it worth the extra$
Peter


Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

To really help we need to know what camera and what type of photos you will be taking. From the lenses you are looking at it looks like a DX body and will be mainly shooting landscapes. If that's true the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 its a great lens. I really like mine. I would add a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 for a little more reach and low light capability. Another option is the kit lens that came with my D7200, the Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6. It is not a bad lens at all for the price, especially used (Adorama.com). Again, I would team it up with either a 35mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 for low light capability.

The setup I use for family vacations is either a D500 or D7200 with a Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 and keep a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 in my pocket for low light situations. If you want to consider a 3rd party lens like a Tamron or Sigma, you need to be willing to tune them to your camera for best results.

If I'm going on a photography vacation usually for wildlife / birding and landscapes, its a backpack with a D500 the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, Tamron 18-400 f/3.5-6.3, Nikon 60mm f/2.8 micro, and a Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 G2 and tripod, extra mem cards, batteries, charger, filters, ...

 

[ac12]

• The pro grade 16-80/2.8-4 is supposed to be optically better than the 16-85. How fussy are you about IQ?
  
• IMHO the 24-70/2.8 is too limiting for a small kit, as you will likely want to bring a wider lens (your Sigma 10-20). And that that is NOT a small/light lens.
  
• I have a friend who came back from Europe, and loved his 18-300. But that is a consumer super zoom, and not up to the IQ of either the 16-80 or 24-70 (both pro grade lenses).

With both the 16-80 and 24-70, will you be taking a longer lens, like a 70-300 or the pro 70-200/4? If you are going pro grade glass for the main lens, I would think hard about consumer grade 70-300 vs. pro grade 70-200/4. The latest AF-P 70-300 are better than the older AF-S lens. But there are limitations on using an AF-P lens on the D7200.

Something to think about for a travel kit is weight and bulk.

How this affects you depends on your age and physical condition. If you are in your 20s/30s and in good condition, then not a problem.
Though I see you have the BIG Sigma zoom, so I presume weight is not an issue for you.​

 

[nikon_peter]

G’day, I am looking to buy a new lens, I am wanting a good travel lens that isn’t too big, but is fast enough and wide enough, I am wanting the Nikkor 16-80mm F/2.8-4 but am wondering if it is worth the extra money from the Nikkor 16-85mm F/3.5-5.6. I have considered the 24-70 but always find myself reaching for the sigma 10-20 so am hoping to bypass the 10-20 with the 16mm, is it worth the extra$
Peter


Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

To really help we need to know what camera and what type of photos you will be taking. From the lenses you are looking at it looks like a DX body and will be mainly shooting landscapes. If that's true the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 its a great lens. I really like mine. I would add a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 for a little more reach and low light capability. Another option is the kit lens that came with my D7200, the Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6. It is not a bad lens at all for the price, especially used (Adorama.com). Again, I would team it up with either a 35mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 for low light capability.

The setup I use for family vacations is either a D500 or D7200 with a Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 and keep a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 in my pocket for low light situations. If you want to consider a 3rd party lens like a Tamron or Sigma, you need to be willing to tune them to your camera for best results.

If I'm going on a photography vacation usually for wildlife / birding and landscapes, its a backpack with a D500 the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, Tamron 18-400 f/3.5-6.3, Nikon 60mm f/2.8 micro, and a Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 G2 and tripod, extra mem cards, batteries, charger, filters, ...

I have the Nikon D7200 with 18-300mm F/3.5-5.6, the nikon 50mm F1.8, the sigma 10-20mm F3.5 and the sigma 150-500mm



Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[nikon_peter]

• The pro grade 16-80/2.8-4 is supposed to be optically better than the 16-85. How fussy are you about IQ?
  
• IMHO the 24-70/2.8 is too limiting for a small kit, as you will likely want to bring a wider lens (your Sigma 10-20). And that that is NOT a small/light lens.
  
• I have a friend who came back from Europe, and loved his 18-300. But that is a consumer super zoom, and not up to the IQ of either the 16-80 or 24-70 (both pro grade lenses).

With both the 16-80 and 24-70, will you be taking a longer lens, like a 70-300 or the pro 70-200/4? If you are going pro grade glass for the main lens, I would think hard about consumer grade 70-300 vs. pro grade 70-200/4. The latest AF-P 70-300 are better than the older AF-S lens. But there are limitations on using an AF-P lens on the D7200.

Something to think about for a travel kit is weight and bulk.

How this affects you depends on your age and physical condition. If you are in your 20s/30s and in good condition, then not a problem.
Though I see you have the BIG Sigma zoom, so I presume weight is not an issue for you.​

I do have the sigma 150-500 but do not take it
overseas


Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[nikon_peter]

And i am in my 50’s with some lung problems so weight is starting to bean issue



Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Strodav]

G’day, I am looking to buy a new lens, I am wanting a good travel lens that isn’t too big, but is fast enough and wide enough, I am wanting the Nikkor 16-80mm F/2.8-4 but am wondering if it is worth the extra money from the Nikkor 16-85mm F/3.5-5.6. I have considered the 24-70 but always find myself reaching for the sigma 10-20 so am hoping to bypass the 10-20 with the 16mm, is it worth the extra$
Peter


Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

To really help we need to know what camera and what type of photos you will be taking. From the lenses you are looking at it looks like a DX body and will be mainly shooting landscapes. If that's true the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 its a great lens. I really like mine. I would add a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 for a little more reach and low light capability. Another option is the kit lens that came with my D7200, the Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6. It is not a bad lens at all for the price, especially used (Adorama.com). Again, I would team it up with either a 35mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 for low light capability.

The setup I use for family vacations is either a D500 or D7200 with a Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 and keep a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 in my pocket for low light situations. If you want to consider a 3rd party lens like a Tamron or Sigma, you need to be willing to tune them to your camera for best results.

If I'm going on a photography vacation usually for wildlife / birding and landscapes, its a backpack with a D500 the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, Tamron 18-400 f/3.5-6.3, Nikon 60mm f/2.8 micro, and a Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 G2 and tripod, extra mem cards, batteries, charger, filters, ...

I have the Nikon D7200 with 18-300mm F/3.5-5.6, the nikon 50mm F1.8, the sigma 10-20mm F3.5 and the sigma 150-500mm



Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

I can see why you would want to upgrade the 18-300mm, which only gets fair ratings in reviews. If you are going to stay with the DX format, as mentioned in my previous reply, the Tamron 18-400mm teamed up with a normal fast prime is hard to beat for flexibility, size and weight with good image quality.

If you are eventually going to an FX body then you might want to look at the Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 which is sharp and compact. It does show some distortion, which is minimized on a DX body, but is easily correctable in PP.

 

[ac12]

And i am in my 50’s with some lung problems so weight is starting to bean issue

Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

In this case, start thinking long term.
If you think you can go another 10 years, go for it; FX or DX.
But if you think you may have to cut kit weight in less than 5 years, I would not spend on heavy/expensive FX gear. As you may not get enough use out of it. I say 5 years, because I keep and use my gear for a LONG time, and for me 5 years is a relatively short time. Your cutoff horizon may be shorter or longer than mine.
Between 5 and 10 years is tougher to make the call.

But if you can really make use of the lens, even with a short horizon, I might go for it anyway.

If I had not gotten the DX 18-140, I would have gotten the DX 60-80/2.8-4. And I still think about that lens.
The other lens I considered is the FX 24-120/4. A larger heavier lens, but a nice zoom range for field games. But, you give up the low end below 24, so you would have to also carry the Sigma 10-20.

I am in the middle of a switch from DX (D7200) to micro 4/3 (Olympus EM1), for weight reduction. The DX kit (D7200 + 70-200/4) that I use to shoot field games (football, soccer, lacrosse) is getting too heavy for this old man. Last year I could handhold 2 sequential games (JV + Varsity), this year I had to use a monopod to support the lens during the 2nd game. But the m4/3 camera that I have is not up to the task of fast sports, so I'm still using the D7200 for fast sports.

 

[Solarflare]

• The pro grade 16-80/2.8-4 is supposed to be optically better than the 16-85. How fussy are you about IQ?
  
• IMHO the 24-70/2.8 is too limiting for a small kit, as you will likely want to bring a wider lens (your Sigma 10-20). And that that is NOT a small/light lens.
  
• I have a friend who came back from Europe, and loved his 18-300. But that is a consumer super zoom, and not up to the IQ of either the 16-80 or 24-70 (both pro grade lenses).

1. There is no such thing as "pro-grade" for Nikon lenses. And if there is such a grade, that would obviously be the AF-S 17-55mm f2.8 DX. Great build, lightning fast autofocus, epic optics, and really cheap on the used market.

2. The AF-S 16-80mm f2.8-4.0 VR DX is, plain and simple, a poor lens. Poor build quality, poor autofocus, poor optics, and riddiculously overpriced on top of all that.