Nikon DX Lens Advice

[adamhiram]

Most likely the 17-55, but now @greybeard also has me considering the 16-80. Does anyone have experience with both? I can actually get the 17-55 cheaper than the 16-80. Is the 16-80 built well like the 17-55? Which lens has better image quality?

Those are some tough questions, as each lens has their strengths. DxOMark doesn't have a full set of tests for the 16-80, so there's no cheat sheet for image quality, but you can at least compare the specs. The 17-55 gives you an extra stop of light (f/2.8) in the long end, and is all metal construction and weather sealed. The 16-80 only goes to f/4 on the long end, is mostly plastic, but gives you a bit more reach. It has a nano-coated front element that will help with flare, and it includes VR. It is also a lot newer.

What does this really mean? I use the 17-55 as my primary lens, but am often stepped down to f/4 anyway. I love the "pro" build quality, but it also makes it much heavier. While DxOMark doesn't have tests for the 16-80, the 17-55 rates a little lower for sharpness, especially wide open at the long end, as many wide aperture zooms tend to be. I just switch to primes when I need something sharper and don't need the versatility of a zoom. I haven't had many issues with flare on the 17-55 when I use the (rather large) lens hood, and have never needed VR. When I picked up my 17-55, it was between that, the Sigma, or Nikon's 16-85 which was just a nicer kit lens, so it was a no brainer for me. But now, if you don't need something weather sealed, it might be a harder decision. Best of luck!

B&H had a nice review of the 16-80 when it came out, although it wasn't any more conclusive.
Hands-On Review: the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR Lens

 

[blind1587]

Thanks everyone. I’ve decided Im going to go with the Nikon 17-55.