Nikkor 16-80 vs 18-300 lens

(IMO) as a general answer the quality of the 16-80 lens won't beat out the closer zoom of the 18-300.

However it all depends though what your subject matter is, your end purpose, etc. For example are you looking for large prints. If you are restricting to (say) smaller than A4 then the cropping isn't going to be an issue.  However at A3 you will really notice the quality loss.

Also what situation are you taking photos?  If you're walking for example, then the lighter weight of a camera and 18-300 is something you are like to carry more often than (for example) getting the 16-80 plus a 70-300.

For an all round lens, consider the 18-200.

Many thanks Eloise. Really helpful.

I normally take pictures when hiking/back-packing in the mountains (Rockies/Breacon/Scotland/Norway) and these are generally landscapes. But to keep things light, over the past 5 years or so I have simply used a Leica D-Lux 4. I have been pleased with the results when printed at A3. I haven't tried any larger prints.

Previously I had used a Canon EOS100 film camera with a 28-105mm Zoom and printed up to A1 quite happily from CD copies from Kodak and Snappy Snaps.

I would be prepared to carry the D7200 + one of my suggested lenses if I was confident of printing up to A1 again. Also we often drive around and the scenery from points close the roads in BC/Wales/Scotland means that camera weight isn't an issue.

I also take pictures from the air eg Avebury, Hillforts, castles, towns, and mountainous scenery. I have been disappointed with the output from the D-Lux 4 and again wondered which lens on the end of the D7200 would provide the best results. Again weight would not be an issue here.

I will post a picture below with a link to flickr where you can see the sort of pictures I seem to take.

Cheers, Don

Don, as Eloise mentions, what are your goals, a 'travel lens' to go on the D7200 ?   What other camera equipment do you have ?

The only reason I ask is I have a D7000, but for travel use the 28-300 (non DX) which gives me around 42-450 on the DX body.  As generally I'm not doing too much wide shots, but more wildlife etc    But my go to for landscape/general is my 24-70 on my D700..  my wife uses a D90 with 18-200 lens and loves it and that's the VRI, not VRII ), and it's about half the size of the 18-300.   So I understand your conundrum, it's all a matter of what types of photos you want, the benefit of the 16-80 being the lower F stop too.

These links (hopefuly ok Richard) have some useful info/images on both yours lenses mentioned that might help with your questions.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-80mm.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-300mm.htm

If you click on the picture it will take you to my flickr account where you can get a "feel" of the sort of things I tend to photograph.

Guy007 posted:

Don, as Eloise mentions, what are your goals, a 'travel lens' to go on the D7200 ?   What other camera equipment do you have ?

The only reason I ask is I have a D7000, but for travel use the 28-300 (non DX) which gives me around 42-450 on the DX body.  As generally I'm not doing too much wide shots, but more wildlife etc    But my go to for landscape/general is my 24-70 on my D700..  my wife uses a D90 with 18-200 lens and loves it and that's the VRI, not VRII ), and it's about half the size of the 18-300.   So I understand your conundrum, it's all a matter of what types of photos you want, the benefit of the 16-80 being the lower F stop too.

These links (hopefuly ok Richard) have some useful info/images on both yours lenses mentioned that might help with your questions.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-80mm.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-300mm.htm

Thanks Guy.

Yes, its a bit of a dilema as to what to carry, where and when.

The 18-300 (the newer, lighter, cheaper one) is very versatile according to ken. But he seems to be (far?) more enthusiastic about the 16-80 when describing picture quality.

Unfortunately he hasn't really got a bad word to say about anything Nikon. He starts by pointing out that a D3300 plus kit lens is all you need because it will deliver the same quality of picture as anything more expensive. You only spend more to acquire robustness, personal ergonomics and the ability to shoot under a wider range of lighting conditions. But nonetheless, thank you for providing the links to his site.

I might have cross-posted a couple of times before your post above, so you can now more easily see the sorts of pictures I tend to take - especially in your "neck-of-the-woods" so to speak. You might even recognise some of the places

BTW,

Part of the reason for considering a new lens is that Mrs D is going out to Vernon on Wednesday and I am following a couple of weeks later. So I thought something to supplement the (replacement) D-Lux 4 would be useful.

Don Atkinson posted:

Guy007 posted:

Don, as Eloise mentions, what are your goals, a 'travel lens' to go on the D7200 ?   What other camera equipment do you have ?

The only reason I ask is I have a D7000, but for travel use the 28-300 (non DX) which gives me around 42-450 on the DX body.  As generally I'm not doing too much wide shots, but more wildlife etc    But my go to for landscape/general is my 24-70 on my D700..  my wife uses a D90 with 18-200 lens and loves it and that's the VRI, not VRII ), and it's about half the size of the 18-300.   So I understand your conundrum, it's all a matter of what types of photos you want, the benefit of the 16-80 being the lower F stop too.

These links (hopefuly ok Richard) have some useful info/images on both yours lenses mentioned that might help with your questions.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-80mm.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-300mm.htm

Thanks Guy.

Yes, its a bit of a dilema as to what to carry, where and when.

The 18-300 (the newer, lighter, cheaper one) is very versatile according to ken. But he seems to be (far?) more enthusiastic about the 16-80 when describing picture quality.

Unfortunately he hasn't really got a bad word to say about anything Nikon. He starts by pointing out that a D3300 plus kit lens is all you need because it will deliver the same quality of picture as anything more expensive. You only spend more to acquire robustness, personal ergonomics and the ability to shoot under a wider range of lighting conditions. But nonetheless, thank you for providing the links to his site.

I might have cross-posted a couple of times before your post above, so you can now more easily see the sorts of pictures I tend to take - especially in your "neck-of-the-woods" so to speak. You might even recognise some of the places

Nice pics Don, a lot of places I do indeed recognize :-) 

I just got back from a week camping in Jasper with the family, and although not too many wildlife encounters, I used the 24-70 more. 

Based on your shots, I think you prefer the wider vista, or are up close to your subject, so for my money, I think the 16-80 will suit your needs more. And you can crop/enhance as needed as you point out.

Yes Ken's reviews are interesting, he started getting into Canon the last few years too. He's pretty technical with his aperture shots et al, so yes you have to get through the distractions to capture the nuggets of good info...

I know we talked previously of a good Calgary camera company, but if your wife is over here, I'm not sure of the UK prices, but this site will give a good indication of Canadian web prices - price trends too -  and here in Canada the Nikon lenses have warranty for 5 years... ( 2 years on cameras )

http://www.photoprice.ca/produ...-4E-ED-VR-price.html

Good luck with the decision !

For the type of photos you make I would think that the 16-80 is preferable, and take advantage of the faster f/.

I have a different kit, a D800 and have among others a 28-300 called "all in one" but I think "good for nothing", I prefer faster lenses.

When I travel, with no photography objective, I carry a small J, and seriously thinking that the Iphone is enough.

Erich posted:

 

When I travel, with no photography objective, I carry a small J, and seriously thinking that the Iphone is enough.

Erich, I have to say the new lens on the iPhone 6s is not bad for its size and the panorama function for mountains is pretty good. and you can't beat the size/weight

If I were still using a DX camera, my clear choice for a traveling lens would have been the Nikkor 18-55 VR zoom:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-vr.htm

Now I use only primes. For traveling I take the 50mm f/1.4 along the D810 and if I feel like carrying a second lens (rarely) the 20mm f/2.8 joins us.

Haim Ronen posted:

If I were still using a DX camera, my clear choice for a traveling lens would have been the Nikkor 18-55 VR zoom:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-vr.htm

Now I use only primes. For traveling I take the 50mm f/1.4 along the D810 and if I feel like carrying a second lens (rarely) the 20mm f/2.8 joins us.

My 50 f/1.4 is also a favourite. The restrictions it places on composition are challenging in a good way.

winkyincanada posted:

Haim Ronen posted:

If I were still using a DX camera, my clear choice for a traveling lens would have been the Nikkor 18-55 VR zoom:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-vr.htm

Now I use only primes. For traveling I take the 50mm f/1.4 along the D810 and if I feel like carrying a second lens (rarely) the 20mm f/2.8 joins us.

My 50 f/1.4 is also a favourite. The restrictions it places on composition are challenging in a good way.

Guys,

Taking photos whilst flying the aeroplane, especially in the Rockies but even over sites in the UK, is a challenge in itself ! A Zoom lens, despite its compromises, is probably helpful.

Some lovely photos Don.  I have just come back from a very enjoyable weekend up in Norfolk with my recently acquired Hasselblad 501cm and 40mm lens taking photos of predominately coastal landscapes.  Nothing as spectacular as your settings however.  I will not know how successful I have been until the end of the week when the prints come back form the processor.  Nervous times!

I opted for the 16-80mm lens (plus a polarizing filter)

Haven't tried it yet. Fingers crossed.

Good choice. In most cases, the shorter length the focal travels the better the zoom performs.

Don Atkinson posted:

I opted for the 16-80mm lens (plus a polarizing filter)

Haven't tried it yet. Fingers crossed.

Don , how did the lens work out ?

Hi Guy,

It seems to cover the zoom range that I was looking for.

I tried a few shots last week coming over Greenland and i've tried one or two more here in Vernon this week.

I have limited computer access here so haven't tried to view the output even on Mrs D's MacBook Pro and I doubt if i'll be able to print things off until I get back to the UK later this month.

So fingers still crossed but so far so good. I think it was a good choice.

Don, well you are enjoying it, and that's half the battle.  Hopefully you can capture some nice fall shots, the trees here are starting to turn and leaves fall... Guy

No real signs of the fall here in the Okanagan Guy. However, I did hike up to the Twin Lakes in the Monashees today and up onto the ridge overlooking the Columbia Valley towards Nakusp. Plenty of sub-Alpine flowers out but also snow showers all afternoon, So I guess autumn is just around the corner.

I only took the Lieca D4 today. The D7200 etc is relatively cumbersome. And my hiking partner (daughter's father-in-law) prefers to "keep-going" rather than stopping, setting up a tripod etc. It's called "compromise" I guess.

We had a really good day.