So, following on from my thread about the 18-140, I am now looking at the 16-80. I know this is a large step-up in price, but it seems that the increase in quality justifies it (according to the reviews). Any thoughts?

I like the wider field of view (good for landscapes and architectural stuff), and it gives me enough extra zoom to see me through the vast majority of stuff I do, so I’m thinking spending more on one quality lens may be better than buying cheaper, lesser quality lenses. Or am I wrong in this?

The other alternative is the 16-85, but this gets mixed reviews, although it is significantly cheaper, which is a bonus.

Camera: Nikon D7000

Who makes it?

I had the Nikkor 14-24 and 24-70. Never really needed both at the same time. I sold the 14-24 in the end as I use the iPhone more for landscape shots, plus can stitch from a 50mm prime if I really want a high quality wide angle shot.

Sorry, all the lenses I mentioned are Nikon.

Personally I’d find a 16-80 more useful than an 18-140, as like you I shoot more landscapes and internals.

Plus, if I want more zoom range in the future, I would probably look to get a 70-200, or something similar, rather than expect one lens to do it all.

I suppose another question is will the D7000 make the most of the 16-80?

D7000 is an excellent (DX) body.

He wider the range generally the more fragile the mechanism and poor the end results are. Such a wide range is a huge compromise with the lenses.
On a scale smaller chip wide lenses like the 18 aren’t! The lens length they quote for is for the full frame image. Your 18 is more like a 20-24 on the 7000. Better for landscape but having the 80mm 110-130mm on dx if it’s of good quality might become you lens of choice.

The 16-80 is a DX lens. Your last bit is my point, really: I don’t want to splash out for multiple lenses, at this stage, so I’m looking for one that will cover most things.

Shorter range suggests better quality less pushed to achieve the same results. 16-80 = 24 -120 ish. Good enough for most things.

True. But the question remains: is the 16-80 worth the extra over the 16-85?

True. But the question remains: is the 16-80 worth the extra over the 16-85?

Better glass is always worth the extra money. That said, have a look at this:

[video]https://youtu.be/D_wwbhKjAX4?t=28[/video]

Now, Ken comes with a mahoosive health warning and he is rather full of himself in his videos, but, to his credit, he does know what he’s talking about.

Well that upsets the applecart somewhat. i have no idea what to get, now 😀

geetee1972

Now, Ken comes with a mahoosive health warning and he is rather full of himself in his videos, but, to his credit, he does know what he’s talking about.

God I forgot about that guy. Had to un-follow him. He has some (perhaps many) serious issues. He does know his Nikon lenses though.

i have no idea what to get, now

Sorry buddy!

Haha, thanks for the link, though: It saved me a bit of cash. I might go for the 16-85, though: It’s supposed to be sharp, and it’s much more reasonably priced (or are you going to provide a link to a shouty fat man slagging that off too? )

or are you going to provide a link to a shouty fat man slagging that off too?

It probably wouldn’t be too hard, he does like to shout!

I’m not qualified to recommend a specific lens and it’s obviously up to you to determine what focal range you want, but my advice would be to buy something second hand and get a higher spec lens.

There are so many lenses on the second hand market from very reputable sources, that it makes so much more sense to do this. I would also strongly recommend you don’t specifically limit yourself to ‘DX’ lenses. FX lenses only differ in the size of the image circle they project; nothing else changes apart from the likely quality of the output.

For example (this is a DX lens mind):

Nikor 18-55mm G f/2.8 for £449

[video]https://youtu.be/W4zsH15Y8_c?t=3[/video]

I’m definitely looking at secondhand.

I have a 35mm 1.8, so that focal length and aperture are covered. What I’m missing is an ultra wide and a xx – 200 zoom (I don’t see the need to go larger, at this stage). I will eventually get both.

It’s my 18-55 I was thinking of replacing, but on consideration, it’s not that bad, for an all-round walkabout lens.

I’m selling a 17-55mm f/2.8 if it’s possible to add to the confusion any more?

(Aye, not-so-stealth ad. Apologies…)

I picked up a secondhand Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 for about £90 a few years back. It’s definitely seen better days but I really like it.

Seems pretty well regarded and can be picked up new for £329.

Just a thought… 😀

It’s my 18-55 I was thinking of replacing, but on consideration, it’s not that bad, for an all-round walkabout lens.

I wish I could help you but I no nothing about any lense other than the 50mm I use.