Nikon 18-140 vs. 16-80

S

Smorton

Senior Member
captain birdseye said:
The 18-140vr is a great budget lens whereas the 16-80vr is a great but overpriced lens.
Have you looked at the older 16-85vr as an alternative? Users seem to rate it quite highly ad it can be picked up for a reasonable price on the used market.
Click to expand...

I did look at the 16-85 vr and I have heard quite a few good things about it. The additional length of the 18-140 had my interest now. Is there some place other than Dxomark that test lens? Dxomark doesn't seem to keep up on the Nikon crop sensor lens and I don't think they have tested the 16-80 which would be very helpful. They rate the 16-85 fairly high it appear.

Thanks
SM
 
P

Prefrosh01

Senior Member
I own both of these lenses as well. I used the 18-140 with both the D7000 and D7100. Like other people have said, the 18-140 is a great lens.

I purchased a pre-owned 16-80 about a year ago and love the lens. I have not done any scientific tests to compare the two, but I feel like I get better sharpness and colors from the 16-80.

As for the focal range, I know 2mm doesn't sound like a big difference, but I really like having it on the wide side. I also really like the 2.8 - 4 aperture.

I just went on a weekend trip and brought both lenses with, the 16-80 was on my D7100 for all but five shots.
 
S

Smorton

Senior Member
Smorton said:
I used a D5600 and two lenses in a camera store-16-80 and 18-400 (Tamron). Nothing scientific but images from 16-80 look softer. I have located focus points in LR and just can't figure this out. The photos are similar enough that there is a little validity to the test. Maybe a bad copy of 16-80? Makes me think 18-140 might be best.

Thanks
SM
Click to expand...

I tried another 16-80 and the first copy must have been a bad lens. I bought one and it is very, very sharp and has great image quality. The Tamron 18-400 actually is a remarkable lens but the image quality does not hold up to the 16-80 if you pixel peep.

SM
 
Top