Nikon 16 80 Vs 17 55

I like the f28 constant on the 17-55 but the weight difference is quite a bit - 17 oz vs 23 0z for the 17-55. Read our detailed comparison of the Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F28-4E ED VR vs Sigma 17-70mm F28-4 DC MACRO OS HSM C to find out their strengths and weaknesses and.

Nikon 16 80 Vs 17 55 - If you're looking for picture and video information related to the key word you've come to pay a visit to the right site. Our site gives you hints for seeing the highest quality video and picture content, hunt and find more informative video articles and images that match your interests. comprises one of thousands of video collections from several sources, especially Youtube, so we recommend this movie that you see. You can also contribute to supporting this site by sharing videos and images that you like on this site on your social networking accounts such as Facebook and Instagram or tell your closest friends share your experiences about the ease of access to downloads and the information you get on this site. This blog is for them to stop by this site.

Pin On Tatto

Oct 17 2019 at 0600 PM.

Nikon 16 80 vs 17 55. Best fast DX midrange lensIF YOU LIKE THESE VIDEOS YOU CAN MAKE A NICE DONATION OF 2 OR 5 VIA. I frequently shoot at f2 and never worry about missing focus. Sharpness wise they are very close with maybe an edge to the 17-55.

Jun 13 2018 at 1025 PM. Each of these two has its strong points over the other - but dont be tricked from the low price of the 18-55 its. 16-80 every day of the week.

LensHero compares the Nikon AF-S DX 16-80mm f28-4E ED VR vs the Nikon 17-55mm f28G ED-IF AF-S DX to find out which is the winner. Versus the 35mm f18. The 16-80 build materials are not as robust as the 17-55.

Sharper wider longer better AF and VR. Of course my personal favorite is the Sigma 18-35 f18 Art. The 16-80 is F4 on the long end but the VR will help with that.

I have a 17-55 but am shooting it on a D500. The difference here is that the 17-55 is tougher and a little faster while the 16-80mm adds VR and more zoom but has a plastic barrel. In its favor it is 28 through the full range.

I do enjoy having 80mm at the long end the VR and the lighter weight. The 17-70 is newer and sharper at wide open at f28 than the 17-55. Nikkor 16-80 Lens REVIEW.

The range of 16-80. While its ever so slightly wider 8mm than the older 16-85mm f35-56 this new 16-80mm is also one ounce lighter 5g and a tiny bit shorter. On the other hand I really enjoy and need the 16mm.

I also believe that the overall build-quality of the 17-55 is superior to that of the 16-80. While being a crop-sensor lens and a variable aperture lens might mean it gets overlooked by some of our readers others myself included may still be interested in a pro-grade lens that offers flagship quality results in a super-compact package. The 17-55 was awesome in its day but its day peaked a decade ago.

The 17-55 is a fast constant-aperture pro lens built to last a lifetime while this 16-80 is an all plastic zoom with a variable aperture. Nikkor 17-55 28 vs. It has held its value quite well.

The 17-55mm has no VR. Go for the Sigma 17-70 over the Sigma 17-55. Scary sharp at wide open.

A small part of a series of tests I did. Nikon 17-55 is overpriced and outdated for what it is. The Nikon 16-80mm f28-40 E VR DX is the first modern kit lens to hit f28 if I am not mistaken.

If you consider the common range of focal length between the two lenses they are both f28 at the wide end and the 16-80 is f3 at around 55mm. Nikon went far in trying to build a. The size and weight is a bit of a surprise considering the faster aperture of the new lens.

Its no match for the 16-80 on the modern 20-24MP sensors. Image stabilization and fixed aperture Nikon AF-S DX 16-80mm f28-4E ED VR vs 17-55mm f28G ED-IF AF-S DX - Our Analysis. The 17-55 is still a very nice lens but heavy and minus any image stabilization.

Having said that the 16-80 is still a fantastically sharp lens and if youre accustomed to shooting with an all-in-one then the extra reach on the telephoto end may be a better compromise based on what youre used to. You just give up a little lens speed in the mid-range to get all that. Usually there is a reason for that.