Login at opticallimits.com

Rover · (This post was last modified: 07-01-2015, 09:13 AM by Rover.)

New Nikon gear is rumored: 500/4 E FL VR, 600/4 E FL VR, and 16-80/2.8-4.0 E DX VR. Of course, only the latter is of any interest to us, and it's rumored to cost $900. Availability July 16th (in Japan). Good that Nikon finally took notice of the Sony DT 16-80/3.5-4.5 and decided to do something similar - and better - instead of the mundane 3.5-5.6 version.

Any thoughts?

[Image: 2.jpg]

(compared to the existing 16-85/3.5-5.6)

**Klaus** · 07-01-2015, 09:32 AM

Well, things are getting more complicated the faster you make them.

So it'll be interesting whether they can keep the quality.

JJ_SO · 07-01-2015, 11:14 AM

It'll be interesting to see how this compares to the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 Contemporary. A little bit less range vs a bit more customization - for those willing to spend some time with the USB-dock.

Fluorine coating, Nano crystal, electromagnetic diaphragm on Nikon side, minimal distance 22 cm on Sigma side and at half the price...

Brightcolours · (This post was last modified: 07-02-2015, 06:50 AM by Brightcolours.)

$1,069.95. Weighs 480 grams. 72mm filter thread. 17 elements in 13 groups.

24-120mm f4.2-6 full frame equivalent.

The AF-S 24-120mm f4 VR for FF costs $1299.95, weighs 710 grams, has a 77mm filter thread and also 17 elements in 13 groups.

All in all, to me the price seems a tad elevated.

16-80mm f2.8-4 DX:

[Image: 20055_Lens_Construction_en.jpg]

AF-S 24-120mm f4:

[Image: 24_120_ED_VR_const2_i.jpg]

Rover · (This post was last modified: 07-02-2015, 08:27 AM by Rover.)

Yeah, pretty similar construction overall (except the layout of the seven elements towards the rear). But fast APS-C zooms have always been pretty expensive, think the 17-55. The 24-120 didn't seem that great on the long end per Markus's review anyways.

Brightcolours · 07-02-2015, 08:32 AM

Quote:Yeah, pretty similar construction overall (except the layout of the seven elements towards the rear). But fast APS-C zooms have always been pretty expensive, think the 17-55. The 24-120 didn't seem that great on the long end per Markus's review anyways.

A constant aperture lens is a bit more expensive to design.

Weight is to a certain extent a good measure for price. The Canon 17-55mm f2.8 weighs 645 grams. The Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 weighs 755 grams. With 480 grams the new lens is a light weight in comparison...

**Klaus** · 07-02-2015, 10:18 AM

At max. aperture it is slightly worse than the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6. However, I reckon that it is better at comparable apertures.

JJ_SO · 07-02-2015, 01:04 PM

Do you plan to review the new Contemporary version of the already reviewed 17-70/2.8-4 macro OS some day or are the differences just too small to justify another test procedure? The optical quality appears to be close to the Nikkor 16-85

Brightcolours · 07-02-2015, 03:11 PM

Quote:Do you plan to review the new Contemporary version of the already reviewed 17-70/2.8-4 macro OS some day or are the differences just too small to justify another test procedure? The optical quality appears to be close to the Nikkor 16-85

The optics are a new design.

Old 17-70mm OS:

[Image: lens_structure.gif]

New 17-70mm OS "C":

[Image: construction_thumb.gif]

So, the differences are not small.

**mst** · 07-06-2015, 02:04 PM

Quote:Do you plan to review the new Contemporary version of the already reviewed 17-70/2.8-4 macro OS some day

Done already Wink

http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikk...a1770284os

-- Markus