Put me off the D80 & 16-85 lens
Discussion
First time posting here so go easy.
Have extensive experience of 35mm slr's. Now want to go digital.
Considering the above combination. D80 meets needs and in budget. Have about £400 to spend on lens. 16-85mm focal length is ok. Does the lens have any downfalls? What others should be considered?
Thanks
Have extensive experience of 35mm slr's. Now want to go digital.
Considering the above combination. D80 meets needs and in budget. Have about £400 to spend on lens. 16-85mm focal length is ok. Does the lens have any downfalls? What others should be considered?
Thanks
Got my D80 new 11 months ago as my first DSLR. Enjoyed it, and generally impressed with its performance in my hands. Biggest downside for me is its poor performance on long exposures - 2 min + at night - where it suffers from horrendous amp noise (ie interference within the photo). I've found that to get the best out of the body I need to constantly tweak settings such as auto-ISO and in-camera optimisation/ processing. I was disappointed with anything other than ISO100 performance until I started using auto-ISO. Most of the time I shoot RAW to help overcome this but be aware your in-camera optimisation settings (contrast, saturation and sharpening) are not retained in RAW format unless you use Nikon's Capture NX software (c£45 or Capture NX 2 c£120). Don't let this put you off - just accept there's learning and tweaking to do, as I'm sure there would be for any other set up.
As for the lens, I'm unfamiliar with the 16-85. I use almost entirely a Sigma 10-20 and a Nikon 50mm f/1.8. I did have the good fortune to borrow a 18-200 this last weekend which, like the 16-85, has Nikon's VR built in. Fantastic. I don't know how much you'll benefit from the extra width between 18 & 16 mm but the zoom to 200 on the lens I borrowed was superb for discreet shots at the party I was covering. Depends what you're looking for out of your lens really but unless you're convinced you'll never need the extra length I'd suggest you seriously consider the 18-200 w/ VR.
As for the lens, I'm unfamiliar with the 16-85. I use almost entirely a Sigma 10-20 and a Nikon 50mm f/1.8. I did have the good fortune to borrow a 18-200 this last weekend which, like the 16-85, has Nikon's VR built in. Fantastic. I don't know how much you'll benefit from the extra width between 18 & 16 mm but the zoom to 200 on the lens I borrowed was superb for discreet shots at the party I was covering. Depends what you're looking for out of your lens really but unless you're convinced you'll never need the extra length I'd suggest you seriously consider the 18-200 w/ VR.
As said above, the amp noise is an issue for long exposures so if you're into night shots, astro stuff etc then it isn't the best for that.
I'm pretty happy with mine other than that, using 18-70(cheap all-rounder), 50mm f/1.8 and 80-200 f/2.8.
I'm pretty happy with mine other than that, using 18-70(cheap all-rounder), 50mm f/1.8 and 80-200 f/2.8.
Edited by GravelBen on Friday 25th July 02:05
_dobbo_ said:
AndWhy said:
I was disappointed with anything other than ISO100 performance until I started using auto-ISO.
Auto ISO? 
Why would turning on Auto ISO change the performance at anything other than ISO100?

But if you shoot with auto-ISO the camera gets the right ISO/ exposure combination and high ISO performance is actually acceptable.
I'm sure that if you shot the same scene manually on the same settings as auto-ISO there'd be no difference, I suppose it's more a case that if you're shooting at high ISO you're better off letting the camera choose the ISO settings for you cos if you get it wrong - for instance the light changes - you could end up disappointed.
I have a D80 and use it extensively - over 800 pictures from a recent trip to Greece. I shoot raw and use Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 with Macro mainly and Sigma 10-20mm, 70mm Macro and the Nikon 55-200mm.
I shoot mainly landscapes/scenes and flowers/macro. The pictures are superb and need very little work in a computer. If you want to shoot action/sport I believe a Canon is better but I don't know why!
The functionality is very good. I've set it up so the aperture and speed command wheels are under finger and thumb, the function button is the focus method and the metering is also easy to change.
It's a great camera. It is just as good used as a snapshot camera too. I have heard that highlights burn out but I've not had a problem.
I shoot mainly landscapes/scenes and flowers/macro. The pictures are superb and need very little work in a computer. If you want to shoot action/sport I believe a Canon is better but I don't know why!
The functionality is very good. I've set it up so the aperture and speed command wheels are under finger and thumb, the function button is the focus method and the metering is also easy to change.
It's a great camera. It is just as good used as a snapshot camera too. I have heard that highlights burn out but I've not had a problem.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff


