"Upgrading" from 18-200 to 16-85

<p>Who has done it, and are you happy or not? I'm thinking of selling my 18-200 and picking up a 16-85 as I rarely if ever need to print really big prints from the long end, and can probably crop from 85, or even add a 70-300 VR later (might get a D80 or D90 first).</p>

<p>In any case, I'm really looking for some perspective from people who switched from the 18-200 to the 16-85, not just general opinions. I'm not unhappy with my 18-200 except for that ridiculous extension and the lens creep, and if I was going on another once-in-a-lifetime trip to a place like Alaska might not be getting rid of it. </p>

<p>Thoughts? Do you really see much difference? I actually don't "need" the 2mm at the wide end, as I have the Tokina 11-16 in my bag as well. I already know what I think, but am looking for other users' perspectives.</p>

<p>Yes i have made switch from 18-200mm to 16-85mm and I must say that Iam very happy with it, most of the time I wasn't so satisfied with 18-200mm corner sharpnes and distortion and even resolution, but now with 16-85mm everything is much different, the lens is superb sharp and I must say that I have never had so sharp lens, exept sigma 105mm. You can't fail with 16-85mm choose.<br>

So much details, I have almost forgot what details are until I got the nikkor 16-85mm, go for it you wouldn't regret.<br>

Regards, Luka</p>

<p>Peter, you have posted here many times about the advantages/disadvantages of the 18-200 so you know what you gain and give up by switching. The only thing you don't know is IQ difference which <em>should</em> be better with the 16-85.</p>

<p>Why not rent a 16-85 for a few days and do a comparison yourself? I do that will all my lenses that have overlapping focal lengths and sometimes the results are surprising.</p>

 

<p>hmmm interesting topic for me as i had my heart set on a 16-85 then when i went to buy one they had none in stock but they had the 18-200. Soon as i tried it i loved it and i didnt think the image quality could be that much difference between the two so i bought the 18-200 and to be honest mine is fairly sharp. i will keep a watch on this to see how much better if at all the 16-85 is or could be...thanks</p>

<p>I have 18-200 VR. I am happy with it. It has range of zoom which fits all my needs. I dont print pictures in large formats.<br>

"In general", the lesser the zoom range the better the lens should be. So, 16-85 should have an edge over 18-200 VR. But, you need to buy then 70-300 VR. Just check whether 70-300 VR out performs 18-200 vR in the overlapping zoom range considering all aspects of lens. Anyway, for all zoom lenses, the sharpness is compromised for zoom.<br>

Also, when you talk about sharpness, at what focal length you are not happy with the lens.<br>

May be you can go for a prime instead of switching over zoom lenses. Nikon is launching a new prime lens 35 mm 1.8 G lense. That should pacify you for a while. You can always take 4 steps front and back to get your zoom with it.</p>

<p>Thanks, Bruce!</p>

<p>Yes I am aware of the "on paper" differences, I was looking for user input (from, I admit, a few very specific users...).</p>

<p>Renting one is pretty tough in my neck of the woods, and on top of that, I may be able to swing, financially, getting rid of the 18-200 and replacing it with both the 16-85 AND the 70-300 VR (don't think I can afford an 80-200 f2.8 right now, that might be better...). Just not sure what I'm going to do. Yes, I'm well-informed on this, but looking for other opinions...</p>

<p>Umesh, I think I might just get that 35mm f1.8 ALSO... Still weighing everything...</p>

<p>Peter Hamm has been one of the strongest advocates for the 18-200. I have to say I am a bit surprised that he is contemplating replacing that lens.</p>

<p>I have never been comfortable with that two-stage extension with a plastic barrel on the 18-200, but that is probably the only way to build a 11x zoom that is still fairly convenient to carry around. I am afraid that some quality issues with that lens is due to that extension not being completely straight.</p>

<p>On the wide end, having the wider 16mm will be a bit more convenient than 18mm, but you will lose a lot on the long end. Both lenses still involve a fair amount of compromise as they are both a slow f5.6 on the long end. I still feel that $630 is overpriced for a lens that is only f5.6 at 85mm. The old 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX original kit lens for the D70 seems to be better value for the money but you won't get VR.</p>

<p>Shun, Peter also has said quite a few times that if he had to choose all over again, he just might go with a 16-85VR/70-300VR combo over the 18-200VR. That is, other than his love for the 18-200VR in Alaska. :-)</p>

<p>Like every other lens, each of these has some compromises but VR has been a great equalizer. Well, at least as good as it can to offset some of the other limitations. Peter, I am sure you will make the best decision for yourself.</p>

 

I was very happy with the 16-85mm VR on my D300. Other than a slight softness at 16mm, it is a superb lens. I traveled with it to London last fall and it was used in 90% of my photos there. If only the FX version, the 24-120mm VR, was as good, and as small! Never did I feel the need for more zoom in London than 85mm, and a great deal of photos were taken at 16mm.

<p>Shun, yes I meant to shock you personally! (JK...)</p>

<p>I am still a strong advocate for the 18-200. I just think that for me NOW I would get more out of the "shorter zoom range" and lack of zoom creep.</p>

<p>Again, if you are going on a vacation, and are not planning on printing much bigger than 8 x 10 or 11 x 14, and don't want to be carrying gobs of glass... I still HIGHLY recommend the 18-200. It is a great lens, I think they made all the right compromises and ended up with a great vacation lens. But I'm not planning on going on a vacation like that again ANY time soon, and just a little higher image quality, or a combo with a 70-300 VR, is what works better for me now. I'm about to adopt a couple of really great boys out of foster care. I think a 70-300 VR would be great to photograph outdoor daytime sports with them and stuff like that.</p>

<p>Perhaps I need to consider the 18-70/70-300 VR combo, too? I just think that the 16-85 looks like a great family snapshot lens (love the VR), and a great all-purpose regular zoom, and I thought it might be helpful to me (and who knows, maybe others) to know what people who've made that switch think.</p>

<p>I'm going to take a good look at exif data on my Alaska stuff, and stuff I've photographed recently, and determine how much I really use 200mm...</p>

<p>Whilst this doesn't answer the question, I recently compared my 18-200, 18-70, 28-105 and Tamron 17-50mm at the 35mm setting (mainly to decide whether I wanted to consider the new 35mm DX lens). The results were interesting. All shots were tripod mounted, shutter delay mode & self timer. At f2.8 I consider the Tamron unusable - very very soft. At f4, The Tamron and 18-70 were joint best, followed by the 18-200 & the 28-105 last. By 5.6 there was not a lot to choose between the Tamron 17-50, & Nikon 18-70 & 28-105 lenses. The 18-200 was 4th. I found the 18-200 to have relative poor edges and corners compared with the other three lenses.<br>

On balance the best results came from the Tamron at f4 & smaller. I'd use the 18-70 if I wanted faster focusing than the Tamron & the 28-105 if I wanted to use the macro feature. I'd use the 18-200 in walkabout mode if I did not want to take a tripod or my 70-210 f4-5.6 and sharpness was not critical.<br>

A futher point of interest to me was that I was looking at some old slides (circa 1990). Virtually all were taken with a 50mm standard lens on either a Pentax ME Super or a Minolta X300 (probably the latter). THe only thing I really missed in those days was a longer lens for some portraits, a wider lens for some landscapes and macro capability for flower shots. Sometimes I think simple is better, so might actually go for a three or four primes setup for the more serious stuff: 24mm, (24mm is probably wide enough for me even on DX) 35mm, 50mm & maybe a 105mm macro (sigma or MF Nikkor) - & spend the money not spent on yet another zoom with VR on a lightweight carbon-fibre tripod (so I actually take it with me).</p>

<p>I have none of these lenses but if I were to buy one, I might as well get the 18-200 so that I have one lens that covers a big range, if nothing else, just as a "super backup lens." Otherwise, they all involve a lot of compromises anyway. At least to me, it doesn't make much sense to "upgrade" from one major compromise to another one.<br>

Peter, I think the key is to consider whether you can live without the 85-200mm ranges or add the 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR.</p>

<p>My approach is a bit different. I have the Nikon 18-200VR for the "vacation" zoom and the "grab" convenience and a good stable of AFD and AI/S Nikkor primes for serious shots or rangefinder-feel, low light, expeditions (street and concert shots). The mid-priced shorter zooms are only marginally better (if at all, often just a trading of compromises) than the 18-200 and the pro 2.8 zooms (with their weight and size) just kill the fun for me. I never had such a blast of good nostalgia as when I picked up a used D200 and resurrected all my prime lenses from my film era. FX will be in my future, a couple of years down the road, but until then, the D200 satisfies my needs perfectly.</p>

<p>Is it worth pointing out that the 70-300mm isn't the only lens that could compliment the 16-85 to get the 200mm range? There's always the plucky 55-200VR, which is faster (and optically better, reportedly) than the 18-200 over the shared focal length. It's smaller and cheaper than the 70-300. Yes I know, there's some shared focal length there (55-85mm) but so what? It might even help you NOT swap lenses when your distance/framing dictates the 55-85 range (more useful, I suppose, when the 55-200 is on and you don't want to pull it off for just one shot at 55).<br>

I recently broke my 55-200VR, and was considering the 18-200 as a replacement for it + kit 18-55, but now I think I've got my heart set on the 16-85 for most purposes and getting a replacement 55-200VR for the times I really need the reach. It might be something to consider.</p>

<p>I switched to my 16-85 VR after using 18-xx/xxxmm kit lenses, and although I haven't used the 18-200, to me the single biggest advantage of the 16-85mm is the two mm on the wide end. I use 16mm all the time and it is exactly what I like for a practical wide angle focal length on DX.</p>

<p>I tend to think that too much is sometimes made of sharpness, and personally I probably wouldn't make the switch for primarily that reason. Then again, my current lenses are all quite sharp, so maybe I wouldn't be happy with an 18-200 - I really don't know. However, my 16-85 is sharp at all focal lengths, including 16mm - in fact, if it has a weakness it is more at the long end, but it was still the equal of my 85/1.8D, more or less, at 85mm. That's not bad at all for a zoom with its extremely versatile range.</p>

<p>I wholeheartedly agree with Tim Evans, too, that a good complement to the 16-85 is the 55-200, a much nicer walking-around combination than the 16-85/70-300 - although you mention outdoor sports, where the 70-300 would certainly have an advantage.</p>

<p>I would definitely NOT go from an 18-200 to the 18-70. You lose the advantage at the wide end, and you lose VR, which I find extremely helpful even at 16mm. You might gain sharpness, but the 16-85 gives you so much more, and really, how often is f/4.5 without VR better than f/5.6 with VR? That's a complete non-issue in my opinion, although I do appreciate the philosophical opposition to such a slow max f/stop. One compensation is that the 16-85 is sharp right from its widest aperture, where a lot of lenses, the 18-200 possibly among them, need to be stopped down for good results.</p>

<p>I love my 16-85 - but in practical terms, your pictures will look the same, and you'll need to change lenses to get a range that most people use quite a bit. The question I would ask myself is how much that extra 2mm on the wide end will be worth to you, and do the other slight advantages of the 16-85, on top of that, make the difference?</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

bit late on the scene since the last post, but I just bought a 16-85 last week since I was never really happy with the sharpness of the 18-200 which I've had for about 2yrs now.<br>

Like Peter I carry a wide angle zoom in my kit so the 16mm v 18mm difference wasn't a big deal, but wasn't sure I wanted to give up the extra reach of the 200mm when travelling. Scanning through my photos from the last 3 years though showed that I may only use the long end of the zoom maybe once in 200 photos.<br>

I don't notice any difference in the centre of the images in either lens, but around the edges the 18-200 tends to get soft, creating a slightly blurry look all around the edge of the images which I always bothered me.<br>

cheers<br>

Hon</p><div></div>

<p>I have the 16-85, the 18-200 & the 18-55 kit lens ( a great little lens). I mostly use the 16-85 because I like the wider end of it. But in all honesty, the quality between all three is basically the same. Sharpness is more than fine, and they all suffer from various distortions.</p>

<p>The reach of the 18-200 is nice to have. You just have to decide on what range you prefer. You're not going to see a significant quality difference in real life.</p>