Which travel lens: 16-85 or 18-200 � please, advise!

Hello Everybody,

 

I have had Nikon D300 for 1 month now and this is my first DSLR. Along with it I want a travel lens. I will go to

Australia on a honeymoon trip that will be 3 weeks long. I do not want 2 travel lenses covering different ranges as I do

not want to constantly change lenses as this will be a honeymoon trip. It has to be one lens. Now, I am considering

2 options:

18-200 VR

16-85 VR

 

I have read reviews that 16-85 is better optically, plus it is lighter. I know 18-200 is not sharp wide open on any focal

length so I will have to constantly look after the aperture in order to get sharper images. Nikon D300 alone is enough

of a challenge for me, so having to deal with aperture setting strictly for sharpness reasons worries me because it will

make the whole shooting experience more complex and less enjoyable for me.

 

So, my question is:

is convenience of using the 16-85 due to its better sharpness and image quality PLUS the extra 2mm at wide end

comparable with the additional 85-200 range of the 18-200 lens?

I am asking this because I have never been on such a trip and I really cannot judge which lens is better and whether I

am going to miss that much the 85-200 range!

 

Please, also consider that right now I have Nikon 35mm f/2.0 which I will use for general photography, available light,

family etc. So, once I buy on of the two lenses 16-85 or 18-200 these will be my lenses for a long time.

Hi Vesselin,

 

You will likely get a 50/50 split from everyone answering this post!

 

I had the 18-200mm for a short while and sold it as the image quality just wasn't quite good enough. It wasn't by any means bad, it was alright on the whole, it just wasn't great. I did play with my brother's 16-85mm on my D300 and thought it was outstanding - as good as my 17-55mm and with a more useful zoom range too. In my experience the zoom range that the 16-85mm offers covers 90% of what I do and for a general purpose lens that is great. The 18-200mm, at least my one, was at its weakest at the long end and I would have avoided using it zoomed out there anyway.

 

On my honeymoon (Polynesia, Chile and Easter Island - still paying that one off!) I had a Canon 5D with the 24-105mm for normal use and found that perfect. I did also have case full of Hasselblad gear with me that was used specifically for Easter Island but for all the other photography I did - landscapes mostly - the 24-105 was all I needed.

 

Are you taking a tripod? It would be worth it if your wife allows it. Take a set of graduated neutral density filters too.

 

Have fun,

 

James

My suggestion would not be a technical one: instead, look at lots of travel pictures (e.g. some of the National

Geographic books) & ask "which ones would I like to have as either a good reminder of my honeymoon or as stunning

images that will satisfy me as a photographer". If a lot of them are close-in, dynamic, shots with lots going on

in the foreground, or wide-open-spaces with huge skies then go for the 16-85; if on the other hand they are

rather more distant, long-range images then the 18-200 may suit you better.

 

If they are in the middle you will probably be OK with either!

 

I have both, and the technical answer is of course "it all depends". Overall, the 16-85 seems to me to have

better image quality than the 18-200, especially at or near full aperture. It also feels better built than my

version of the 18-200, although I understand that these have improved recently - mine was an early model. The VR

works very well on both.

 

The reason I prefer the 16-85 and end up using it much more is simply that it offers a little bit of extra

wide-angle that makes a difference for me: I find it better for interiors and fairly close-in street or urban

landscape photography. If you are more interested in picking out details, or the occasional wildlife shot, then

the 18-200 might be better.

 

The only other point I'd make on the technical side is that with a D300 and the image quality of the 16-85 you do

have some room for cropping to the equivalent of a longer lens and still being able to print to up to A3, which

would give you some additional reach (although maybe not the full 200mm). The 18-200 can be quite soft at the

longer end, making the difference less noticeable.

 

The tripod advice is good, but if you can't a beanbag is very useful and easy to carry around. You can usually

find a convenient wall/table/passing small child or large dog to perch it on for self-timer shots of you & your

wife, too.

 

H

As others have mentioned, you will find a host of opinions here. I have traveled with the 18-200 on my D300 and have been very pleased with it's range, convenience and quality. I don't think you'll really find yourself obsessing about apertures or whether you have zoomed out close to 200. After all, you will be enjoying your honeymoon:-)! Seriously, you can produce very nice sharp images with the 18-200 VR. I would recommend that you take a look at Matt Laur's travel shots from Italy with the 18-200 and read his comments on this lens in his forum posts.

I think if you want a one-lens travel solution, the 18-200 is the easy choice. I'd rather not miss the 85-200 range than the

16-18 range for almost the same price. I shot a LOT above 85mm on my trip to Alaska two years ago, which is what I

bought it for.

 

At the long end the 18-200 suffers a bit wide-open, but wider than say 80mm I don't find that it really does, although I do

try and shoot in the sweet spot of f8 - f13 as much as I can.

 

Check out Thom Hogan's excellent review.

 

http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm

If you are keeping score I am in the 18-200 group but for you, I think the answer is simple........ If you are happy with the 16-85mm range, that's the lens for you. If you need something longer, the 18-200 will serve you well. It really just depends on whether you need the greater reach. In either case, VR is simply wonderful.

Hey Peter,

I have read the Thom Hogan's review, but here http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm he says:

 

'Well, the 18-200mm isn't really 200mm at most focus distances you'd use it at, so it doesn't give you near as much reach as you think, and that extra 2mm at the wide end of the 16-85mm is very useful in travel circles. The 16-85mm is a better lens optically, too. Indeed, I'd take it almost any day over the 18-200mm.'

 

So this just confuses me additonally.

Vesselin, thats really weird, it seems to me that it would be almost 300mm with the D300.

 

You are going to want to shoot landscapes, and with the D300's DX 1.5x image sensor, you need W I D E.

Without a tripod also, the 300mm DX length of the 18-200 is almost too long.

You will have this lens when you get back too, the 16-85 is better quality.

 

Take those split ND filters, they will save your life with the bright skys of Australia.

It depends on the compromise you want. I do not own any of these lenses but for a travel lens, the 18-200 would be the natural choice for many.The downside however, would be theorically, image quality as the biggest the difference between the "edges" focal lengths, the harder is to built a good lens. But again, for travelling purposes, who cares ? Well I care. On www.slrgear.com, and www.photozone.de, the reviews are much more in favour of the 16-85 than on the 18-200. Read all about it. Cheers

Personally, if I were buying a lens for long term use I would buy it based on my general photographic interests and not the vacation I was taking because I think either one of these lenses will be great for your trip. What sort of photography do you like, aside from your vacation?

 

I chose the 18-200 over the 16-85 for a couple of reasons. I love wide angle photography but I own a dedicated 12-24 which is FAR better for wide angle shots than either of these so the difference between 16mm and 18mm was minimal to me. I also love macro work and need more control over depth of field. The slow aperture of these lenses makes that tough, but the longer focal lengths of the 18-200 helps.

 

My other thought is that if you plan on going to see shows or events, 200mm might get you pictures you couldn't get otherwise. Rarely do I feel that there are pictures I can't take at 18mm that I could take at 16mm, but that's personal preference.

 

I would NOT be worried about the relative quality of these lenses. They are both excellent lenses and capable of excellent results.

 

Again, I would pick my lens based on what I wanted to shoot long term and not based on the relative optical quality of these lenses.

Hey Artur,

 

I have read ALL the reviews there are on these two lenses several times (and on many others also:) ). Still, I am

asking here a specific practical question in relation to a specific occasion, something reviews not always tell you

about.

 

I also care A LOT about the image quality. That is why I got D300. Although this will be a travelling occasion, for me

this will be once in a lifetime experience, so I really do care about getting a lens that is both as versatile as possible

and as good optically as possible!

Vesselin,

 

Get the 18-200.

 

There is no difference in speed between these two lenses and the the 2 mm wouldn't be a big deal for travel photography.

 

If you need some room, step back one step, or if you don't have room, move the camera above your head and a bit backward. It is more difficult to step forward when you're at the edge of a fence of the balcony or the cliff to have extra reach IMO.

 

For me the sharpness of the 18-200 is respectable good. It equals my 70-200 f2,8 VR.

 

BTW, congratulations for your honeymoon. If you come my way in Australia, we may go out for a shoot together, and I'll lend you some lenses to test drive?

IMHO it depends on which range is more useful to you. I would choose the 16-85mm. I don't care for slow teles and think even the 85mm at f5.6 is much to slow. With a D300 I would look at the better zooms like the 17-55 f2.8 or 24-70 f2.8 because the extra speed would be more useful in the long run if you shoot other than landscape.

"I know 18-200 is not sharp wide open on any focal length"

 

Mine is.

 

"...16-85 due to its better sharpness and image quality"

 

Unless you are pixel peeping, you won't see any difference in your prints.

I'd vote for the 18-200.

 

<P>I have the lens, and while it's not as sharp as my 17-55, it's by no means "soft" either. Besides, I'd rather have a slightly-soft, yet properly-cropped photo of a distant subject, than a slightly-sharper, yet overly-wide photo of the same thing, because I lacked sufficient zoom length.

 

<P>The 18-200 is a fantastically versatile lens, and the VR buys you a lot of latitude with respect to shutter speeds. If I'm going somewhere where I know I'll be taking a wide variety of shots (some portraits, some architecture, some landscapes, some zoo photos or whatever), and I only want to bring a bare-minimum kit, I put the 18-200 on my D300, and throw it in a Lowepro Rezo 170 AW with my SB-800. That setup gives me incredible flexibility, while still allowing my shots to stand above "snapshots" taken by peers.

 

<P>One quick example: On vacation in Mexico, we attended a spectacular musical show at XCaret eco-park. Here's a photo of one of the buglers in the show. We were sitting waaaay up in the stands. <a href="http://kombat.org/Photography/Mexico2007/images/FullSize_600Wide/0310_Bugler.jpg">This shot</a> would've been impossible if I'd been limited to 85mm. But the combination of 200mm reach and VR made this shot possible. I find the sharpness more than acceptable.<div></div>

The 16-85 is more compact, does not suffer from "zoom creep", has lower geometric distortion, has better resolving

powers. and lower chromatic aberations. It's 24mm to 128mm equivalent so it covers a range that covers 90+% of

shoooting needs. I suggest getting the 16-85, and then adding a longer lens, like the 70-300VR is youu find the need for

longer focla lenghts.

"Well, the 18-200mm isn't really 200mm at most focus distances you'd use it at," Yes, as with virtually all IF zoom

lenses, as you focus closer the focal length decreases. This is not an issue in real photography. You just take a step

forward or back.

 

Let's get this straight, No one who's tried them or even just read about them will dispute that the 16-85 is a better lens

optically. Case closed. BUT... for a vacation "one lens solution" like our OP has asked for, in my experience that 85 -

200 range is WAY more valuable than the 16-18 range. A lot of my favorite vacation photos were taken just after

zooming all the way from 18 - 200 or vice versa. If I had had to switch lenses... it wouldn't have happened.

 

If you are printing huge photos or cropping in a LOT you MIGHT notice the difference between these two lenses in "real"

vacation photography. If you're printing 8 x 10 or 11 x 14... I doubt it.

"zoom creep" is no longer an issue - the current 18-200mm lenses being sold by Nikon do not creep.

 

Distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting are all easily correctable in post processing. Neither lens is

totally immune to these minor issues.

 

Kevin's comments are right on the money as are some of Dan's. Which lens to choose depends on your shooting

style. You may find the extra reach of the 18-200mm more useful more often than the slightly wider reach of the

16-85mm. Or, if you shoot mainly wide, you may find the extra 2mm on the wide end more useful.

 

As both lenses offer VR, the choice really boils down to your shooting preferences. Both lenses will give you

excellent results.

Galen,

 

Thom Hogan is correct. The 18-200mm is only a true 200mm lens when you are focussed at infinity. The reason is that

this lens design reduces focal length in order to focus on nearby objects. This is normal, and a typical trade-off that is

made to get a lens with this kind of zoom range.

 

Vesselin,

 

The reason you will get a range of opinion on the "sharpness of the 18-200" is two-fold. First, there is quite a variation in

sharpness between different copies of the 18-200. I have had two. One was acceptably sharp but had a mechanical

problem. I returned it and got another 18-200, which unfortunately was so much less sharp that I returned that one as

well and opted for the 16-85 VR and 70-300 VR combination. This is more expensive, but very very sharp; it is what

Hogan recommends. (You could save some with the 50-200 VR, but then you get into different issues again.) If you care

about IQ, go with this, but then you spend more money and use two lenses, not your stated single lens goal.

 

The other reason why there is such a wide range of opinion on this lens is that the sharpness really does not matter that

much if you are mostly posting the photos on the web and making 4x6 prints. For pictures like that, you could often get

nearly as good a result with a decent point and shoot camera, for less money and hassle. Since you got a D300 and

state that you "care a lot about the image quality", I assume that you would not be satisfied with just any lens.

 

So, I would suggest that you try out the 18-200 VR, since this lens is quite literally designed for your purpose, a travel

lens. Make sure you buy from a place that has a no hassle return policy and make sure that you take some photos that

really allow you to evaluate the lens. It really is a great lens, don't get me wrong, and I still wish that first copy I got was

mechanically 100%. I may try again. But for my purpose right now the 16-85 VR suited me better.

For me, the additional 115mm on the zoom end outweighs the additional 2mm on the wide end. I mean, how much more are you really going to capture with just 2mm??

Elliot,

 

I totally agree that which lens is "best" depends on a lot more than the sharpness!

 

"Distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting are all easily correctable in post processing. Neither lens is totally

immune to these minor issues."

 

I agree that this is *mostly* true. There is a technical detail about CA. The lateral CA is relatively easy to correct for, and

the D300 will do this for you on the fly. The longitudinal CA is nearly impossible to correct for, but mostly leads to

softness of the image. The second 18-200 I send back suffered from softness and significant longitudinal CA (probably

something not quite aligned correctly inside), the first copy did not have these issues. BTW, neither lens had any zoom

creep.

18-200 VR !!!

When you travel , sometime you may need 18mm , sometime 200mm, unless you want swap lenses all the time-( why miss a shot?..)-- softness ???, --- if I worry about softness, when I travel i would buy baby wipes! :) Enjoy your trip, have fun, and 18-200, is not that bad !!!

Ps. If you shot for photo contest, I would worry about" softness", in you case i d rather worry about the weather and fun !!! Ciao, raf

For me, I love having the extra wide angle offered by the 16-85mm. Also, the 18-200mm at 18mm is a funhouse lens, it's really quite terrible, whereas the 16-85mm at 18mm is very well corrected, even better than the 18-70mm at 18mm.<P>

 

Most of my photography happens between 16-70mm, with some at 85mm. I have a very small and lightweight Nikon 70-300mm ED zoom when I need that extra reach. Both lenses will come with me when I go to London and Paris in the fall.<P>

 

<center><img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/300869121_Qisex-M.jpg"><P>

 

Boeing B-17 Cockpit, Aluminum Overcast visiting the Museum of Flight at Boeing Field in Seattle, May 24, 2008. D300 with 16-85mm at 16mm</center><P>

Funhouse lens? Terrible? Dave, that's a bit extreme (But of course you hated your bad sample of the 18-200 you had

years ago). Surely neither lens is great for out-of-camera brick wall images, but I've had to "fix" exactly one image in two

years of shooting. One. I wouldn't call that terrible.

 

I'll bet that an image such as the one above shot with both lenses would be roughly indistinguishable between the two

lenses, as there aren't severely straight lines at the edges of the frame (assuming you could step back enough to take

the same shot at 18mm as 16mm).

 

Not to belabor the point, but you're going on a honeymoon (the main point of the trip) and you're looking for a vacation

lens.

 

Either of these lenses will do fine for this. You have to decide, again, if you want the 2mm at the wide end or the 115mm

at the long end. For most of us in the film days, for vacation shooting, 28mm (the approximate field-of-view of the wide

end of the 18-200) was wide enough. I shoot an inordinate amount of "landscape" stuff at 24 (35mm equiv) anyway.

When I was in Italy with my D 200, I had a 18-70mm DX and a 70-210mm. 95-99% of my pictures were taken with the 18-70mm on the D 200. The 18-200mm was just being introduced. After reading the above posts if you still cannot decide, just flip a coin. Either lens will get the job done for you! Get a Cokin P ring, a polarizer to fit it, like one made by Singh Ray, and a set of graduated neutral density filters. As others have stated, you will need them in Australia. The Cokin P ring will hold the polarizer and the GNDs. Joe Smith