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

[pankaj purohit]

In a new lense price, you can get Nikon P80 and forget about any lense change, its range is (35mm format equivalent) 27mm to 480mm....... This is the new start of future photography..... as earlier DSLRs replaced the 35mm films ( I am still successfully and happily using films)..........

[hugh_look]

Regarding the "2mm doesn't make a difference at the wide end" theory.

 

Weeeelll, not always. Sometimes you can stand back. However, using a WA is not just about coverage - it's also about the relationship between foreground and background, and standing back often destroys that. The closer in you work, the more the difference.I use both, and there are definitely cases where that 2mm makes a difference. Whether it matters more to you than the extra at the long end is entirely personal. Others may not care at all. But for the wide-angle enthusiast, the difference is undeniably real and significant.

 

Regarding the softness of the 18-200mm: I can see the difference between this and the 16-85mm at equivalent focal lengths on 11"x14" prints, not just with pixel peeping. Not enough to make me feel "I don't want to use this lens if it's the sensible choice", but definitely there. A combination of slightly-higher-than-normal unsharp mask and high-pass sharpening sorts some of it out, though, but if you take JPEGs straight out of the camera on normal sharpening I find a visible difference, especially at infinity or near infinity focus. Caveat: I may have a bad copy of the 18-200, and the difference is so much that I'm having the lens overhauled at the moment.

[nadopix]

Just sold my 18-200. As I posted in another forum, the lens is best described as a jack-of-all trades, master-of-none lens. Do you want pro images or just images? This is not a pro lens.

[alffastar]

Tim,

 

I guess 16-85 is also not for pro images, but may be closer to that than 18-200 - what do you think?

[nadopix]

I've never used the 16-85, but when I need a good lens review I look online. It's not hard to find quality reviews. When several good reviewers are consistantly positive in what they say about the lens, generally the lens is a solid performer.

Also, don't write off the extra 2mm between the two lenses; at the wide end, 2mm is a MUCH greater angle of view than, say 200mm vs 202mm.

Look at your favorite travel and landscape images. My guess is they'll be shot from a wide angle out to 105 at the most. Read up on street photography, and you might discover telephoto lenses aren't used as much as the 35/50mm range.

And one final thing...focal length is only 1/4 of the equation-- max F-stop is the rest. Perhaps you should broaden your search to a lens that goes down to f2.8 at least. As I grow in photography, I'm replacing slow lenses with fast ones. Tonight I was a chaperon at a youth group function on the beach. As the sun set I was still taking hand-held shots (no VR) of fast-moving youth...all because I could get down to f2.8. (and I was using my new 24-85 which cost me 400 bucks used from Adorama).

[nadopix]

And if its for just a trip, consider rental.

[alffastar]

Tim,

 

I have Nikon 35 f/2.0 for the situations when I need action in low light. Thanks for the advice in regards the travel lens and all!

[patricks]

Seems like you've already made up your mind, I think the 18-200 is probably the most reasonable 1 lens set-up, albeit being a compromise in most aspects. I guess one other alternative would be to get a Tamron 17-50/2.8 + the 70-300 VR.

 

When I went on a similar trip of a life-time I bought a Canon 5D + 24-105/4 L*. Sure, I brought a few other lenses but that range was just fine for me so I guess I would go for a 16-85. Then again, I don't shoot houses/birds/scenes at a distance, my passion is people photography and I tend to use primes for that. And I gotta tell ya', even of all the pro glass that I've used on my D300, I still love that little 18-70 DX for a travel lens - $200 used, amazing little lens.

 

*) Bought it during discounts, used it on trips to 3 different countries during 4 months and sold it $150 less than I paid for it (discounts were over by then). Talk about cheap rent!

[alffastar]

Although this is an old thread I would like to update it. Bought 18-200 VR and did not like the feel of it and some issues with IQ - distortion at wide end, some softness wide open. Sold it without losing money (I bought it from US and sold it in EU). Then I bought 16-85 VR. For now this is the only walk-around lens I have and I am very, very happy with it. After trying Tamron 17-50 and Nikon 18-200, I am finally happy with my new lens - IQ, feel (build) and range are perfect. May be in the future I will consider either 70-300 or 55-200, but for now, as a one lens solution - this is it :))

 

Cheers!

[hugh_look]

Same experience. I was asked to take the photographs at a friend's wedding last week, and although the 16-85 is not the 17-55 f2.8 it did a very creditable job (perhaps unlike the poor old photographer - never, ever again).

 

I now take the 16-85 on business trips on a D60 body when I don't feel like lugging the D200 and it's really a very manageable 1-lens outfit.

 

Hope you enjoy your trips & take losts of great photos.

[larrybc]

<p>Just to chime in here, since I also have experience with<br />these two lenses:<br /><br />Even if I had to choose a SINGLE lens for a trip, it'd still<br />be the 16-85. I shoot at the wide end a LOT and the strong<br />barrel distortion was quite annoying to me. And as others<br />have mentioned, it was soft at the long end. Zoom creep was<br />also a nagging problem. It was usually fine if the lens was<br />racked back to 18mm, but if it was even at 19mm, it would<br />creep. Viewing the images in Lightroom, it was pretty<br />obvious that it lacked contrast compared to my other lenses,<br />too. I even created a preset specifically for that lens.<br /><br />After a year of using it, I bought a 16-85VR. I don't miss<br />the long end at all. 200mm is a nice to have but it was<br />only occassionally useful and limited by its softness (had<br />to stop it down a fair bit). In short, I found myself using<br />the 18-200VR like an 18-135 simply because I disliked its<br />performance at the long end.<br /><br />BTW, unlike a previous poster's experience, my 18-200VR<br />doesn't come close to comparing to the image quality of my<br />70-200VR. Sharpness and contrast are clearly worse than the<br />70-200VR.<br /><br />It's true, though, that the sharpness won't be an issue in<br />your typical print size. IMO that's up to 8x10 or 11x14. <br />Go larger and I think it would be an issue. OR...if you<br />want to crop your shot, I think you'll be limited, too.<br /><br />Also, it's true that you can fix the distortion and contrast <br />in post processing. But the sum of these small problems was <br />enough to make me dissatisfied with the lens.<br /><br />larsbc</p>