16-85 vs 18-105/135?

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Another trip, another lens.... I don't like the sound of it!</p>

<p>C'mon guys! please don't tell me to google coz I read every single post here! <br /> I've been thinking a lot about this question.<br /> I am on the road again. First of all the places where I am going are making me think about a new lens.<br /> I'll fly to Soul, Prague and then drive to Switzerland on the first week of August. I have never been in any of these places but I am sure I won't be shooting birds.... In my mind all have is Prague at night (wide angle shots), Switzerland Alps... (Uhmmm! Wide angle shots), Soul??? I don't know what to expect there but I figure street candid shots.</p>

<p>My problem is I was in Florence and Madeira a couple of months ago and even though I had my camera with me 100% of the time I didn't feel in the mood of taking photographs... I was just snap shooting but yeah! I was carrying 12 kilograms of equipment on my back! <br /> So? I am sure I will be feeling the same.... I will want to take pictures but I wanna enjoy what is on my sight... I want to relax...<br /> I know the 18-200 is the answer but its not a lens I will pay for! I had it for free and I gave it away!<br /> I will just take: Tokina 11-16, AFS 17-55, 35 and 50. I think I need a more all around lens.... I thought during the day I could avoid carrying a tripod too so I would need a VR lens.<br /> So basically, I don't care about the price, or IQ coz I think they are about the same (I'm sure I am wrong) but they are all consumer lenses.<br /> I wanna know about your own experiences between... gaining 2 mm on the wide side and loosing 20 or 30 on the long side. Also shooting at 5.6 with VR hand held! I am not sure if the 18-105 or 18-135 have a plastic mount in which case I won't consider them either.</p>

<p>Making it short, places I'll be visiting, focal length and mount, which do you guys consider the best choice?</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

[williamting]

<p>2mm on the short end is more important than 20-30mm on the long end. You can always crop to frame the photo how you'd like (at the expense of pixels) but you can't always move back enough.</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>what's wrong with the 17-55/2.8 rene? too heavy? not long enough? oh, yeah -- no VR... my bad. i still think that's best, but if you insist on an AF-S lens with metal mount and VR, go for the 16-85. i haven't used one, but i also read all the posts, and it has a good rep, more positive buzz than any of the kit lenses. at least, that's my 2 cents.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Rene.</p>

<p>I'd do the 16-85. I have an 18-200 and kinda wish I had the 16-85 instead.</p>

<p>And yes, the 18-105 and 18-135 BOTH have plastic mounts. I won't buy them for that reason either, even though they are really really good plastic mounts...</p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>I just returned from Italy, France & Spain. My main lens was the 16-85. I also had a 35/1.8 and a 10.5 fisheye.</p>

<p>The fisheye saw very little action...maybe 25 shots. The 16-85 was used for 75% of my shooting with the 35/1.8 accounting for the rest.</p>

<p>It worked well for me. There were 3 or 4 instances when I would have liked something wider, but not enough to warrant carrying a wider lens for a month. In my opinion, taking an 11-16 along with a 16-85 is not necessary...unless you really enjoy stuff that wide. In good daylight, the 16-85 is really ideal.</p>

<p>The last few days of my trip were spent in Paris. There, I only carried the 35/1.8 attached to a D60. While it was liberating to carry such a small package, I would have preferred my 24/2.8...the 35 (actually translating to a 50mm) isn't quite wide enough for my tastes. I really wish Nikon would give us some new primes.</p>

<p>I have a trip coming up next month and I'm seriously considering Oly's new EP-1 with the 17mm (34mm) lens. Tempting indeed.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Given your preferences, and severe NAS, I'd go with the 16-85. Me, I'd take the 17-55/2.8 and never look back. I'd probably throw in the 11-16/2.8, too.<br>

BTW, I find it funny when I read how many PNetters disdain the 18-200 (no, I don't own one). In Outdoor Photographer, there's an article on world-class Nature photographer Frans Lanting. The 18-200 may be beneath you, but it, mounted on a D90 (Dx, the horror!) happens to be Mr. Lanting's walk-around combo, and plenty good enough to be published in National Geographic and other major nature publications, not to mention selling large art prints. Your mileage obviously varies.</p>

[alan_goldhammer]

<p>I'm heading to Barcelona and Valencia next week. Traveling light (photo wise) and taking only the 16-85 and the 24 f2.8 along with three 8GB compact flash cards and an extra battery for the D300. Regarding VR, I find it essential for hand held shots (I try to keep the camera steady or braced against something if possible but am glad the VR is there in any event; leaving the tripod at home because of added weight).</p>

[jeff kempster photography]

<p>I would definitely get a 16-85 and add a 35mm 1.8. These two lenses will be an awesome pair. I love them and they just are perfect for a trip that you want to ENJOY. </p>

[tri-x1]

<p>I wish I had gone with the 16-85 rather than the 18-200, although I am very satisfied with the results from the latter lens. When I was in Florence in 2007 all I had was a 28-105 and a 20mm Nikkor for my DSLR. Try getting all of Dumo in the picture with either of those lenses!. I have found in Europe and also in China that wide is more important than tele (at least for my style of shooting). Last year in China there wasn't any shot I took with an 18-200 that I couldn't have shot with the 16-85--plus I would have been packing quite as much weight.</p>

[jonsjons]

<p>like others, i prefer the extra two mm on the wide end of the 16-85 over the reach of the 18-105; if you're only carrying that one lens, then the 16-85 is the way to go. if you are bringing your 11-16, however, you might consider the 18-105 instead. it has a plastic mount, but IQ is very similar to the 16-85 (i tested both lenses myself).</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>Rene, I had an 18-105 and sold it. It had two problems I didn't like: vignetting and too much distortion. I sold it and have since purchased the 16-85. The IQ is about the same but the 16-85 doesn't vignette. It has a very slight amount of barrel distortion at 85mm (which I only noticed in some shots of the horizon at the Grand Canyon) but overall is a much superior lens to the 18-105. Not too heavy, either. I used it on a D200.</p>

[johnny_anderson]

<p>If it were me I'd take a 16-85VR and 70-300VR. Light weight combo that covers a wide focal range. The Alps will look awfully small with a wide angle lens, the 70-300 would do a good job with the mountians. The IQ is great with both lenses and the build quality is very good with both lenses. The VR is very effective on both lenses. I'd also take a 35 F1.8 or 50 F1.8 lens for low light/night shots.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>rene, the 16-85 would probably be your best bet here. that and the 11-16 and the 35 would be a nice lil' travel kit. if you can afford the 16-85 there's really no reason to get the 18-105.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>The 18-135 won't be ideal as it's rather long and lacks VR. The plastic mounts of the 18-135 and 18-105 are also rather unideal for lenses that can extend a lot whole zoomed out; also the plactic G type mounts lack rubber dust seals: this is not a good thing. </p>

<p>The 16-85 VR is probably your best bet. Just try not to damage its barrel when zoomed out. </p>

[raj_chongbang]

<p>If you are on budget I would suggest 18-105mm (VR really makes a difference) over 18-135 but if you can afford then 16-85mm is the way to go IMO. 18-105mm is a decent lens but Nikon had to cut corners to make it competitive so you get a plastic mount, distoration, vignetting, modest build etc. In my personal experience I found the distortation most annoying. I wish I had waited and got myself an 16-85mm instead...that being said, it's kind of unfair to compare 18-105mm with 16-85mm since latter costs double - it's got to be better right?</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Refering to Switzerland, I can tell you my experience. I use to fly over there... <a href="../photo/5569379&size=lg">:)</a> I`d doubt between the 16-85 and the... 18-200. In the Alps (villages), I always miss longer lenses. There are thousands of wonderful details, corners, towers, small fountains, far peaks, etc. etc. I´m thinking on <em>Richard A.</em> , as you know many of his wonderful landscape images has been taken with this lens. As a rule I hate telescopic consumer zooms, the longer the worst for me. It makes me to prefer the 16-85VR.</p>

<p>At the old towns (cities), I`d prefer 16 over 18mm, but I could live with 18mm, thought. Narrow streets, small restaurants, tight buildings.</p>

<p>What I have cristal clear is to go with just one lens, and to adapt myself to it.</p>

<p>-Sometimes I go with a 35 or 50mm prime (film or FX), missing a lot of pics.<br /> -Other times I used a 17-55 (D300), a bit short in the longer end and too much weight but so satisfying when you look at the high quality pics later on your computer. The same now with the 24-70 on FX.<br /> -I also use a 24-85AFS (film or FX) but image quality lacks in comparison with the other lenses, and is limiting to have such slow apertures at the longer focals.</p>

<p><em>Conclusion: </em>I`d take only one lens, 1st choice 17-55, 2nd choice 16-85VR, no 3rd choice (it was the 18-200VR).</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>No VR, but f2.8 @ 70mm (1600ISO - hand held 1/30sec)</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>... f2.8 at 60mm (it must be near <em>f5</em> with the 16-85 at <em>40mm</em>... ), you know what I mean...</p><div></div>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I would bring my Nikon 18-200 VR, but what do Frans Lanting and I know? The 16-85 VR is an obvious choice for you. It's a better lens than the 18-105 VR, has metal mount (I don't know any football players who insist on a metal helmet, but if that's what you want), and you can afford it. I also feel that 2mm on the wide side is more important than 20mm on the long side for travel pictures. You can always crop out but you can't "crop in".</p>

[nsfbr]

<p>Rene - I went ahead and got hte 16-85 and like it a lot. With VR off it is a bit better than the 18-70, which I still think is the best value in a DX zoom around. With VR on, it is a lot of fun - plenty of ways to use a 1/10 shutter speed when street shooting at dusk!<br>

Enjoy your trip - are you doing the Bernina Express? We did a while back and stayed in Chur. Both were great fun. Also, for the heck of it, you should see Lichtenstein. Not many countries can you literally drive around (or walk or bike or run for that matter).</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Thanks to everyone!<br>

OK! I have two weeks to get the lens... I m sorry to waste your time.... Before posting this question I was almost sure that the 16-85 was the way to go but I knew the experience of all of you would make my decision easier! I'll give it a try and i know i will have fun!</p>

<p>Luis G..... I am sure that Mr. Frans Lanting can great pictures with it... the only problem is I am not as good photographer as he is. I need all the help I can get.</p>