16-85mm VR or 18-200mm VR?

[dark72]

Given that the retail price of 16-85 is quite near to 18-200, which 1 would be more worth it?

[Dennis]

If you are in to wide, the 16-85 is a very sharp lens and well worth the money.
Vignette wast'n as bad as reported.
It is more of a 18-70 replacement, size are almost the same, uses same filter size as well.
First feel is that it seems to be sharper than the 18-70 as well as the 18-200.
Better construction than the 18-70 and is the same as 18-200.

Originally Posted by dark72 Given that the retail price of 16-85 is quite near to 18-200, which 1 would be more worth it?

[NitroTech]

It depends on your shooting style. If you only shoot wide then get the 16-85mm. But if you travel quite a bit and want to lighten your load, then the 18-200mm is the one.

Both builds are similar. And for me I'll go with the 18-200mm. Doesn't hurt to have the extra focal length.

[longkangman]

if wider go for 16-85 else longer reach is 18-200.

time to replace my 18-70mm.

[vortex]

Originally Posted by Dennis If you are in to wide, the 16-85 is a very sharp lens and well worth the money. Vignette wast'n as bad as reported. It is more of a 18-70 replacement, size are almost the same, uses same filter size as well. First feel is that it seems to be sharper than the 18-70 as well as the 18-200. Better construction than the 18-70 and is the same as 18-200.

you bought it already?!?!?!

[voldisinarta]

Originally Posted by dark72 Given that the retail price of 16-85 is quite near to 18-200, which 1 would be more worth it?

Well, what you can do is to rent those 2 lenses, go for one or two days shooting spree, and based on that experience, buy the one that you feel suitable for yourself.

It is better than asking around, since other's experience with a lens will be different with yours!

My two cents.

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by vortex you bought it already?!?!?!

then u think whose lens i was using yesterday to test...

[mogwai]

had a chance to test the d60 with 16-85 VR in j316 yest

i believe the 16-85 is sharper than 18-200 but no laptop to compare on, so still waiting for someone to post some pics.

but whatever the result of a side-by-side comparision, i guess the factor that will favour the 18-200 will still be its superior range.

since it's been mentioned, will users of 18-70, 18-55 or 18-135 upgrade to this? or the 18-200. just wondering.

[Dennis]

Was he there ??.
hehe you would not have met me if I collected it earlier.
Was suppose to collect it on Fri.

Originally Posted by nightwolf75 then u think whose lens i was using yesterday to test...

[sanith]

How is such a high price justified? Its not even a constant F2.8 lens or even a F4 lens. Why would any one buy it, given the fact that you can get third party 16-50 lenses at 2.8 for a lesser prices? Can some1 explain?

[Dennis]

Yes you can get cheaper 3rd party lens elsewhere however the value of a lens is not just the price itself. It is the same analogy with watches or cars you can get the same thing with very wide prices and still give you the same functionality.

Originally Posted by sanith How is such a high price justified? Its not even a constant F2.8 lens or even a F4 lens. Why would any one buy it, given the fact that you can get third party 16-50 lenses at 2.8 for a lesser prices? Can some1 explain?

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by sanith How is such a high price justified? Its not even a constant F2.8 lens or even a F4 lens. Why would any one buy it, given the fact that you can get third party 16-50 lenses at 2.8 for a lesser prices? Can some1 explain?

You can make this comment if you have been designing optics. The lens designer has much more parameters to take care of than a f/1.4 prime or a shorter ratio f/2.8 zoom. 3rd party lenses of such zoom ratio would go up to f/6.3 at the long end and sell for about 3/4 the price with poorer image quality.

[sanith]

I know that its the classic mid range zoom of the film era, (the 24-70mm). Agreed that there are different things to consider on constructing a lens. Even with your comments, somehow i just dont feel that the price is justified. I maybe wrong!!

[psychobiologist]

i'm waiting for the 16-85 price to stabilize :P

the 18-55vr off the shelf's like 330, but when taken in a kit its $100 more ! than the kit w/o VR

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by psychobiologist i'm waiting for the 16-85 price to stabilize :P the 18-55vr off the shelf's like 330, but when taken in a kit its $100 more ! than the kit w/o VR

Turn on the VR?

[buddy]

Nikon has priced the AFS 16-85mm VR lens nearly the same as the AFS 24-120mm VR lens.

I guess the latter lens was priced high since it was the 2nd lens with VR but unfortunately, Nikon doesnt have a practice of reducing or dropping prices of lenses.

[nikonmonster]

Yeah, I am trying to figure out which is better too. Would be great if someone could direct me to reviews of the new lens online. Have only seen a few which were not very helpful.

Was initially drawn toward the 18-200 for its range and flexibility, but having tried it on the D60, it's a wee bit heavy, though still light for a one lens travelling kit. Also don't like the lens creep problem, though some consider it a minor inconvenience, I am quite anal so I am afraid it will annoy the hell out of me.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to the situations in which an 18-200 will help take photos that the 16-85 can't? I know the tele end will help if you are taking super long shots, like birds, or football players from the cheapest seats, etc. But e.g. in day to day use, for family portraits, for travelling, for weddings, is the longer range that much more useful? I read somewhere that the 115mm difference can be compensated by walking forward 3 metres?

Also, is the 2mm difference on the wide end really make a big difference? Would be glad if someone out there could provide a noob with some answers. Thanks in advance!

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by nikonmonster Yeah, I am trying to figure out which is better too. Would be great if someone could direct me to reviews of the new lens online. Have only seen a few which were not very helpful. Was initially drawn toward the 18-200 for its range and flexibility, but having tried it on the D60, it's a wee bit heavy, though still light for a one lens travelling kit. Also don't like the lens creep problem, though some consider it a minor inconvenience, I am quite anal so I am afraid it will annoy the hell out of me. Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to the situations in which an 18-200 will help take photos that the 16-85 can't? I know the tele end will help if you are taking super long shots, like birds, or football players from the cheapest seats, etc. But e.g. in day to day use, for family portraits, for travelling, for weddings, is the longer range that much more useful? I read somewhere that the 115mm difference can be compensated by walking forward 3 metres? Also, is the 2mm difference on the wide end really make a big difference? Would be glad if someone out there could provide a noob with some answers. Thanks in advance!

Depends on whether you prefer to shoot wider or longer. The 2mm at the wide end does make quite a bit of difference. Otherwise people won't be making 28mm and 24mm lenses.

[nikkie]

If you are anal about every nooks and crannies, then i suggest you do not compromise anything, just go for the 17-55mm f2.8. then you'll be the most happy lens owner u can be.
since you can't think of the reason why you want the tele ends, then you prob won't need it for now.
when you get the 17-55/f2.8, u know it's better than the other two.
i can tell u one thing, a good durable VR or IS (for canon) is only available in the top end lens. for the consumer grade lenses, all manufacturers have to cut cost by compromising some components or materials in order to make it avail at lower prices. many consumer grade's image stabilizer won't last very long.

you know, it costs about $1000+ to replace the AF-S in 17-35mm/f2.8. How do you think they can put the same motor on a consumer lens costing $1000 or less?
it's a no brainer.

Originally Posted by nikonmonster Yeah, I am trying to figure out which is better too. Would be great if someone could direct me to reviews of the new lens online. Have only seen a few which were not very helpful. Was initially drawn toward the 18-200 for its range and flexibility, but having tried it on the D60, it's a wee bit heavy, though still light for a one lens travelling kit. Also don't like the lens creep problem, though some consider it a minor inconvenience, I am quite anal so I am afraid it will annoy the hell out of me. Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to the situations in which an 18-200 will help take photos that the 16-85 can't? I know the tele end will help if you are taking super long shots, like birds, or football players from the cheapest seats, etc. But e.g. in day to day use, for family portraits, for travelling, for weddings, is the longer range that much more useful? I read somewhere that the 115mm difference can be compensated by walking forward 3 metres? Also, is the 2mm difference on the wide end really make a big difference? Would be glad if someone out there could provide a noob with some answers. Thanks in advance!