Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    4,428

    18-200 VR or the new 16-85 VR?

    I'm tempted to buy another lens. Or maybe just a thought at this stage

    I love the ability to shoot at low light on both my lenses. They have the range I need most of the time.

    However, other times when I shoot outdoors or when flash can be used I find the 18-50 just a tad short. On the other hand, when 50-150 is attached I am restricted to shoot only close up. So I use 18-50 most of the time when I have to choose between the 2 in this situation. I think a lens with wide angle to 100 mm range will be most useful for indoors with flash.

    Now... if I am to buy something mid range between the 2 lens that I already have, which one would you recommend? The price of both are just about $800. The 16 angle can come in handy though I don't really know how much difference 2 mm makes in real life. Any thoughts or comments?
    Last edited by tim11; 05-06-2008 at 06:08 PM.
    Nikon D90, D80
    Nikkor 16-85mm AF-S DX F/3.5-5.6G ED VR, Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) macro, Nikkor 50mm F/1.4D, Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D, Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro ||| 2x SB800 | SB600 ||| Manfrotto 190XB

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,931
    I would love the 16-85. I think that for me it would be a lens length that would be useful in about 90% of my non Soccer shots. I just can't get my head around the price at the moment. If it were a constant f2.8 or something yes of course (it would be very cheap then at the moment) but not as it is now.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,132
    16-85 f/2.8 VR would be a dream lens to many people...and the price would be easily justified...

    But that's dreaming. Back in realityland I don't think its worth the price. Where it sits now there are better values.
    Nikon D300 | Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm VR | Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 D | SB-600 | Lowepro Voyager C | Lowepro Slingshot 300 AW

    For Sale:
    Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 D - Like New (FX compatible)

    Wish List
    Nikkor AF-S 17-55 f/2.8
    Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f/4 VRII
    Tokina AF 11-16 f/2.8
    SB-900 (2)
    Umbrellas
    New Tripod

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Coast NSW, Australia
    Posts
    375
    Just lost a detailed reply in cyberspace with weblinks etc, ....
    so I'll try to keep this short...

    Hi Tim,

    If only choosing btn 18-200VR and 16-85VR, probably 18-200VR is better value.
    (Although I personally prefer the 16-85VR, I also agree with K1W1 & VR that its overpriced).
    From what you've described, perhaps you may need two new lenses :
    a true wide angle like the 12-24 (if they're still available, although it probably wont be under $800.), and
    a daylight bridging lens, to get through the 50mm "barrier", eg the 24-120VR?

    I cann't personally vouch for any of the above lenses as I'm not there yet re my equipment , maybe by the end of the year.... Although I've read a few reviews and thought about potential lens combo's for myself over the last few months.
    If I'm way off the mark from where you're coming from, then do please just disregard this post, but hopefully the above is close...

    cheers,

    Benjamin
    __________________________________________________
    Cameras: Fujifilm FinePix S5700, Nikon D80 (& 3x lenses).
    General Accessories: Lowepro bags & a Velbon Tripod

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    485
    Tim, you are aware that the 18-200 lens works best at f/8, right? I have also had a lot of issues with the 200m not being sharp, so I always cut a tad shorter than that. Finally, the lovely lens creep. Think about those things before you are quick to get the famous "walk about lens". I rarely use mine, since I don't like it that much.
    Leah
    Nikon D90, because I have a nice Mom.
    Nikon 18-105 VR kit lens | Nikon 50mm f/1.8 |
    Nikon 35mm f/1.8G |
    Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM |Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G VR
    SB 600 & SB400

    Canon G9 "borrowed" from my step-father

    flickr

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,132
    My 18-200 didn't creep at all...they may have fixed that at some point.

    I prefer the results and handling of my 17-50 2.8 / 70-300 VR combo much better, though I do have to carry both and swap when needed which isn't always convenient. The things we do to get the shot
    Nikon D300 | Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm VR | Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 D | SB-600 | Lowepro Voyager C | Lowepro Slingshot 300 AW

    For Sale:
    Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 D - Like New (FX compatible)

    Wish List
    Nikkor AF-S 17-55 f/2.8
    Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f/4 VRII
    Tokina AF 11-16 f/2.8
    SB-900 (2)
    Umbrellas
    New Tripod

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    670
    I love the focal length range of the 16-85/VR. It's not that expensive considering it starts at 16 mm. Lenses are usually significantly more expensive the wider you go. It happened before in the 35 mm film days when zooms that started at 24 mm were significantly more expensive than those that started at 28 mm. And wide zooms with big ranges also commanded a premium, e.g., the 24-120, which the 16-85/VR is a spiritual successor to.

    Also consider that the other zooms that start at 16 mm are equally expensive but are still selling like hotcakes: the Sony Zeiss 16-80 is something like $700, and the Olympus 12-60 (equivalent to 16-80 on the APS-C system) is something like $950. And neither of these lenses come with VR.

    Having said that, perhaps a better solution might be to get a 'tweener lens like the Tamron 28-75/2.8. While it doesn't have VR, it is a fast lens which not only prevents camera shake, but also subject motion blur. At 75 mm, the 16-85 and 18-200 are much slower than the 28-75: f/5.6 for the 16-85, and f/5.0 for the 18-200.
    Last edited by e_dawg; 05-07-2008 at 11:03 PM.

    Nikon: D300, D700, Nikkor: 24-70, 70-200, 70-300/VR, 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4G, 60/2.8G, 180/2.8,
    Sigma: 10-20, 50-150/2.8, 50/2.8, Tamron: 17-50/2.8, 28-75/2.8, Tokina: 12-24, Zeiss: 25/2.8
    Olympus: E-520, E-3, 7-14, 9-18, 11-22, 12-60, 14-35/2, 14-54, 35-100/2, 50-200, 25/2.8, 35/3.5, 50/2
    Panasonic: G1, Leica: 14-50, 14-150, 25/1.4
    Sony: A700, A900, 24-85, 35-70, 70-210/4, 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 50/2.8, T 90 macro, Zeiss: 24-70/2.8, 135/1.8
    P&S: Canon S90, Panasonic: LX3


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    4,428
    Thanks for the inputs everyone. So far, only one vote for 18-200 and 3(?) against.

    I am aware of the flaws on the 18-200, but is this the reason that you would choose 16-85 instead or the 18-200 is rather jaded since it has been around for a while now? I doubt if anyone has seen professional reviews on the new 16-85 VR yet. I'm not challenging your decisions but I just want an in dept discussion; so to convince myself should I go one way or another. Well, if the 16-85VR is constant F/2.8 it will cost not less than $2000 I assume.

    Benjamin: Thanks for the comment. I don't think I need 2 lenses. In fact, I doubt I'd need any lens at all as the FZ20 and F30 would do the job nicely between them since I only shoot the kids and for fun. But now that you touched on the subject, I was looking at the 50 mm F/1.4 and a macro lens and have one each on the wish list. And at some stage there was the new Tamron 28-300 VC; it's should be handy for outdoors and I might buy it had it been 24 instead of 28.... Dang it.. this is crazy, I can't buy everything I want and I decide not to bother yet with anything much less than 18 mm. LOL Good luck with your selection.
    Nikon D90, D80
    Nikkor 16-85mm AF-S DX F/3.5-5.6G ED VR, Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) macro, Nikkor 50mm F/1.4D, Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D, Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro ||| 2x SB800 | SB600 ||| Manfrotto 190XB

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    4,428
    Quote Originally Posted by e_dawg View Post
    ----
    Having said that, perhaps a better solution might be to get a 'tweener lens like the Tamron 28-75/2.8. While it doesn't have VR, it is a fast lens which not only prevents camera shake, but also subject motion blur. At 75 mm, the 16-85 and 18-200 are much slower than the 28-75: f/5.6 for the 16-85, and f/5.0 for the 18-200.
    Thanks for pointing out the speed. At various point I also looking at the Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 Macro but the price is almost the same as the 16-85. The 16-85 should be the most useful lens for me except in low light where flash is not possible. I will have to keep an eye out for review; and by then I hope the price will come down a little.

    Checking further, I find that the price of 16-85 ranges from mid 800 to lower 900 and for the 18-200 the price in most shops is still over $1000 mark. Only one grey importer shop sells for around $800.
    Nikon D90, D80
    Nikkor 16-85mm AF-S DX F/3.5-5.6G ED VR, Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) macro, Nikkor 50mm F/1.4D, Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D, Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro ||| 2x SB800 | SB600 ||| Manfrotto 190XB

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Coast NSW, Australia
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by tim11 View Post
    Thanks for pointing out the speed. At various point I also looking at the Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 Macro but the price is almost the same as the 16-85. The 16-85 should be the most useful lens for me except in low light where flash is not possible. I will have to keep an eye out for review; and by then I hope the price will come down a little.

    Checking further, I find that the price of 16-85 ranges from mid 800 to lower 900 and for the 18-200 the price in most shops is still over $1000 mark. Only one grey importer shop sells for around $800.
    Hi Tim

    I think e_dawg's got a really good point, although you did say you were only interested in daylight shooting with any new lens. Given your latest price comparison (is that AUD btw?) and given that I prefer the 16-85VR on a quality basis to the 18-200VR, I'd favour the 16-85VR (or the Tamron if aperture is still important). Here are a few links that might help (although I don't know if you consider SLRgear.com a professional reviewing site...)

    16-85VR Review:
    http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...ct/1177/cat/13

    18-200VR Review:
    http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/250/cat/13

    Thought I'd throw in reviews of the 24-120VR and the Tamron 28-75/2.8:

    24-120VR review:
    http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/132/cat/13

    Tamron 28-75/2.8 review:
    http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...duct/49/cat/23

    Actually you might like to consider the Tamron 28-105/2.8 (unfortunately slrgear haven't tested that one, but there are three user reports to read):
    http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/236/cat/23

    If you prefer to start at 24mm and larger apertures aren't crucial, then the Tamron 24-135 might be of interest:
    http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/233/cat/23

    The 50/1.4 would be an excellent choice, as you already know, if you want better DoF control in portrait shots.

    Sounds like you've got a lot to read, review, reflect and consider.
    Enjoy & good luck!

    Benjamin
    __________________________________________________
    Cameras: Fujifilm FinePix S5700, Nikon D80 (& 3x lenses).
    General Accessories: Lowepro bags & a Velbon Tripod

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •