Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 16-85mm VR--->a hard one! it seems form the numerous post here that the 16-85 VR wins. Why would you buy this in combination with the tamron? Are you not better off taking a 70-300 instead? or a wide zoom? Pierpaolo Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 16-85mm VR--->a hard one! In reply to arguros • May 21, 2008 no,maybe I was wrong understood.I was saying I thought of buying tamron,but now my feeling is i should move to either 18-200mm VR or 16-85mm VR from nikon.I will not buy both tamron and nikon. Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 16-85mm VR--->a hard one! I don't own either but plan to replace my D40 kit lens with the 16-85...why?....I don't tend to "see tele" as a photographer and already bought a 70-300vr (for sports) ...from what I read, the 16-85 is just a little sharper or as sharp as all the Nikon standard consumer zooms and generally well behaved, so I expect it will be just great as a primary lens for me...(the 18-55 kit is not bad at all BTW but already showing age at less than 6 months - really getting loose).....that's my story Nikon D700 Nikon D750 Nikon Z50 Nikon Z6 II Nikon Z8  viztyger • Veteran Member • Posts: 3,285 Re: Nikon 16-85VR I recently replaced my 18-2200VR lens with a 16-85VR as my primary lens. I posted a series of unedited photos taken of the same scene with both lenses: http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/nikkor_1685vr_vs_18200vr If you don't really need the tele range of the 18-200VR, then I would pick up a 16-85VR which is considerably sharper at most of the range the two lenses share (at least my copy of the 16-85VR) Sony RX1 Sony a7R II Voigtlander 20mm F3.5 Color Skopar SL II Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 +3 more Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 16-85mm VR--->a hard one! I am going to back this up. I have an 18-200 and a 16-85. I think the decision is this. If you want one lens period get the 18-200. If you want two I would get the 16-85 and 70-300. Great combo. My 16-85 is a nice lens. Small sharp and the VR works great. I think it is smaller than my 18-200. Plus have a 16mm vs 18 is a big deal. Tim Bury • Senior Member • Posts: 2,295 Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 16-85mm VR--->a hard one! I have both the Tamron 17-50 (2.8) and the Nikon 16-85 (VR) for my D80. Both are great lenses, and have different uses. For me, the 16-85 is my primary lens, and I have not decided if I want to keep the Tamron (I have a 50mm prime I can substitiute in it's place, although without the zoom and wide convenience. The Tamron has better bokeh (out of focus rendering of the background) and the 2.8 does make a difference in low light no flash shooting. But everything else the Nikon seems to be a bit better for my uses. Your mileage will vary depending on what you need the lens for. I like the range of the 16-85 better. I didn't get the 18-200 because I have read more saying the 16-85 is "better" in most respects (except, obviously, 86-200mmm, but that's what a 70-300 VR or similar is for). EDIT TO ADD: This is something I posted a week or two ago ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=27842274 ) it's a bit more detail into my opinion between the Tamron and Nikon 16-85. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I have read a few comparisons about this, but not a lot. I thought I would post my expereincece with the Tamron 17-50 (2.8) and the Nikon 16-85 VR AF-S. Sorry no good pictures to share, just my comments. The bottom line is it comes down to your intended use for the lens. They really both have slightly different uses. What it comes down to (IMO) is what are you using it for. Your main lense? If so, how? The main purpose of my "main" lense is to capture my kids around my house growing, playing, crying, being "cute". COLOR and CONTRAST The colors are more accurate, it seems to be more contrasty too (hard to say for sure without testing in more conditions). SHARPNESS For my main use of the lens, images are sharper. I use my 17-50 mostly for my kids, and the 16-85 with VR helps me keep a steadier hand. The VR is very useful to me, so images seem to be turning out sharper than the 17-50, probably due to the VR and the AF-S... Especially when I need to grab a shot quick the VR is nice. I think this also has to do with the AF-S seems to focus and lock on target quicker than the screw-driven lens. The AF-S also tracks more accurately and maintain focus better. I suppose I could have tried harder with the 17-50 to perfect my technique, but seeing as my main use is kids right now that are 2 and 5 (on the go!) this lens makes sense . I realize VR doesn't help subject movement, but it sure helps photographer shake, even when tracking kids! I have not tested the sharpness in controlled conditions. Likely the 17-50 is equal, maybe even sharper, but since I use it mostly in the way I stated above that doesn't matter to me as much as the VR and AF-S so for many images, the 16-85 produces sharper results. FLASH What a relief!!!!! Accurate flash exposure. This is nice, I can also now use my flash exposure compensation with more predictable results. In TTL-BL my 17-50 reported the distance wrong producing overexposure. The exposure compensation required could change sometimes depending on how far the subject was. Not good for kids on the go! "plain" TTL was better, but not always practical to use. TTL metering uses the center sensor (not the selected sensor) so if your subject is closer and framed on the left side, the TTL would get pre-flash information from whatever is in the center of the frame overexposing the closer subject in the left part of the frame. Anyway, it's nice to have accurate TTL-BL flash! Using FV-Lock is not always practical. Especially if you have a D80 and your function button is used for something else. Since I use the lens with the kids, often with flash, this accurate distance metering is another huge plus. It took me a while to learn and realize how TTL meters compared to TTL-BL. If interested, here's a thread that goes into some detail: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1034&thread=26772367 APERTURE The 2.8 is nice and will be missed. But I usually know when I will be in that situation and can mount one of my primes or a longer 2.8 lenses for times I want a larger aperture. Often the need for larger aperture is for special events, or I would mount a longer lens than the 17-50mm anyway. I'm also eyeing a 35 f/2 to add in the future. So the 17-50 range with 2.8 is nice, but I have other alternatives. RANGE 16mm on the wide end is nicer than 17mm, you do notice the 1mm which will come in handy once in a while. The long end, for my use the extra 35mm is nice for the kids and will be great for parties, parades, events, etc. where I don't need a fast aperture. FINAL THOUGHTS For my main use of the lens, the 16-85VR AF-S wins over the Tamron 17-50 2.8. There will be an occasion when switching to a prime is not as convenient, but for my most common use the 16-85 is the one for me. It would be nice to have both, but of course, I wouldn't be able to afford it right now then. So, for the cost/performacnce and intended use I am happy to have the 16-85. -- http://pics.myfotoguy.com Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 Nikon Z fc Nikon Z8 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 Nikon Z 35mm F1.8 +10 more msc1 • Senior Member • Posts: 1,529 Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 16-85mm VR--->a hard one! George: Hi.Soon I am going to buy my first Dslr:a Nikon D80. So far about the lens i will buy, I was thinking of Tamrom 17-50mm f 2.8 but now I'm also thinking of either 18-200 VR or 16-85 VR.My question is which one of them acts better in the 16-85mm range.I would like some pro and cons.Don't take into consideration the greater tele range that 18-200 VR has over 16-85 because 16-85mm will be enough for the type of pictures I usually take(landscapes,portraits,indoor sports from time to time). Neither the 18-200 nor the 16-85 will be much good for indoor sports, say at 70 mm +. For indoor sports - and you should give us a clue as to what sports you are interested in --- a fast lens is your best bet, say a 85 mm f/1.8 or 50 f/1.8 or f/1.4, the most expensive of which is the 85 at $400. Of course, more expensive lenses are also available. For portraits, the 18-200 is bound to be a better bet, spec-wise. You can zoom out to say 135 mm and the aperture is going to be wider at the common focal lengths. The 18-200 is said to be soft once you get beyond 135 or so, but you can at least zoom out to get better subject isolation. Again, either the 50 mm or 85 mm primes would be very good for portraits. For landscapes, the 16-85 is likely to be a better than the 18-200. In the photozone tests, it tests sharper in the center and across the lens at the wide end. The 18-200 is said to have a lot of distortion at 18 mm. One of the most common complaints about the 18-200 is lens creep, i.e., the lens tends to extend under the action of gravity. The build of the 16-85 is said to be better in this respect. Because you have indicated that you aren't all that interested in the longer focal lengths, the 16-85 might win out. It ought to be better than the 18-200 for landscapes, tolerable for people shots, and neither will be useful for most indoor sports. If you remain interested in indoor sports, you will need to get a second lens for those apps. Good luck, msc Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 16-85mm VR--->a hard one! In reply to msc1 • May 21, 2008 I also intend in future,when I will have the budget necessary( around 300$) to get the nikon 50mm 1.4 for indoor sports(basketball,polo,handball) samjNC • Contributing Member • Posts: 613 Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 16-85mm VR--->a hard one! In reply to msc1 • May 21, 2008 I have the 18-200 VR. I never shot with the 16, so I cant comment on it, but if I was in your shoes, I would stay away from the 18-200 if you dont use the tele end much. With me, I often use the tele and the wide end seconds or minutes from each other, so the 16 wouldnt make sense for me. The 18-200 is a compromise, but dont forget...go to posts here a year back, 2 years back and people said the 18-200 is outstanding. The 16-85 VR will fall out of style after Nikon makes the new lens, such as possibly a hypothetical 18-70 VR f/4. If I didnt want the convienence of an all-in-one, I would seriously consider a third party f/2.8 normal zoom and a tele like the 55-200 VR or the 70-300 VR. Just my $0.02 VRII • Senior Member • Posts: 2,529 Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 16-85mm VR--->a hard one! GeorgeHotopanwrote: In the 16-85mm Range the 16-85mm DX Does a slightly better Job. from 86mm to 200mm the 16-85mm DX does a lousy job Don't take into consideration the greater tele range that 18-200 VR has over 16-85 because 16-85mm will be enough for the type of pictures I usually take(landscapes,portraits,indoor sports from time to time). THX Yep, when I was looking at an 85mm portrait lens I did exactly the same comparison between the 85mm F/1.4 and the 70-200 VR, never mind the additional focal range, it was meaningless since I intended to shoot at 85mm jsam • Regular Member • Posts: 232 Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 16-85mm VR--->a hard one! In reply to VRII • May 21, 2008 Lots of people advocate the two lens 16-85 VR + 70-300 VR. I can see why too. But...check the total weight before you make your decision. The 70-300 is not light. Carrying two lenses around a city all day may give you an aching back. For me the 70-300 is for deer hunting in Richmond Park. I don't tend to carry it about central London. get the 55-200VR as the second lens In reply to jsam • May 22, 2008 The 16-85 is a no brainer......the 55-200 is a great travel lens sharp and light! 11 oz.......both lenses are sharper than the 18-200 and make a great combo! the 70-300 is almost 3x the weight and 1.5 inches longer..... Keyboard shortcuts: FForum MMy threads Latest sample galleriesLatest in-depth reviewsThe Nikon Zf is a 24MP full-frame mirrorless camera with classic looks that adds the latest Expeed 7 processor and features such as 3D Tracking AF to the $2000 price bracket. We're not sure the experience lives up to the looks. The Sony a9 III is the world's first full-frame mirrorless camera to feature a global electronic shutter with simultaneous readout. We've been using a full production version of this 120 fps sports camera, to see what you gain (and, perhaps, lose). The Aura Carver 10.1" HD Digital Frame is a great way to put your portfolio on display and a great way to surface forgotten memories. The colors are vibrant, and the build quality is solid, but the Carver isn't without a few quirks. With a bigger battery and better video capabilities, the Fujifilm X-S20 could be the vlogging machine content creators have been waiting for. The Sony a7CR is a high-resolution addition to the company's compact full-frame a7C series. So what did we make of it and where does it leave the a7 IV that it sits just above? Latest buying guidesIf you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites. What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best. 'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked. What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out. Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder. |
