16-85 + 70-300 Vs 18-200

I have the early version of the Nikon 18-200 and wonder if a move to this other combo. would improve the quality of my travel light kit - but still stay light. Another option I'm thinking about is putting a 1.7 converter on my Nikon 70-200 2.8 and fogetting the 70-300.. Would the extra weight off set the weakness reported in the 70-300 from 200 up? I get so much good information from this site that I just had to ask. Your comments would be appreciated. Regards,
--
jayk2

JayK2 said:

I have the early version of the Nikon 18-200 and wonder if a move to this other combo. would improve the quality of my travel light kit - but still stay light.

Click to expand...

The 16-85 offers slightly better IQ than the 18-200mm. It distorts less and has less corner CA. If your 18-200mm is well calibrated, then the sharpness will be about the same. But the 16-85mm is not a one lens solution. Carried in combo with the 70-300mm could double the size of your kit bag. A slightly more compact solution would be to use the 16-85mm with the 55-200mm VR lens. Optically this is not nearly as good as the 70-300mm, however it is exceptionally good value for the money and can produce very nice travel shots.

I am afraid I have yet to use a 1.4x converter that did not spoil the quality of the original lens. Maybe someone knows a better converter than the ones I have tried?

S.
--
Wait, watch, listen, then pounce !

Thank you Stoker98 for your comments. Regards,
--
jayk2

I am moving in the same direction. Dropping my 18-200 for a 16-85 + 70-300. I feel both are much better then the 18-200 for what I want to do.

My expanded kit is
10-24
16-85
70-300
and a 35 1.8

When I get better (and have more money) I plan to add a 24-70 2.8, it fits nicely in the line up

10-24 + 24-70 + 70-300

When in the big cities I use a Nikkor 17-55 2.8 and Sigma 10-20 4-5.6.

When out by my place in the jungle I use the two mentioned plus a 70-300VR.
--
Jon in Thailand

http://www.flickr.com/photos/af2899/
.

I use the 16-85, 70-300VR and 35f/1.8 as my travel kit, and find that the 70-300VR is pretty heavy to carry around. It also is too short for birds or wildlife, a bit slow on sports, esp. indoors, and not really sharp above 250mm. So it gets left behind a lot. I've also used my daughter's 55-200VR and enjoyed its light weight. I don't know how it would compare to your 18-200 however.

I REALLY like the 16mm end of the 16-85, and am strongly considering adding a UWA to my kit. Like a lot of folks on this forum, I'm finding that a tough decision.
--
Brault
WSSA #279

I briefly has the 18-200 as lens to leave on a body in the car and decided it wasn't for me. I replaced it with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and Nikon 70-300 VR. I have been happy with this and have added a couple of "cast off" lenses and a flash to my in car kit since.

A constant f2.8 is probably more useful than VR for most cases and now there is a VR version that might be worth a look if you can live with the more restrictive zoom range.

I seem to remember reading reviews where it was stated that above 200mm the quality of the 70-300 falls off(?) For travel I used the 18-200 often and the 18-200 range prevented many lost shots. After having a bag of lenses the 18-200 range is so suited for travel and quick shots in markets/street scenes etc. Its IQ is much maligned by some but great images are possible with this lens. Using F8/11 ,landscapes are really sharp too. I travelled all over with my D200 , 18-200 and a Tokina 12-24 and all options were covered . I also had a 50mm1.8 in my pocket when there was time to take a careful potrait.I wouldnt bother to change....the difference between 200mm and 300 mm isnt enough imo to warrant a change and I doubt if you will notice any real difference in IQ. But of course the choice is yours...

I tried out a 18-200 and decided it was not for me. I find the 16-85 + 70-300 is better / sharper across the entire range that the 18-200 covers. Plus it is wider and longer. The quality of the 70-300 does drop off as it zooms out, but so does the 18-200. And, at 250-280 it is still sharper than the 18-200 was at 180-200.

I also carry a 35mm f1.8 & sb400 in the bag. Both are small, light and cheap. The total bag with a d90, filters, etc is very reasonable.

I thank everyone for their valuable comments, which I can always depend on in this forum. I do have a 12-24 f4 and a 70-200 2.8 so I could add a 24-70 2.8 and a 1.7 TC which would make for great, but heavy, quality over a large range. On the other hand, is 16-85 + 70-300 a better quality combination than my 18-200 for general vacation/travel? I think your comments generally reflect that it is, and I thank you for your opinions. Regards,
--
jayk2

I must must have a good copy of the 70-300 because mine is very sharp at 300mm (tested on a tripod with VR off)

If your going to travel with this lens and hand hold it, the 55-200vr is the best bang for the buck. Much better than the 18-200 and lighter too. The 16-85 and the 55-200vr will handle most shots well hand held. The 70-300 is much bigger and heavier and IMO (I had 3 copies) very hit or miss above 220mm. I got a 50-50 keeper rate hand held. The lens was very sharp when I got in focus shots, but in the end, too much of a gamble. The keeper rate is a lot better with the 55-200vr and much more portable. My travel and leisure kit is the D300, sigma 10-20, nikon 16-85vr, nikon 55-200VR, and the 35 1.8 for indoor. Oh and the small but great SB400 mini bounce flash : ) All in a Lowepro fastback 100. best combo kit as it gives me a 35mm coverage of 15mm-300mm.

Peace, Dave

http://www.davenphoto.com

As others have indicated, the switch is warranted if you're willing to carry a little more weight and put up with the lens switches. I've owned all three of these (had the 18-200 and 70-300 at one time, the sold the 18-200 and got the 16-85), and looking at some of my old photos, even in the overlapping range with the 16-85, the image quality of the latter is superior, hands down. Others say it is marginal. Not for the copies I had/have. I use the 70-300 and 16-85 for very different reasons, so I seldom find myself swapping one for the other in the middle of a shoot, or carrying them together for that matter. The exception is when I shoot soccer games, where I use the 70-300 on my D90 for the action, and the 16-85 on my D80 for huddle/sideline shots. More often than not, for the type of photography I do, it's the 10-24 and 16-85 that get shared duty, but since I have the luxury of 2 camera bodies, I don't have to switch between them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .



Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.com/store
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

Thanks folks. I have a D70s and a D300s so carrying both cameras raises more thoughts - where does it end - I thought flying was an expensive hobby but its got nothing on photo. gear. Thanks again to all who offered advice. Regards,
--
jayk2

with the 16-85 and 70-300 combo you are gaining a little more at the wide end and a little more at the tele end. You will not notice any difference in photo qualities on prints at 11 X 17 as compared to the 18-200mm!!! There is a lot of hype and emotion around having two or three lense systems. They cost a lot more for no significant improvement in IQ. I mean in this particular case because all these lenses are very good. Similar.

the 16-85 is not any faster than the 18-200. In the 16-85 range, distortion is similar (not siginificantly different to make a difference).

If you need the extra reach , and you want to stop and switch lenses to get it, then you need something that is longer than the 18-200. Personally I would be more frustrated if I had to switch lenses because the 200 was not enough reach and I needed 250mm!

For me, I am finding that I don't need anything else but the 18-200 for all around daily usage. For a second lens, I am searching for a fast f1.4 or f1.8 type of lens which would go along with the 18-200 and would be completely different and in its own category than the 18-200. Why would I switch from the 18-200 to get two lenses that do practically the same thing except for more reach.

Aristoc said:

with the 16-85 and 70-300 combo you are gaining a little more at the wide end and a little more at the tele end. You will not notice any difference in photo qualities on prints at 11 X 17 as compared to the 18-200mm!!!

Click to expand...

I could notice the difference at much smaller print sizes, because my 18-200 was also lacking in contrast, and exhibited strong barrel distortion at the wide end. These characteristics were easily noticeable despite the print size used.

Aristoc said:

There is a lot of hype and emotion around having two or three lense systems. They cost a lot more for no significant improvement in IQ. I mean in this particular case because all these lenses are very good. Similar.

Click to expand...

Again, I have to disagree.

Also, my 18-200VR wasn't particularly accurate focusing at 200mm at long distance, or at close up ranges at 200mm.

My 16-85VR is far more reliable, as far as AF is concerned, across its entire range, plus distortion is noticeably less, and contrast is better.

Meanwhile, the 70-300VR has very good AF at long distances, and surprised me by being quite good at constant AF on moving subjects.

Aristoc said:

the 16-85 is not any faster than the 18-200. In the 16-85 range, distortion is similar (not siginificantly different to make a difference).

Click to expand...

Quite different, imo. About half the distortion at 16mm compared to 18mm on the 18-200VR.

[snip]

Aristoc said:

For me, I am finding that I don't need anything else but the 18-200 for all around daily usage. For a second lens, I am searching for a fast f1.4 or f1.8 type of lens which would go along with the 18-200 and would be completely different and in its own category than the 18-200. Why would I switch from the 18-200 to get two lenses that do practically the same thing except for more reach.

Click to expand...

Why? For you, you shouldn't. You don't discern any practical difference so it would make no sense for you to switch. But for myself and some others, we DO notice the difference and are happy to make the switch. I lived with the 18-200VR for a year so I'm well aware of its characteristics, both pros and cons. Having had the 16-85VR + 70-300VR combo for about a year now, I'm also very cognizant of the net improvements resulting from the switch.

larsbc

Just to be clear, I am not saying that the other lenses are bad.

Aristoc said:

You will not notice any difference in photo qualities on prints at 11 X 17 as compared to the 18-200mm!!!

Click to expand...

I see this and variations on this argument a lot. I think it is wrong. I saw the difference very easily. Just not on every photo.

The 18-200 is a cop-out. Everyone who is honest would admit that. It is not a great lens. It is a convenient lens. You trade some image quality for convenience.

The only real question is if it is worth it or not.

How often are you going from under 80 to over 80 and back again on a single photo shoot?

I find that both the 16-85 and 70-300 cover useful ranges which are quite distinct. Plus the over lap helps. I seldom have to change lenses. I need one or the other.

The exceptions are when neither lens is good enough. Portraits, low lights, etc.

Lets not forget that the whole point of a DSLR is the ability to take control. We select the right lens. We apply the correct settings. The photo comes out like we decide, not how some algorithm decides.

I am not saying the 18-200 or similar lenses are bad. I am not saying there have not been times where I think 1 lens would have handy. It is a decent enough lens. Just be aware of what it is and accept that or make a different compromise. The other extreme, lugging 14 lenses with me, is even less appealing to me. So, I pick out a few that I think will suit where I am going and what I will be doing.

What focal lengths do you use the most? If you are like me and most people I think the 16-85 will cover more than 90 percent of your shots. For my travel outfit I am very happy with that and the 55-200. Better quality than my 18-200, noticeably. I find I seldom have the need to switch from the 16-85. I really doubt you will ever need the 300mm focal length and you will tend to avoid it because it is a little softer fully extended. So why carry it? IF your inventory of EXIF info for your images show a big percentage of 200mm shots, then by all means consider the 70-300. Just remember that 200mm not focused on infinity is not really 200mm on the 18-200.

When I acquired my 35mm 1.8 I figured this would be my indoor lens. Much to my suprise, it was too long for most indoor shots. Don't get me wrong, I believe it is the sharpest knife I have in my drawer. But, I found myself shooting indoors with my Sigma 10-20mm more often than not. That is why I recently went for the 16-85. Wide enough and long enough for most of my shots. I think of it as the little sister to the 70-300.

win39 said:

What focal lengths do you use the most? If you are like me and most people I think the 16-85 will cover more than 90 percent of your shots. For my travel outfit I am very happy with that and the 55-200. Better quality than my 18-200, noticeably. I find I seldom have the need to switch from the 16-85. I really doubt you will ever need the 300mm focal length and you will tend to avoid it because it is a little softer fully extended. So why carry it? IF your inventory of EXIF info for your images show a big percentage of 200mm shots, then by all means consider the 70-300. Just remember that 200mm not focused on infinity is not really 200mm on the 18-200.

Click to expand...

--

Nikon D60, D90, SB-400, SB-800, Nikkor: 16-85mm, 60mm Macro, 70-300mm, 50mm 1.8, 18-55, 55-200, 35mm 1.8, Sigma 10-20mm, Lensbaby2