Reading mode: Light Dark

Yet another 16-85 or 18-200 question

Go to last post
E

Elliotk1

Member
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Long time reader. First time poster.

I have a D40X with the non-VR 18-55 II. I am happy with the IQ of the lens but want to get more reach. I am not worried about the IQ differences between the 16-85 and 18-200. When I analysed my photos, 24% were shot at 55mm and 18% were shot at 18mm. I mainly use my camera for travelling and most of my shots are either of buildings in the city, landscapes (18mm) or something like the attached - no post processing.





As mentioned earlier, I'm not concerned about the difference in IQ but rather would I get more out of having 2mm more at the low or 115mm more at the long end? I don't print larger than 8x10 and usually print 4x6 or view on my computer screen. I'm thinking 16mm would be more useful as I can always crop my images to get "closer" but I can't usually go further back to get wider. Hope this all makes sense.

If you were in my shoes would you get the 18-200 or 16-85?

Thanks, Elliot
 
Based on your description I'd go with the 16-85. The extra 2mm on the wide end will make a difference.

If you really needed a much longer lens, you'd probably have purchased a 55-200 or 70-300 by now.
 
I own them both and could make arguments both ways depending on what people are looking for. But based on YOUR needs, it sounds to me like the 16-85 would be the best choice. In going with the 16-85, you'd save a few dollars and a little weight. Not really deciding factors, but bonuses.

I personally feel that the 16-85 has a hair better IQ, particularly in edge sharpness and clarity. I've chosen it as my travel lens over the 18-200. But I, like you, shoot more at the wide end, and the 16mm is more useful to me more often than the longer end, which can be iffy at times.

Alan
--
http://arclark.smugmug.com/
 
If you are into shooting people at all, kids, portraits, pets, and stuff, then the 18-200 is a MUCH better choice.

Bokeh at 200mm is way better than the 16-85mm at 85mm, and you will generally be able to achieve subject isolation much easier with the 18-200.

But for the needs you just described, it sounds like 16-85 would fit you better. I have both by the way.
 
18-200 or 18-105

If you its indoors then I'd pause to consider the 16-85. But I've started to discover the simplicty and elegance of pano's even a quick and dirty 2x2 pano and combined in PSE yields some pretty nice results.

My 16-85 I though was going to be my main lense, bought that one new when it came out. Picked up a 18-200 and pretty much the 16-85 become my backup lense on backup dX body.
 
Hi,

Like Alan I also own both for the moment, but I went from 16-85 back to 18-200. I've found that I missed long end of 18-200. It takes much fewer steps to get from 18mm to 16mm than from 85mm to 200mm. BTW to crop image from 85mm to 200mm not the same as to have an image originally taken at 200mm. My copy provides quiet sharp images at 200mm at least for me.

This image has been taken from about 60 feet hand held at 1/25 sec. and that cropped some.





This image was taken at about 40 feet and cropped some





But only you can decide what best works for you.
--
Best regards
 
I too have had both. And, I also feel that the 16-85 has better IQ. I sold the 16-85 and got a 17-55 (which is on my D300 all of the time). I still have the 18-200. However, I never (never) have used it since I bought the far superior 17-55. I have always felt that the 18-200 images were soft. If I only had a choice of the 18-200 or the 16-85, I would go with the 16-85.
--
truview
 
It's interesting, but your two photos show my experience with the long end of the 18-200. To me, the gorilla looks soft but the leopard looks sharp. You did mention that the gorilla shot was cropped and it was only exposed at 1/25sec , so that could account for the difference in your examples. But I found that at times I could get pretty sharp telephoto images, and other times I was disappointed. If I could consistently get shots like the leopard, I'd probably still be using the 18-200. The inconsistency in upper half of the focal range contributed to my getting the 16-85. I now have a 70-200VR for the telephotos, except when traveling (in which I just go with the 16-85).

Alan

--
http://arclark.smugmug.com/
 
I've owned both and shot thousands of images with the 18-200. I currently own the 16-85. Since your question is about focal length only, I prefer the 2mm at the wide end. But you have to understand I have an 80-200 when I need more length.

If I didn't have the 80-200 I'd still go with the 16-85 because I just like the extra width. I guess it's just a matter of where you shoot the most.

Best,

Don
 
Hi,

I, like Alan and others, have both. I mainly use them on a D300s, but I have a D40 as a back up and have recently started to use the 16-85VR on it as a light walk around and travel set up. Been very impressed with the results and the convenience. The 16-85 has marginally better IQ and tonality than the 18-200 if one compares closely, but only marginally and under most views conditions most people will not be able to tell the difference. Further, the shooting variables, including camera stability (still matters even with VR), aperture, shutter speed and technique are all likely to influence the quality of the image more than the difference in technical IQ.

For the photographic circumstances you describe, I would opt for the 16-85, but I think you would be happy with either in IQ terms so focal length, weight and cost are likely to be the deciding factors.

Hope that helps.

--
J.

http://jules7.smugmug.com/
 
You will find that 2mm is so insignificant, that you;d be hard pressed to notice it. Besides, you can easily move 2mm by simply rocking your body back 1 degree LOL..

The gain on the high end is much more noticeable.

Now, you SHOULD NOT discount quality so if it matters to you, across the frame corner to corner, pay attention to the rest of the specs and reviews. And by all means, go to Flickr and Pbase and look at A LOT of pictures before deciding..

Cheers!
--
Manny
http://www.pbase.com/gonzalu/
http://www.mannyphoto.com/
FCAS Member - http://fcasmembers.com/
 
ARClark said:
It's interesting, but your two photos show my experience with the long end of the 18-200. To me, the gorilla looks soft but the leopard looks sharp. You did mention that the gorilla shot was cropped and it was only exposed at 1/25sec , so that could account for the difference in your examples. But I found that at times I could get pretty sharp telephoto images, and other times I was disappointed. If I could consistently get shots like the leopard, I'd probably still be using the 18-200. The inconsistency in upper half of the focal range contributed to my getting the 16-85. I now have a 70-200VR for the telephotos, except when traveling (in which I just go with the 16-85).

Alan

--
http://arclark.smugmug.com/
Click to expand...
Hi,

I shouldn't show gorilla picture as an example of sharp picture. Apparently I was not thinking " sharp " :). This image has been taken among very first images taken with this lens and when I discovered that lens is slightly back focusing and needed adjustment of -3 throughout entire range. Here is another image at 200 mm





And this is a 100% crop from a picture taken at 200mm with my first 18-200 MkI



--
Best regards
 
Thanks everyone for the responses.

It would be great if others could provide their opinion on, "2mm is so insignificant, that you;d be hard pressed to notice it", as posted by gonzalu. Is that true even for landscapes?

Thanks, Elliot
 
Elliotk1 said:
Thanks everyone for the responses.

It would be great if others could provide their opinion on, "2mm is so insignificant, that you;d be hard pressed to notice it", as posted by gonzalu. Is that true even for landscapes?

Thanks, Elliot
Click to expand...
Hi,

At 50 feet distance you can fit roughly 65.4 feet horizontally at 18mm and 74' at 16mm. To fit 74' at 18mm you have to step back about 6 feet. Think how much it'll take you to get from 85mm to 200mm.
--
Best regards
 
Good point. In response, though, I like the extra 2 mm offered by the 16-85 in situations where I'd prefer an 11mm and don't have it. Places like a scenic overlook, a room, a cathedral, a tight city street - places where you can't step back any more and you don't have a wider lens. But that's really dictated by shooting style and preference.

I do see the distinct advantage of the 18-200 in situations like the zoo, or any other number of places where you can't get as close as you'd like. For people that tend to shoot longer focal lengths, and want the all-in-one package from wide angle to telephoto, the 18-200 is the way to go. By the way, your 100% crop of the man, above, is very impressive.

Alan

--
http://arclark.smugmug.com/
 
ARClark said:
Good point. In response, though, I like the extra 2 mm offered by the 16-85 in situations where I'd prefer an 11mm and don't have it. Places like a scenic overlook, a room, a cathedral, a tight city street - places where you can't step back any more and you don't have a wider lens. But that's really dictated by shooting style and preference.

I do see the distinct advantage of the 18-200 in situations like the zoo, or any other number of places where you can't get as close as you'd like. For people that tend to shoot longer focal lengths, and want the all-in-one package from wide angle to telephoto, the 18-200 is the way to go. By the way, your 100% crop of the man, above, is very impressive.

Alan

--
http://arclark.smugmug.com/
Click to expand...
Hi,

Thank you for good word. You are exactly right, it all boils down to style and preferences. For WA I have Tokina 12-24. If I find myself in the situation when 18mm is not enough and I badly need wider, I just take two pictures and stitch them, especially with difference between 16mm and 18mm.
--
Best regards
 
Thanks again for the responses! Most helpful. I have eliminated the 16-85 as a choice. I know the "should I get the 18-105 or 18-200?" has been discussed many times, so I won't ask that question. However, is there a way to quantify the difference in reach (how much closer I can get) between the 18-55, the 18-105 and the 18-200?

Thanks, Elliot
 
Elliotk1 said:
Thanks again for the responses! Most helpful. I have eliminated the 16-85 as a choice. I know the "should I get the 18-105 or 18-200?" has been discussed many times, so I won't ask that question. However, is there a way to quantify the difference in reach (how much closer I can get) between the 18-55, the 18-105 and the 18-200?

Thanks, Elliot
Click to expand...
Hi,

If you frame a subject with 200mm at 50 feet, you have to be at 26 feet with 105mm and at 14 feet with 55.
--
Best regards
 
Sagittarius said:
Elliotk1 said:
Thanks again for the responses! Most helpful. I have eliminated the 16-85 as a choice. I know the "should I get the 18-105 or 18-200?" has been discussed many times, so I won't ask that question. However, is there a way to quantify the difference in reach (how much closer I can get) between the 18-55, the 18-105 and the 18-200?

Thanks, Elliot
Click to expand...
Hi,

If you frame a subject with 200mm at 50 feet, you have to be at 26 feet with 105mm and at 14 feet with 55.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the help.

Found this in another recent post
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/simulator/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top