exact.
the next step would be the 17-55 2.8 but it's another story (2x expensive, 1.5x heavier, lot of metal, BIG, lovely) :-)

Girardian said:
Being somewhat ignorant as to the differences between lenses, why would an 16-85 with the same aperture as my current lens do a better job than the same speed lens in 18-200?

Are the optics in the 16-85 markedly better than the optics in my current kit lens?

Because at the wide end (and only at the wide end) it is sharper in the corners than the 18-55. An improvement _I_ don't think makes it worthy of the money, BUT, if it is corner sharpness you want @ wide angles there isn't much option. (Someone else will need to speak to distortion differences.)

I also don't find much of a difference between 16 and 18 insofar as FoV, but others do appreciate that extra 2mm. Again, I would go all out and put the 16-85's money towards a DX ultrawide.

If the 18-55 VR had a higher resale value it might change my thinking on this front, but since you can't get squat for it, it's harder to justify if you're on a limited budget.

Being somewhat ignorant as to the differences between lenses, why would an 16-85 with the same aperture as my current lens do a better job than the same speed lens in 18-200?

Are the optics in the 16-85 markedly better than the optics in my current kit lens?

if You don't like the 18-55vr than go for something better as 18-200 will not do much better than your current lens, go for 16-85/3.5-5.6 it will make a better job

alphanikonrex said:
LOL, you guys go looking at the MTF charts while I just read KR:

This is exactly why I doubt you alpha :^)

jonnyapple said:
Sorry I doubted you, alpha.

Nevermind :^)

LOL, you guys go looking at the MTF charts while I just read KR:

Ken Rockwell said:
This new Nikon 18-200mm VR II is the same as the old 18-200mm VR, with the addition of a zoom lock at 18mm. Otherwise, it is identical ad you can read everything in great depth at my Nikon 18-200mm VR Review.

I've seen the D90 with an 18-200 VR lens in the kit.

Thanks for the info. Sorry I doubted you, alpha.

@ heartyfisher:
Claimed coatings are the same.
@jonnyapple:
Published MTF charts are the same - same optics.
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_18-200mmf_35-56g_ed_vr2/index.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/archives/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_vr_zoom18-200mmf_35-56g_if/index.htm

I think it also has a new coating. otherwise its the same lens. The VR is the same. the "II" only means its the second version of the lens. the original also had VR2. I use a silicone rubber band as my "Zoom lock" :-)

The "new" 18-200 is the same lens, same optics and VR system. The label is a different color and the new lens has a lock to keep the barrel from dropping when you hold the camera lens-down.

A good sample of the 18-200 is very sharp all the way to 200mm. I've seen two copies that were just about tack sharp at 200mm, and two that weren't. On any DX camera the 18-200 is still hard to beat for a all-around lens. But if you own a D700, D3, D3s or D3x, the Tamron 28-300 VC is better in every way save the slower AF system. On a D300s, the AF is passable, but you lose the wide end. On a D90 or lower AF is too slow on the Tamron.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

I think they did change tho optics. Am I wrong? I wasn't impressed with the 18-200 version 1 (I only used it one day, though). I'd consider that D90 kit lens (the 18-105 VR). It's a bargain for the image quality you get.

All it has is a zoom lock to prevent lens creep I think.

Everything else is the same, optics, VR, etc.

I am not impressed with the inexpensive 18-55 VR. In looking at better glass, I'm curious about the benefits of the VR II over the original VR.

There's a rebate on the 18-200 VR II right now, but it's substantially more expensive than the regular VR lens if purchased in a kit with a D90 body.