Oh it does NSX, it does....
*Niko lights a cigarette and slowly moves back into the shadows*
WHICH LENS IS SHARPER/BETTER: AF-S DX 16-85mm VR or AF-S DX 18-200mm VR Lens
(57 posts) (17 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
I am not quite sure what this has to do with "WHICH LENS IS SHARPER/BETTER: AF-S DX 16-85mm VR or AF-S DX 18-200mm VR Lens".
Posted 3 years ago # -
Sorry to hijack your thread Henry. We're just having a little fun, but I think we've all pretty much given you all you need to know about the two lenses. And since you've already bought the 18-200 I think it's up to you now to tell us how sharp and good it is :^)
Do you have any pictures to show us yet?
Posted 3 years ago # -
I have the 16-85mm and the 70-300mm VR. Both are great lenses! I get incredible shots with both of them. Coverage is great on my DX D90. Forget the 18-200mm. It has bad lens creep and distortion. Think about it if it was a great lens it would be all the rage out there as far as the range. But it's not.
I plan to add a 50mm 1.4 and maybe a 85 1.4 when I win the lottery.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Given the assortment you have in your post of 1 month ago, I can't understand why you are considering the 16-85. I love that lens; very sharp, moderate distortion, BUT it gives you very little beyond the 18-200 unless you shoot interiors or urban spaces a lot and need the additional wide angle, which IS significant - about 20% more area in the image. If you eventually plan to extend your lens collection with a wide zoom, you don't need the 16-85.
If you shoot people indoors without flash, you will find significant advantage to add the 17-55 to your collection. The 35 has a very narrow field of view for shooting indoors, and the 17-55 will give you groups to nice portraits. I use the 16-85 outdoors all the time, but for interior shots when there are moving objects in the frame, I switch to the 17-55 to give me faster shutter speeds. I have the D200, so I don't get as good performance at high ISO as you do, so you get a free shutter speed from your camera. The 17-55 is exceptionally sharp and has only moderate distortion.
But your real gap is in the wide range, where the 12-24 or the 10-24 would significantly expand your options for interiors and urban spaces.
Posted 3 years ago # -
PatMann,
I think that you might be right. I have actually delayed purchasing any new glass and evaluating my situation furhter.
To recap, I have the following:
Nikon AF-S DX 35mm
Nikon AF-S DX 18-200mm VR
Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VRBased on this I currently agree with you that my problem is the wide end and the AF-S DX 16-85mm VR just is not wide enough and the AF-S DX 17-55mm lens is also not much wider and the cost is pretty high though it is a great lens.
I am waiting to see what Nikon announces next week, but I do not expect to much for me. I will wait and see anyway since it is so close.
What I will more than likely do is purchase the Nikon AF-S DX 10-24mm lens to comlete my kit for now.
Thanks to PatMann all others.
Posted 3 years ago # -
My two cents on this will appear negative. I had the 18-200 and, no matter how hard I tried, it was soft in the focus, especially at the long end. I sent it back to Nikon and they did what they do and sent it back with a perfect bill of health. I tried it again and it was still soft. When I was able to buy some other lenses, later, like the 105 2.8, 300 f/4, and so on, I realized that as wonderful as Ken Rockwell said it was (and his column sold me on it), this range is apparently just too much of a stretch for a lens to have tack sharp images. Since that time I have seen many other reviews of teh 18-200 with a similar opionion AND I no longer believe everything I read that Ken Rockwell writes. That shows you how gullible I was.<G>
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
