Which travel lens: 16-85 or 18-200 – please, advise!

Hi Vesselin,

You will likely get a 50/50 split from everyone answering this post!

I had the 18-200mm for a short while and sold it as the image quality just wasn't quite good enough. It wasn't by any means bad, it was alright on the whole, it just wasn't great. I did play with my brother's 16-85mm on my D300 and thought it was outstanding - as good as my 17-55mm and with a more useful zoom range too. In my experience the zoom range that the 16-85mm offers covers 90% of what I do and for a general purpose lens that is great. The 18-200mm, at least my one, was at its weakest at the long end and I would have avoided using it zoomed out there anyway.

On my honeymoon (Polynesia, Chile and Easter Island - still paying that one off!) I had a Canon 5D with the 24-105mm for normal use and found that perfect. I did also have case full of Hasselblad gear with me that was used specifically for Easter Island but for all the other photography I did - landscapes mostly - the 24-105 was all I needed.

Are you taking a tripod? It would be worth it if your wife allows it. Take a set of graduated neutral density filters too.

Have fun,

James

My suggestion would not be a technical one: instead, look at lots of travel pictures (e.g. some of the National Geographic books) & ask "which ones would I like to have as either a good reminder of my honeymoon or as stunning images that will satisfy me as a photographer". If a lot of them are close-in, dynamic, shots with lots going on in the foreground, or wide-open-spaces with huge skies then go for the 16-85; if on the other hand they are rather more distant, long-range images then the 18-200 may suit you better.

If they are in the middle you will probably be OK with either!

I have both, and the technical answer is of course "it all depends". Overall, the 16-85 seems to me to have better image quality than the 18-200, especially at or near full aperture. It also feels better built than my version of the 18-200, although I understand that these have improved recently - mine was an early model. The VR works very well on both.

The reason I prefer the 16-85 and end up using it much more is simply that it offers a little bit of extra wide-angle that makes a difference for me: I find it better for interiors and fairly close-in street or urban landscape photography. If you are more interested in picking out details, or the occasional wildlife shot, then the 18-200 might be better.

The only other point I'd make on the technical side is that with a D300 and the image quality of the 16-85 you do have some room for cropping to the equivalent of a longer lens and still being able to print to up to A3, which would give you some additional reach (although maybe not the full 200mm). The 18-200 can be quite soft at the longer end, making the difference less noticeable.

The tripod advice is good, but if you can't a beanbag is very useful and easy to carry around. You can usually find a convenient wall/table/passing small child or large dog to perch it on for self-timer shots of you & your wife, too.

H

As others have mentioned, you will find a host of opinions here. I have traveled with the 18-200 on my D300 and have been very pleased with it's range, convenience and quality. I don't think you'll really find yourself obsessing about apertures or whether you have zoomed out close to 200. After all, you will be enjoying your honeymoon:-)! Seriously, you can produce very nice sharp images with the 18-200 VR. I would recommend that you take a look at Matt Laur's travel shots from Italy with the 18-200 and read his comments on this lens in his forum posts.

I think if you want a one-lens travel solution, the 18-200 is the easy choice. I'd rather not miss the 85-200 range than the 16-18 range for almost the same price. I shot a LOT above 85mm on my trip to Alaska two years ago, which is what I bought it for.

At the long end the 18-200 suffers a bit wide-open, but wider than say 80mm I don't find that it really does, although I do try and shoot in the sweet spot of f8 - f13 as much as I can.

Check out Thom Hogan's excellent review.

http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm

If you are keeping score I am in the 18-200 group but for you, I think the answer is simple........ If you are happy with the 16-85mm range, that's the lens for you. If you need something longer, the 18-200 will serve you well. It really just depends on whether you need the greater reach. In either case, VR is simply wonderful.

Hey Peter, I have read the Thom Hogan's review, but here http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm he says:

'Well, the 18-200mm isn't really 200mm at most focus distances you'd use it at, so it doesn't give you near as much reach as you think, and that extra 2mm at the wide end of the 16-85mm is very useful in travel circles. The 16-85mm is a better lens optically, too. Indeed, I'd take it almost any day over the 18-200mm.'

So this just confuses me additonally.

Vesselin, thats really weird, it seems to me that it would be almost 300mm with the D300.

You are going to want to shoot landscapes, and with the D300's DX 1.5x image sensor, you need W I D E. Without a tripod also, the 300mm DX length of the 18-200 is almost too long. You will have this lens when you get back too, the 16-85 is better quality.

Take those split ND filters, they will save your life with the bright skys of Australia.

It depends on the compromise you want. I do not own any of these lenses but for a travel lens, the 18-200 would be the natural choice for many.The downside however, would be theorically, image quality as the biggest the difference between the "edges" focal lengths, the harder is to built a good lens. But again, for travelling purposes, who cares ? Well I care. On www.slrgear.com, and www.photozone.de, the reviews are much more in favour of the 16-85 than on the 18-200. Read all about it. Cheers

Personally, if I were buying a lens for long term use I would buy it based on my general photographic interests and not the vacation I was taking because I think either one of these lenses will be great for your trip. What sort of photography do you like, aside from your vacation?

I chose the 18-200 over the 16-85 for a couple of reasons. I love wide angle photography but I own a dedicated 12-24 which is FAR better for wide angle shots than either of these so the difference between 16mm and 18mm was minimal to me. I also love macro work and need more control over depth of field. The slow aperture of these lenses makes that tough, but the longer focal lengths of the 18-200 helps.

My other thought is that if you plan on going to see shows or events, 200mm might get you pictures you couldn't get otherwise. Rarely do I feel that there are pictures I can't take at 18mm that I could take at 16mm, but that's personal preference.

I would NOT be worried about the relative quality of these lenses. They are both excellent lenses and capable of excellent results.

Again, I would pick my lens based on what I wanted to shoot long term and not based on the relative optical quality of these lenses.