# Nikon 16-85 vs. 18-200



## basserdan (Apr 21, 2008)

For anybody with enough experience between the Nikons 16-85mm vr and 18-200mm vr to make the call, which do you prefer? I know, I know, they are two different lenses with different capabilities and thus different expectations. But maybe the pros and cons between the two, in your opinion, leave you with one clear preference. Really, if your lense budget would allow for both, you probably would not buy both, possibly neither. What do ya think?


----------



## passerby (Apr 21, 2008)

basserdan said:


> For anybody with enough experience between the Nikons 16-85mm vr and 18-200mm vr to make the call, which do you prefer?


 
I think it is very early to encounter someone who has both lenses at this time except for those professional reviewers. I have came across a guy on the net who claimed in owning the 18-200mm vr and the 18-70mm.

Anyway. Without experiencing any of them I think I would choose the 18-200 vr. They almost cost the same but, yeah but from 85mm to 200mm is really long walk uphill. I am talking about versatile walk around lens here, not for the pixel peepers.


----------



## notelliot (Apr 22, 2008)

don't buy either. buy a used 85/1.8 and the 18-70.


----------



## shivaswrath (Apr 23, 2008)

i have heard the 16-85 performs a little better esp with the VR2


----------



## dEARlEADER (Apr 23, 2008)

You should mention what your style is...... what is it you like to shoot?

If ur planning on shooting beyond 85mm then the 18 - 200 wins...


----------



## Socrates (Apr 23, 2008)

shivaswrath said:


> i have heard the 16-85 performs a little better esp with the VR2


The 18-200 is also VR2.


----------



## JIP (Apr 23, 2008)

I guess it depends on what is important to you.  If you are looking for image quality go for the 16-85 if you are looking for convenience at the expense of image quality by all means go for the 18-200.


Could you have predicted this answer Soc???


----------



## keith204 (Apr 23, 2008)

I'd buy neither, and look into a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and possibly a decent tele.  17-50 is really a good walkaround range.


----------



## AlexColeman (Dec 19, 2008)

Well, I have heard rumors that the 16-85 doesn't perform as well as the 200, at focal lengths such as 115 and 170...just pointing out.


----------



## reg (Dec 19, 2008)

Well, I have heard rumors that this thread has been dead since April.... just pointing out.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 21, 2008)

:er:


----------

