Nikon 16/85 0r 18/200 ...which to buy

Yardbent

Yardbent

Messages
7,771
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
.
nothing but praise for my Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4.5 [but non VR]
planned to add the 55-200 VR @ £135 = total outlay

however the Nikon 16-85 VR is ...£400 new
plus the 55-200 VR @ £135 = £535

yet every review raves over the 18-200 VR at £550

1...keep the Sigma ..add 55-200

2...sell Sigma, buy 16-85 + 55-200

3...sell Sigma, buy 18-200

what the better 18-200...the V1 or the V2

so which is better combination ..? for landscapes and walkabout
thanks .......:thumbs:
 
Last edited:
It's a toughie right enough, but I've always maintained the 16-85mm is way overpriced for what will effectively be a F4.5-8.0 by the time you screw it down a stop to get decent image quality - def not what I'd be shelling out £400 for. Shallow DOF? Forget it... just add the 55-200mm and be done with it, at least that has an excuse for having a slower aperture... focal length and price.
 
.
should have put money on that you would be first to answer about the Sigma ...:lol::lol:

thanks for advise...........do like the Sigma too...!
 
Ha, you know how I feel about the Siggy.... I just don't get losing all that speed for all that extra cash, that's all.... not doubting the Nikon is very good, but surpassing the Sigma enough that you'll see it in your images? I doubt it very much...
 
Yardbent said:
.


yet every review raves over the 18-200 VR at £550
Click to expand...


It's nothing special, you're paying for the convenience of not having to change lenses, I doubt you'd notice much difference between that and a 55-200 VR, except your wallet would be a fair bit lighter...
 
thank you both

a refreshing change against the usual internet advice of always recommending the "pro" f2.8 zoom lenses......:lol:

prob keep the Sigma and add a 55-200 VR then.....:thumbs:
 
Why not look at adding the older Sigma 10-20 and the 55-200?
 
I'd certainly keep your Sigma. Not a fan of 'superzooms' although I do like anything with constant f2.8:lol:

The 55-200VR is good value especially compared to the 70-300.

Edit: The 70-300 goes for around £300 secondhand. Might be worth a look
 
Last edited:
acs said:
Why not look at adding the older Sigma 10-20 and the 55-200?
Click to expand...

well i took some of Glasgow buildings and [due to my inexperienced ] all the building verticals "fell" into the centre
i was told how to correct this - but I'm rubbish at pp so i reckon 10-20 will make it even worse.....?
 
Dr_O said:
The 55-200VR is good value especially compared to the 70-300.

Edit: The 70-300 goes for around £300 secondhand. Might be worth a look
Click to expand...

a lad here bought the 55-200 VR recently from kerso for circa £135 - brilliant

I tried the 70-300 VR on a D90 at Currys
i have Dupuytren's contracture [getting worse in right hand], and found the 70-300 just too heavy to hold steady

thanks
 
Yardbent said:
i reckon 10-20 will make it even worse.....?
Click to expand...

You soon get used to it.

If you don't want anything wider the suggestion of a 70-300VR is a good one.
 
Yardbent said:
...found the 70-300 just too heavy to hold steady
Click to expand...

The only thing I don't like about the 55-200VR is the rotating front -- otherwise you'll pay a lot to get anything better.
 
Yardbent said:
what - buildings falling in, or my rubbish pp skills....:shrug:.....:D
Click to expand...

:lol:

wide lenses -- keeping things straight and getting close in.
 
John, seriously there is nothing between the vr1 and vr2 18-200 lenses. The focus lock just stops the lens sliding out to 200 when you look downwards and the vr2 over vr1 makes naff all difference. The 18-200 is a decent enough lens but it is a compromise and will never be as good as the smaller zooming lenses. I loved mine and used is plenty, it has now been passed on to Mrs C.

If I were to be buying again I would probably get the Sigma f2.8 lenses over the same range. f5.6 is quite high :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top