A good vacation lens

Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
1,509
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
I took a nice vacation down to Houston and brought my 12-24, 50, and 70-200 and found that it was WAY too strenuous on my back than I would have liked. For casual vacations with friends, I want to get a light, sharp, zoom. I don't have enough of a budget to get a 70-300mm VR AND a 16-85mm, although that would be ideal. My question is, for simplicity (1 lens!), it's between the 16-85 alone and the 18-200mm. For you casual vacation goers, do you use wide or telephoto more?

Which would you recommend if you had the money, the 16-85, or the 18-200? I've been torn between this decision for days and have been going back and forth; I seem to be getting nowhere. And with MS's cashback, I might as well get one now for cheap. Thanks!
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
3,717
Location
Vienna, Virginia (Washington DC Suburbs), USA
My DX vacation kit was the 16-85, 70-300 and 60mm micro. It was a superb vacation kit! I do not shoot tele much, especially on family vacation, but it was nice to have the 70-300. I highly recommend the 16-85. It is VERY sharp wide open and the VR works well. The zoom length worked really well for me. If however, you shoot tele more, the 18-200 would be a great choice. Nt sure what kind of vacations you take so hard to recommend one over the other.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
301
Location
Bay Area, California
I currently own the 18-200 and am looking at going to the 16-85. The 18-200 just doesn't do it on my D300. There isn't the "pop" that I like. The 200 end isn't as sharp as I would like and therefore have added a Sigma 150. I'm looking at going to the 16-85 w/ Sigma 150 for the times I need just a little more reach.
 
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
4,638
Location
Orlando, FL
I guess the one lens solution is the 18-200, but I didn't find mine to be particularly sharp and the f/5.6 aperture at the long end was limiting. So I work on strengthening my back and carry the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 . . . . :eek:
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
13,855
Location
Massachusetts
If you're just shooting casually and don't really need reach: 28-105. It's sharp, light weight, and has a macro setting (which also allows for getting close to larger things....see today's 366 shot :tongue: ).
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
1,509
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Rich, you said your vacation lens was? What is it now?

Yes I want a one lens solution, although I don't think I will use the 100-200mm too often. Is the 18-200 and the 16-85 IQ apparent, to those who owned both? I know the 16-85mm seemed to have more contrast.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
1,509
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
I'll look into the 28-105, Gretchen. Thanks for bringing it up. A macro would certainly be advantageous because I was thinking of buying a 500D as well.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
6,530
Location
Rockville, MD
I use the Nikon 18-135. Wide enough and great range. I tend to use wide more than tele on vacation though, and like to do a lot of night or available light shooting, so the 18-55VR I picked up awhile ago will probably start to see a lot more use. Already used it once and it's a great little lens for sure! Very sharp and sharp 1/5s shots at 55mm.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
2,116
Location
Canada
For landscape pictures, I really appreciate having 16mm angle. For people and animal pictures, the 200mm will have the edge.

If you don't think you will miss the 100+mm range, I would go with the 16-85vr. I have the 18-200vr and have been quite pleased with it. For vacation shots, I think the wide side is more important that the long end so I would favor the 16-85vr for travels. For all round use, I think I would prefer the 18-200vr.

If you get a good copy, the 16-85vr is said to be sharper wide open than the 18-200vr.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
1,509
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
Yeah Photozone said for sharpness, there's no need to stop down, just use it wide open! Pretty convenient, I think. I think I'm springing for the 16-85,but I have one more question: Does it have a more pleasant bokeh than the 18-200?
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom