Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
Upgrade 18-55 vr to 16-85 or 18-105
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="kirbfucius" data-source="post: 152408" data-attributes="member: 14121"><p>I honestly don't think I'd buy either of those if I still had my 18-55 VR. The 18-55 is a pretty great lens. If it wasn't offered as a kit, it'd probably sell for not much less than the 16-85. You could save a four hundred dollars by picking up a 55-200 and get much more zoom and just as high quality shots.</p><p></p><p>I don't like the 16-85 because it doesn't replace anything and I feel I don't get $600 worth of improvement in image quality or convenience. It doesn't get wide enough to be wide-angle, and it doesn't have enough reach to replace a tele lens. For the price, I'd much rather get an 18-200mm. I may be biased though because that's exactly what I did. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Edit: Ken Rockwell actually did a shootout between the 16-85 and the 18-200. <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm-vs-18-200mm.htm" target="_blank">Nikon 16-85mm VR vs. 18-200mm VR</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="kirbfucius, post: 152408, member: 14121"] I honestly don't think I'd buy either of those if I still had my 18-55 VR. The 18-55 is a pretty great lens. If it wasn't offered as a kit, it'd probably sell for not much less than the 16-85. You could save a four hundred dollars by picking up a 55-200 and get much more zoom and just as high quality shots. I don't like the 16-85 because it doesn't replace anything and I feel I don't get $600 worth of improvement in image quality or convenience. It doesn't get wide enough to be wide-angle, and it doesn't have enough reach to replace a tele lens. For the price, I'd much rather get an 18-200mm. I may be biased though because that's exactly what I did. :) Edit: Ken Rockwell actually did a shootout between the 16-85 and the 18-200. [URL="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm-vs-18-200mm.htm"]Nikon 16-85mm VR vs. 18-200mm VR[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
Upgrade 18-55 vr to 16-85 or 18-105
Top