18-105 vs 18-200 vs 16-85

[cedricb]

I'm coing a lot of hiking, snowshoeing and related activities and I'm finding my 18-55 and 55-300 combo, on my D90, kind of restrictive as I always need to change between the lenses. I'm looking at the following three lenses:

- 18-105 VR: Used, $250
- 18-200 VR (not VR II): Used, $480
- 16-85 VR: New, $680 + 13% tax

I'm not sure which one is the best for my kind of use but I was leaning towards the 18-200 based on the fact that it looks a bit more rugged.

What's your take on this?

 

[TheFantasticG]

If you are looking for one do-it-all, the 18-200 VR is what you need. But it ain't going to be great. The 16-85VR and 70-300VR is a great DX travel combo. The best, infact.

 

[KmH]

Another solution to changing lenses is having a second body.

 

[cedricb]

But it ain't going to be great.

What do you mean?

Another solution to changing lenses is having a second body.

I should have mentioned that weight is an issue. A second body would not be an option since I'm already carrying a lot of non photographic gear.

 

[mnhoj]

I think what G is talking about is that the 18-200 sacrifices quality for convenience.

I've owned the 18-200 and agree that a combo is better for me, but for your active life style the 18-200 sounds perfect.

 

[shooterntiff]

Thinking about versatility between wide angle and zoom. Is it better to get a super wide angle lens or would it be better to get a 18-200? I shoot with a Nikon D90, but I find that my 18-105 just doesn't have the zoom capacity I want and my 55-300 doesn't have the wide angle I need sometimes. I find myself changing lens often, and sometimes it's just not practical, say if I'm shooting and I need to be quick. I can't afford a second body....yet, and that is my goal, actually my goal is a D3 or D3s then I could carry a wide angle on one and zoom on the other. Also, there a "quality" difference in the product results when you start adding varying degrees of zoom?

 

[TheFantasticG]

I think what G is talking about is that the 18-200 sacrifices quality for convenience.

That is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[cedricb]

That is exactly what I'm talking about.

But by how much, compared to the 18-105, 16-85 or even 18-55. Sure it's probably much worse compared to the 24-70 but then again, it's not the same category.