Advice on Nikon 18-55mm vr and Nikon 16-85vr lenses

[dvsktten]

I have a Nikon D90 and currently own Nikon 18-55mm and 55-200mm vr lenses. I rented a few lenses to try out this week, the Nikon 16-85mm vr, Nikon 70-300mm, and Tamron 90mm. I haven't received the tamron, but tested out the 16-85mm against the lenses I already own. Is it me, but I don't see a huge difference between the quality of photos from my lenses and the 16-85mm which is a lot more expensive? I also can't justify the price when it's only goes down to f/3.5 apt. They should have at least made it a f/2.8! I also don't see a huge difference between 16mm to 18mm at the wide end. With the 70-300, I noticed that it takes the a bit to focus at the long end (300). Is this normal for telephoto? I'm really looking for the best travel lens, along with a macro. I was also looking at the 18-105 vr, since it's a big longer, lighter, and less expensive. Weight, quality of photos, and price (in that order) are my priorities. Any input would help. Thanks! :mrgreen:

 

[KmH]

The 18-55 mm kit lens is pretty good when used properly.

Obviously the 70-300 has a much longer zoom range, so yes it will take a tad longer to focus. The focus mode, area, focus point used, amount of light, and priority you have the D90 set to will also have an effect of focusing speed.

If they had made the 16-85 mm a f/2.8 instead of a f/3.5, it would cost even more.

The fact is one lens cannot do it all, unless you are willing to accept some lens performance compromises.

The most popular Nikon travel lens is the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR II Nikkor Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon DX-Format Digital SLR Cameras, but it has some performance issues because of the 11x+ zoom range that cannot be designed out and keep the lens price as lower as it is.

Many also use the 18-105 for travel.

Here is another possibility: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/buy-sell/243848-fs-nikon-af-24-85-mm-f-2-8-4d-if-w-1-2-macro.html

 

[itf]

The 17-55mm Nikon is a f/2.8. That's why it costs so much more than the 16-85. I heard that the 16-85 and 18-105 perform pretty equal. You're just paying more for VRII, M/A mode, and the 2mm wider.