Nikon 18-55mm vs 16-85mm help
 

My friend asked me is the 16-85mm better than his kit 18-55mm? He's updated from his D60 to a D90 body only and he was after an upgrade.

I've been reading mixed views from people saying its just the same as the 18-55mm and its just got that extra focal length. Then I've read that people are saying its very sharp and better than the 18-55mm in all areas.

I've found out the 16-85mm is better constructed with a metal body and a weather seal. Also its sharpness is closely constant throughout its focal range over the 18-200mm, which is the more popular due to its focal length for the little extra price. But is it optically better than the 18-55mm?

I could recommend him the 17-55mm which I've got, but he hasn't got that money to spend

Can anyone help?

In short, the only negative aspect of the 18-55mm kit lens is the limitations of the focal length, especially if this is the only lens he possesses.

The 16-85mm VR is better in the sense that it would give him more width but the 85mm is still lacking in the telephoto department. If he's into landscape photography, then this isn't really going to be an issue and 85mm is a still decent portrait length. If he's looking to get into wildlife photography, airshows or things of that nature, then its not going to be particularly suitable.

The 18-200mm VR, as you mention, is a very popular general purpose lens because of the focal range it covers but again, it doesn't come cheap at £550 for the new VRII. Although it would be nice to have an all-in-one lens like the 18-200mm VR, I'd be tempted to keep the 18-55mm and use it for landscape and close portraits and just get a 70-300mm VR, which is a highly regarded lens and has the extra 100mm pulling power.

Without knowing exactly what type of photography your friend does or is looking to do, its impossible to give a good alternative suggestion though.

He mainly does landscapes and he's got the 18-55mm + 55-200mm, both are VR I believe.

Hi again,

If he mainly does landscapes then personally, I would think the 16-85mm would be the most logical choice of lens over the 18-200mm VR. Otherwise he is essentially just combining what he has currently, into one lens. Don't get me wrong, its nice to have that but, the 18-200mm isn't going to offer him any improvement in IQ or field of view over what he is already using. Is paying £550 worth it, just not to change lenses?

Then again, if he is primarily into landscapes then he might want to consider a Sigma 10-20mm or Tokina 11-16mm. The Nikkor superwide angles would be way out of his price range.

I'd avoid the 18-200mm if you're worried about image quality.

Landscape wise, I'd also suggest that you suggest he increases his wideangle range with something like the Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 11-16. It's a more sensible long term prospect...

Thanks guys, I've past on your recommendations

Update: Another thing he asks is that, does it really matter about having a hyperfocal scale on a lens?

I've only just started using mine, so I can't really answer it.