Actually, I was pleased with the Nikkor 18-200, has noted the other day that not all photos were crisp sharp.
After extensive studies, I bought the Nikkor VR 16-85mm, and made a direct comparison with the Nikkor VR 18-200mm.
I have a brick building photographed at the same focal lengths and the same lighting with two lenses - in which each lens once with automatic exposure and even dimmed for maximum sharpness. The I noticed this:
1. In general, tends to overexpose the 18-200, an exposure correction of -0.3 to -0.7 is often necessary. The 16-85 I have not correct in the exposure to rare.
2. In general, the difference between 16mm and 18mm low, but sometimes lacking in the 18mm accordingly necessary further step back. Since the 16-85 at 16mm quite neat distorted, subsequent correction is necessary.
3. In general, I noticed that the 16-85mm to the edge region falls less in the focus than the 18-200mm. In some focal lengths makes it significantly noticeable.
4. Details of automatics:
18mm: the sharpness is comparable for both, the CA (Chromatic Aberration) appears at 18-200 higher
24mm: the sharpness is the 16-85mm a tick better, in the border area, the CA 18-200 is greater veom
35mm: the 16-85mm is here in the center significantly sharper and more defined than the 18-200mm, which also applies to the border area but is less clear
50mm:. Both lenses almost equal regarding sharpness, the contrast is much better at 16-85mm, applies to the image center and the edge region
70mm: significantly more sharpness and contrast at the 16-85mm 18-200mm, 16-85mm, however seems to have more CA
85mm: the 16-85mm is sharp hammer !!
CONCLUSION 1: the 16-85mm focal length is in some far superior in sharpness and contrast, at the other focal length at least as good as the 18-200mm. Only the CA with 16-85mm seems sometimes higher.
5. Details dimmed
85mm: the 18-200 VR draws here at least equal, even a little past as far as the contrast
70mm: I can not tell the difference
50mm: the 16-85mm has more sharpness and contrast, especially in the border area
35mm: the 18-200 VR säuft here literally in sharpness and contrast from the 16-85mm is good
24mm: hardly any differences, the 16-85mm has less CA
18mm: the 16-85mm has a tick more sharpness and contrast
CONCLUSION 2: Although the 18-200mm can catch up considerably when stopping, the 16-85mm is superior seen overall. When 16-85mm I have found a visible gain in sharpness and contrast only at 50mm.
Overall conclusion: The 16-85mm is superior to the comparable 18-200mm focal range in sharpness and contrast mostly. The 2mm longer in wide angle are nice, but not essential. Especially in the area 50mm 16-85mm is crisp sharp. I have not regretted the purchase, but forgive only 4 stars because I expected less CA at the edges. For sharpness and contrast but 5 star.
