I've owned a 18-200 lens for three years now, and it has served me for the most part very well. However, it has always been a bit soft on anything more than about 135mm, and the edges at wider angles is a bit fuzzy too.
Now, I've read some very good things about the 16-85 lens, especially in terms of its sharpness, which for me is most critical. I'm willing to sacrifice a longer range for clarity.
So, does anyone out there in TB land have experience with both these lenses and can provide a comparison?
Reply to this For those who are interested in this question, I now have the answer after doing a side-by-side comparison with a 16-85 lens owned by a friend.
At 18mm, both lenses were poor at f4, but much better in sharpness at f.5.6, f.8 and f11 both in the middle and on the edge of the image. Clarity was the same for both with possibly the 16-85 only slightly ahead. The distortion on the 18-200 was significant when compared to the 16-85. I found the contrast and colour rendition of the 16-85 a bit odd in one set of photos.
At 24mm and 35mm, again both lenses behaved badly at f4, but the 18-200 was the worst performer at the other stops (f5.6, f18, f11) as it was less sharp on the edges but also had the more noticeable chromatic aberration. The centre of the image was the same in both lenses though.
At 50mm and 70mm, the centre of the 18-200 which had performed so well until that point, looked softer at all apertures when compared to the 16-85. The edges of the photos were much the same, but with the edge going to the 16-85. The chromatic aberration problems on the 18-200 seemed to have disappeared.
Overall, the 16-85 was a definite winner - with the exception of the 18mm setting, the 16-85 was a better lens in every other respect. Shall order mine later today!
Reply to this 
