Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Nikon 18-70 3.5-4.5 or Nikon 18-105 3.5-5.6

Wacky Jackson

Wacky Jackson

macrumors member
Original poster
Feb 6, 2010
77
0
California
Any recommendations... Which lens is optically better? This is going to replace the 18-55 that I am selling with my camera. I am looking for just a little more reach over the 18-55. And I can get the 18-70 for around 210 and the 18-105 for around 230 (Both used). Thanks...
 
flosseR said:
hands down the 18-70. Its not as long as the 18-105 but its optically excellent.Hands down the best kit lens that Nikon ever made.
Click to expand...

Good to hear you saying that. People can get soooo snooty about so-called 'kit' lenses, when, often as not, the fault is with the photographer, not the lens. I use the 18-70 lens most days of the year, and find it's perfectly fine for my line of business (landscapes & location pix for publication). In fact, it's just about the only lens I use...
 
I recommend saving up for a Tamron 17-50 2.8. Worth every cent, worth the waiting while saving up.

Both lenses you choose have slow apertures and satisfying sharpness starts after F4.5 or F5.6...
 
The only thing that makes the 18-70 a "kit lens" is that it was sold as a package deal (kit) with some bodies, but the lens was never a sub-par, economy, starter-type lens. The design, aperture range and construction quality (metal mount, non-rotating front element) all are on a par with many other Nikkor lenses that wouldn't usually be referred to as "kit" lenses. I've thought about adding one to my "kit" (or bag, if you prefer... ;) ) because it's really that good, and has more range than my 17-55 while being lighter and more handy for general walkaround photography.
 
I haven't owned or used either of these two lenses, but both Photozone and SLRGear have done tests on both lenses, so you might compare their reviews. From a quick glance, it seems that the 18-105 has a slight edge in sharpness, while the 18-70 handles its distortion and CAs better. Both seem to have vignetting at the wide end.
 
For 15mm and another variable max aperture lens...is it really worth it? I'd stick with what you have unless your style of photography would benefit from another 15mm.
 
ManhattanPrjct said:
For 15mm and another variable max aperture lens...is it really worth it? I'd stick with what you have unless your style of photography would benefit from another 15mm.
Click to expand...

Except... the OP said this was going to replace the 18-55 kit lens he's selling with his camera... and that he wanted a little more "reach."
 
What camera are you going to be using the lens on?

I'd almost recommend either the 35mm f/1.8 or the 50mm f/1.4 paired with the 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR. If you need something wider than the 35mm, the 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 is fantastic.

If you get the 35mm, 55-200mm, and 10-24mm, you'll never need another DX lens, but they will run you about $1,200 ($200, $200, $800 respectively).

Also you will need an external flash if you need flash with the 10-24mm because of its size.

If you're set on a mid-range zoom, then the 18-70mm f/3.5-45 is a bit sharper. Then you can also pick up a 70-300mm for those long range shots. If you're going to be shooting on a camera with a built in focus motor, the 70-300mm f/4 is a killer choice if you can deal without having VR since it is only about $175.
 
Get the 18-105 if you want the VR, otherwise the 18-70 is better built. Expect neither to be sharper than the 18-55 you now have, but they are better featured (non-rotating front element, manual focus override, and the 18-70 has a metal mount with a rubber seal).
 
npropes said:
the 70-300mm f/4 is a killer choice if you can deal without having VR since it is only about $175.
Click to expand...

Which lens? The nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 G? That's a fairly pitiful lens. Or are you thinking of something else of which I am unaware?
 
leighonigar said:
Which lens? The nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 G? That's a fairly pitiful lens. Or are you thinking of something else of which I am unaware?
Click to expand...

It is is another AF (not AF-S) lens that Nikon makes. Its not a technically great lens, but is has a great price point if you need something for non-motion daylight photos. It also lacks VR.

If you want a technically superior zoom, the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII rocks, but is is $2,400.
 
npropes said:
I'd almost recommend either the 35mm f/1.8 or the 50mm f/1.4 paired with the 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR. If you need something wider than the 35mm, the 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 is fantastic.

If you get the 35mm, 55-200mm, and 10-24mm, you'll never need another DX lens, but they will run you about $1,200 ($200, $200, $800 respectively).
Click to expand...

Not sure this is the best option, as the OP is looking at used lenses for ~$200. The 35mm alone would eat up most of that budget.

Given a choice between the two lenses proposed, I'd go for the 18-105 for the extra reach, the slightly better sharpness (fine with PP distortion/CA), and VR.
 
El Cabong said:
Not sure this is the best option, as the OP is looking at used lenses for ~$200. The 35mm alone would eat up most of that budget.

Given a choice between the two lenses proposed, I'd go for the 18-105 for the extra reach, the slightly better sharpness (fine with PP distortion/CA), and VR.
Click to expand...

Ah, I didn't catch that he was buying the lenses used. In that case, the 18-105 is a good all around lens.

As a future note, if you're wanting to buy a more expensive lens, try renting it for a weekend when you're going to be shooting quite a bit and see if it is a good fit for your needs. You can rent the 18-105mm from Adorama for $12 for a weekend. The 18-70mm is $15. So for under $30 you could try out both lenses for 3 days and see which you like better. If you're not near NYC, then you'd have to do a whole week rental which is $40 for each (so $80 total).
 
I've used the 18-70 on a D200. I really liked it. it doesn't have VR, though, and it doesn't matter how much better it is than the 18-105 if the OP doesn't understand enough to avoid camera shake, or mostly takes picture of static subjects.
 
Nikon has made three 70-300s, and the current one, the 70-300VR, is good enough to the point that many pros were turning to it over the original 70-200 on FX.
 
ComputersaysNo said:
I recommend saving up for a Tamron 17-50 2.8. Worth every cent, worth the waiting while saving up.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that but, I hear there is a inconsistency in lens. Also I will be using either the D90 or the upcoming D90 replacement (D95). And I already have the 35mm 1.8. I can get the tamron but it would postpone of getting the new camera.
 
npropes said:
As a future note, if you're wanting to buy a more expensive lens, try renting it for a weekend when you're going to be shooting quite a bit and see if it is a good fit for your needs. You can rent the 18-105mm from Adorama for $12 for a weekend. The 18-70mm is $15. So for under $30 you could try out both lenses for 3 days and see which you like better. If you're not near NYC, then you'd have to do a whole week rental which is $40 for each (so $80 total).
Click to expand...

Except, that would leave the OP with $120 to buy the lens with ... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back