Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Fri Nov 28, 2014 7:16 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 6:12 pm 
Hi!

I am planning on upgrading my 18-55mm Nikkor kit lens in the next couple of months, but have yet decided on exactly what to upgrade to. I would like better build quality, better optical quality and possibly more reach, however this is not very important.

There have been several lenses I have considered, but I am completely lost in choosing between them:

Nikkor 18-70mm (metal mount, but no VR)
Nikkor 18-105mm (no metal mount, but has VR)
Nikkor 18-135mm (no metal mount, no VR but has the longest range)

If there are any others in the same sort of price range which I have not mentioned, please let me know. Which would be the best lens to go for?

Thanks for your help.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 6:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:52 am
Posts: 861
Location: Surrey, UK
I am no expert on the Nikon range but I wouldn't worry too much about if it has a metal mount or not, VR is a much more important feature :D

_________________
Camera: Canon 550D with battery grip
Lenses: Canon 24-105mm f/4L, Canon 50mm f1.4, Canon 18-55mm, Tamron 70-300mm,
Accessories: Manfrotto 055XPROB with 808RC4 head, Canon 430ex II speedlite, Lowepro Nova 180AW and Lowepro Pro Runner 450AW


Oh that is so lame, every hot girl who can aim a camera thinks she’s a photographer -Stewie Griffin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 8:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:59 pm
Posts: 6009
Location: The Netherlands
The 18-105 is a brilliant lens, I've had one myself (before I switched to primes). The plastic mount will probably break if you throw your camera out of a window, but there's an easy fix for that: simply don't throw your camera out of a window! :lol:

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:01 pm
Posts: 1232
Location: NW England
Also consider the 16-85 or if you need more `reach`, the 18-200.

_________________
Image btw,He who dies with the most toys, WINS!
Nikon D800E & D700 bodies + Nikon 200-400mm F4 VR1, 50mm F1.4G, 16-35mm f/4G VR, 105 F2.8 VR macro, 70-300mm lenses. A couple of filters, Giotto tripod & ballhead. Lowepro Slingshot 302 AW
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 9:14 pm 
This is all very useful, thank you.

Is the 18-105 a better lens than the 18-70 and the 18-105?

The 16-85 would be ideal as it would act as my wide angle and still has a good range, however is it worth the extra cash?

Thank you all for your help!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 9:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:52 am
Posts: 861
Location: Surrey, UK
The 16-85mm in a very good lens and would be a bigger upgrade and a lens you are more likely to keep in the future. In terms of image quality I would think it would be a lot better than the 18-105mm.

_________________
Camera: Canon 550D with battery grip
Lenses: Canon 24-105mm f/4L, Canon 50mm f1.4, Canon 18-55mm, Tamron 70-300mm,
Accessories: Manfrotto 055XPROB with 808RC4 head, Canon 430ex II speedlite, Lowepro Nova 180AW and Lowepro Pro Runner 450AW


Oh that is so lame, every hot girl who can aim a camera thinks she’s a photographer -Stewie Griffin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 9:41 pm 
18-200mm or Sigma 17-50 f2.8 in my opinion.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 11:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:41 pm
Posts: 367
I bought the 16-85 over the 18-105 for its wider angle and tougher construction. I particularly like it and it mates well with my 70-300.

However, the 18-105 is an excellent lens and the one I'd choose over the others you quoted - a more modern optical formula and VR.

By the way, the distance scales aren't a lot of use in the real world, so you're unlikely to miss one. My 16-85 seems reasonably accurate at telephoto and way off at wideangle - and the scale is so short. Nothing like the older primes where you could set focus by the markings on the lens!

_________________
HCC
Nikon DSLRs, film cameras from Leica to Linhof


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2011 2:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:57 am
Posts: 1551
Location: Winterpeg, Manisnowba, Canada
I use the 16-85 and I love it, the optical quality is great and the tougher build is a big plus (At least for me it is, the metal mount is especially important when I shoot during the cold winters, I sometimes worry that a plastic mount could crack). The 18-200 is also a pretty decent walk-around lens, but don't expect anything super stellar, if you want the best telephoto performance, but a tele lens. If you want good wide angle performance, buy a wide angle lens. The 18-200 will work, but it's not ideal for all situations. If you can afford it, take a look at the 17-55 f/2.8, it's definitely a worthy contender.

_________________
-Evan

Gear: 7 Nikon Nikkor AI-S and AF-S lenses, SB-700 flash, Nikon D7000, Nikon FM, variety of accessories

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
- Ansel Adams


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2011 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:09 am
Posts: 106
Location: Scotland
I personally would go for the 16-85mm as I don't need the big zooms most of the time and find 16-85mm a better range for me.

Otherwise the 18-105mm should be an awesome lens. Would call it the second best scouting lens after the 18-200mm. You can't go wrong quality wise either way.

But my suggestion is. Let us know for what for you need the new lens and I'll make a recommendation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:06 pm 
I would stick with the 18-55, it's a decent enough lens if you take care of it, it's just not very robust. Add the 55-200VR which is a cheap enough lens with decent optical quality and you will have everything from 18-200 (300mm on an APS_C sensor) covered. Sure there are sharper lenses which are better built but these two lenses will serve you well until you decide you want to specialise in one sort of photography or another. Then you can shell out on the expensive stuff!
By the way VR is no great asset in decent lighting, then you can use a fast enough shutter speed to avoid camera shake. It's only value is in less than ideal light when you may have to use a slower shutter speed. Oh, and it does steady the image in the viewfinder which is handy when framing your shot.
Check out this site for good lens reviews:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:41 pm
Posts: 367
On robustness, the 18-55 may not be too bad.

I was taking photos from a bus going fast on a very uneven road. On two different occations I was too close to the window when we hit a worse than usual bump.

The impact on the camera was almost enough to make me see stars but the lens was fine on both occasions (as was the D40, but I expected that).

_________________
HCC
Nikon DSLRs, film cameras from Leica to Linhof


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 10:11 pm 
Thank you all for the advice.

My problem is, there are three lenses which I would like to buy to replace my current two:
50mm 1.8
Mid-range zoom: either 18-105mm or 16-85mm
Telephoto: preferably the 70-300mm, however possibly the 55-300 if the budget does not allow for the 70-300.

Which should I go for first? Also, if I was only to choose one of the more expensive models (the 16-85 and the 70-300), which should I choose? (EG/ the 16-85 and the 55-300 OR the 18-105 and the 55-300)

Thanks


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 10:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:59 pm
Posts: 6009
Location: The Netherlands
70-300. Many call it Nikon's hidden weapon, it's simply a very, very nice telezoom.

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 10:31 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9975
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Hi Ranald, you may find my Nikkor lens guide useful:

http://www.cameralabs.com/lenses/lens_b ... nses.shtml


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group