Nikon 18-55 VR versus 18-105 VR?

<p>Shun, if it's within your ability please remove them in-case there's a problem.</p>

<p>I have the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX, and a close friend of mine has the 16-85mm AF-S DX VR. I no longer have that 18-105mm test sample, but I can easily go back to that location and show you that even the 16-85 and the "pro" 17-55 are not that great around the edges at 18mm, f8, on the D7100, but they'll probably be better than the 18-105 DX.</p>

<p>Actually I am using that image as part of my Nikon 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S VR review. I have used the 18-35mm AF-S VR on the D7100 and the results are far better, but we are talking about a higher-end consumer lens that costs $750 and is only a 2x zoom, not to mention that the 18-35 covers FX so that we are no longer using the edges of the image circle on the D7100.</p>

<p>Those are new buildings in the neighborhood, and I drive by a few times a week. I think their colors look nice so that I have gone over a couple of times to capture some test images.</p><div></div>

Shun, if you could do a comparison I'd like to see the difference between the various somewhat-wide-to-somewhat-tele

lenses on 24mp. Those corners ain't pretty but I wonder whether the 16-85 does better. That's also a lens that originally

paired with lower res cameras. Then there are those tamron and sigma lenses in the same price range.

<p>Shun's comments point up the fact that lenses just haven't kept up with these new high resolution sensors. In about 5 years we have seen the DX cameras go from the 12 Mp of the D300 to the 24 Mp of the D3200 and D7100 an increase in resolution of 41%, probably more in the case of the D7100 since here is no anti-alias filter. We have not seem a corresponding improvement in lenses, in fact it's interesting to note that Nikon are still only quoting resolutions up to 30 lp/mm in their performance curves! (They say lines/mm but I'm pretty sure that is a translation error).<br>

According to my arithmetic a D7100 has a pixel pitch of 6 microns, corresponding to 167 lines/mm or 83.5 lp/mm, so any lens that can't resolve that at decent contrast will be shown as decidedly lacking when you look at 100%.<br>

The same argument also shows the doubtful value of offering a body like the D3200; any mid range zoom capable of doing it justice will probably cost far more than the camera body.<br>

BTW most reviews I've read rate the 16-85 as better than the 18-105 in the periphery.</p>

<p> </p>

Right, but there's a difference between "better than a $200 lens" and "good." If I were buying a variable aperture zoom for

$650 I'd have high expectations.

<p>I just bought the 16-85 and am actually really pleased with it. Used it was £275 in 'as new' condition so perhaps used lenses can give you better performance than buying a new one (price for price). I think the 16-85 is better than both the 18-105 and the 18-55 with richer colour and better contrast.</p>

<p>I agree with Ian. The 16-85 is a great value even at full MSRP. It is nit the 17-55 but it is the best walk around lens I have ever owned.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<p>Have fun with that 16-85. That is one of my favorite lenses!</p>

<p>We need to keep in mind that which (DX) body you use those lenses on makes a huge difference. You can easily get away with the 18-200mm DX on 6MP, 10MP bodies that were common at the time that lens (version 1) was originally introduced back in 2005. On the 12MP D300, the long end of the 18-200 is clearly quite poor.</p>

<p>Likewise, the 18-105 was probably ok a few years ago on 12MP bodies such as the D5000, D90 and D300/D300S. The problem is that today, even the lowest consumer-grade D3200 is 24MP. Still, the 18-105 is fine in the center of the frame, which may be good enough for plenty of people, especially beginners. On the edges, there is plenty of smearing and chromatic aberration.</p>

<p>I wonder which DSLR body/bodies Ian is using the 16-85 DX on.</p>

<p>Attached is the full size JPEG showing the 18-105mm DX @ 18mm, f8 on the D7100. It is about a 1M file. The original file is RAW.</p><div></div>

<p>It's not perfect, but I can still easily read the BIKE LANE sign on the extreme right of the pic. There's nothing in the corners to assess sharpness so easily. </p>

<p>I've lost track, but have you got the same shot with the 17-55mm 2.8 @ ~18mm f8 or the 16-85mm @ ~18mm f8 for a corners/edges comparison?</p>

<p>First of all, I think I am a highly demanding photographer and don't particular tolerate low-quality lenses. I am well aware that a lot of people are not as picky as I am. IMO, Nikon's 18-105 is not a lens I would buy for 24MP DX-format DSLRs. In that sense I am somewhat puzzled that Nikon is coupling that as the kit lens for the D7100.</p>

<p>This morning, I went out and tried the following lenses at that same location, all at 18mm, f8 on the D7100 @ ISO 100 on a tripod. However, it was a bit overcast so that the contrast is not as strong. As a result, chromatic aberration issues are not as pronounced:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon 12-24mm/f4 DX AF-S</li>

<li>Nikon 16-85mm/f3.5-5.6 DX AF-S VR</li>

<li>Nikon 17-55mm/f2.8 DX AF-S</li>

<li>Nikon 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S</li>

<li>Nikon 18-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S</li>

</ul>

<p>Not surprisingly, all five lenses are better than the 18-105 DX.</p>

<p>It turns out that both f2.8 lenses are a little weak outside of the center. The 16-85 DX, which I borrowed from my friend, is quite good, much better than I had expected. It also has the advantage as a 16mm so that 18mm is a bit away from the widest en. The new 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S also turns out to be excellent, for both DX and FX.<br>

<br /> The OP wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks everyone for your input. We decided on the the 16-85VR for its extra wide angle coverage and longer reach. She'll have it in a few days to try out. Blew the budget but wanted a quality lens with good optical qualities.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is an excellent choice.</p><div></div>

<p>As an experiment I downsized Shun's 18-105 example to 4928 pels wide (16.2 Mp, D7000, D5100 equivalent) and also to 4255 wide (12 Mp equivalent, D300, D90 or similar). I then viewed them all at the same size looking at the centre (car front and street sign). The original and D7000 equivalent looked much the same with the 12 Mp less sharp.<br>

This tends to confirm Shun's view that the 18-105 just can't cope with the 24 Mp sensor but it possibly can with the 16 Mp one (in the centre at optimum aperture).<br>

By the way my earlier post had an error. I should have said that the pixel pitch for the D7100 was 4 microns (24 mm / 6000) equivalent to 125 lp/mm!!! Compare that with the 40 lp/mm at 50% contrast shown on the LensTip chart!</p>

<p>Richard, yup things have moved on quite a-lot from the D200! Equally, those tests, using the same camera, still show a level playing-field with regard to lenses. </p>

<p>The view that lenses haven't kept up with sensors is undeniably true.</p>

<p>I have the 18-105vr and it a wonderful lens. Its a bit smaller then the 18-200 and lighter..so its perfect for a walk around lens. Your wife should be very happy for a long time. Indoors for parties ,children etc..just pop up the flash and she will be fine. Remember, she is a beginner and her standards are not as stringent as most of the folks on this forum.</p>

<p>Shun, I know this horse is already dead and beaten, but I think you actually might have a bad copy of that lens. I don't have one anymore and never had a 24MP DX camera, but based on what mine did on 16MP I'm pretty sure it was noticeably better than the one you used. I'll look in my Aperture library later and pull some samples.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, I know this horse is already dead and beaten, but I think you actually might have a bad copy of that lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I never believe in these "bad copy" excuses. I don't have the privilege to try another sample of the 18-105, but a lot of lenses I have used multiple samples, such as the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S I have used half a dozen of them. I have used two different 50mm/f1.8 AF-S, 85mm/f1.8 AF-S, 28mm/f1.8 AF-S .... I currently have two 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S with me. My experience with Nikon lenses is that they are very consistent from sample to sample.</p>

<p>However, the issue with those plastic-mount lenses (such as the 18-55 and 18-105) is that construction is so poor that upon any minor impact, any "good copy" would soon become "bad copy" anyway, so it really doesn't matter.</p>

<p>But if Nikon or anybody else would like to send me another 18-105mm DX for checking, they are more than welcome to get in touch with me.</p>

<p>Shun, then I don't know how to explain having had an 18-105 as my main travel lens for three years that went on a bunch of trips, beaches, deserts, planes, trains, etc., that didn't break and got me good photos the whole time. I'm not saying it's a great lens, but a guy whose wife is a beginner with an entry level camera and wanted help choosing between under-$200 lenses ended up blowing the budget on a $650 lens because the cheap lens is a bit fuzzy at 100% on the edge and has too much plastic to be a pro choice. I don't think you did him a service.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think you did him a service.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andy, you are certainly entitled to your opinions. However, it is the OP's decision. If you check this discussion carefully, you'll realize that I was only recommending against the 18-105, as I typically do with plastic-mount lenses. A few weeks ago I also checked its long end, and its edge performance is also rather poor.</p>

<p>The OP had already decided to go with the 16-85 DX before I tested it this morning. It was not me who recommended the 16-85, which I always considered it to be overpriced for a slow f5.6 zoom, but I didn't realize that optically it is so good until this morning, well after the OP had already made his decision.</p>

<p>Since the OP's wife already has the 18-55 DX, it seems silly to me to go from one cheap consumer zoom to another. If they want to save money, they should keep the 18-55 and get a longer zoom (e.g. the 70-300 AF-S VR) that can be shared with the OP's D800 and other lenses. Otherwise, some third-party 18-50mm/f2.8 type lens would make far more sense, especially for indoors. As good as the 16-85 is optically, it is going to have its share of problems indoors and is going to be fairly useless on the D800.</p>

<p>Incidentally, my 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX is almost as poor as the 18-105 @ 18mm. I did drop that lens once and Nikon in LA fixed it, but I always wonder wether it is still a bit out of alignment. My 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S is also rather poor, especially compared to the new 18-35mm AF-S, which I also tested using two samples this morning. The new 18-35 is far better.</p>

<p>I think the newers lenses from the last few years (not counting the cheap, plastic mount ones) are benefitting from newer optical designs.</p>

<p>My 18-105 is just not sharp. My 18-55 VR was/is sharp right out of the box. You can buy my 18-105 if you like. I replaced it with with a Tamron 55-200 Macro, super sharp, super small. No VR and it doesn't need it</p>