18-55 VR vs 18-70

<p>I am starting to appreciate my older 18-70 on my D3100. I bought the camera and kit lens as a travel carry around set up because it is light and capable of high quality.<br>

But I am somewhat unsatisfied with the results from the 18-55. I have not done a side by side test but I felt that the pictures were too soft and left too much to Photoshop for my liking. <br>

I got the 18-70 nine years ago with my D70 and it has done a lot of good work, weddings, news, events, portraits, etc. It shoots 3,000 pictures of Santa and kids in a mall each year. It is now a backup to my 15-85 which is a great lens.<br>

But it is heavier than the other. <br>

I have been using the 18-70 now for a while and am much happier with the results. Mainly with the sharpness and bokh.<br>

Perhaps it is just the copy of the 18-55 it self that is not great or the fact that it is a cheap amateur kid lens but it is now sitting unused and I am lugging around the 18-70.<br>

It is still a thing of beauty.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Errol, Talk to<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=453235"> this </a>guy. He owns a D3100 and, I think, that lens. Best, LM.</p>

<p>The 18-70 was and is a great lens for the money Nikon asked for it. I had one, and it basically never missed a beat. It was not supersharp near wide open (more or less a constant f/5 lens, in my view, for good results), and the front tube wiggled a bit, but it just worked absolutely fine always. I find the extra bit of range (55-70) useful too.<br>

I never owned the 18-55, but used one a few times. It's a fine lens, but just not in the same class, in my view. The VR versions are a bit better, but still, the 18-70 is nicer. Yes, it's heavier, but it's also built better.</p>

<p>(<em>In my case, the 18-70 had to go in order to make selling a body easier - and the 16-85VR is a fine replacement, better in nearly all ways, but also a serious bit more expensive</em>)</p>

<p>I've had an 18-70mm since 2006, now on a D7000, and despite having other lenses it's still the one I prefer as a walk round lens if I need a normal zoom. Magic lens. Never could understand why Nikon never made a version with VR.</p>

<p>Isn't the 16-85 essentially an updated VR version of the 18-70? Yeah, well, it's slower, but at least it does have VR.</p>

<p>As an off-topic rambling, I'll complain about the lack of prosumer lenses for DX. 50-150 f/4 VR? There's an old series-E for you. 16-85 f/4 VR? Will have to do with rumors. At least they do have a 10-24 (which I own).</p>

<p>Errol, my experience is the same as yours. I got the 18-70 with a D70 and liked it from the start. Later, I got the 17-55VR and although I've used it enough I never gained much affection for it. I cannot point out any specific problems, but it just didn't grow on me like the first lens did.</p>

<p>At this point, I'll use the 18-70 as the general purpose lens for my D300, except when I want something smaller or faster. For smaller, I'll substitute the 17-55VR and for faster it's usually a 50mm for portraits in available light.</p>

<p>LOVE my 18-70. When I got it I compared it rigorously to my (now sold) 18-200. I expected the 18-70 to be way better, but I couldn't tell the difference in the photos at all.</p>

<p>I suspect the same would be true of a truly good 18-55 stopped down to f8 on a tripod, but the 18-70 handles SO nicely... it's just easier to take pictures with it.</p>

<p>I had the 18-70mm with D70 for a long time before they were stolen. Smaller aperture works really good through not as good as primes. Now I'm using a 35mm 1.8G. Let's see if I can used to move my foot to zoom. I think the meaningful update would be primes or f2.8 zooms if you cares very much about picture sharpness and clarity at max aperture. By the way, the used price is ridiculous now. </p>

<p>Enjoy!<br>

^_^</p>

<p>the 18-70mm is a great lens. like the others, i got my first one with the D70. then on it went on the D70s. then on the D200. i still have two of this lens --- one on the D90.....i can say the real update version of the 18-70mm is a brand new 18-70mm.</p>

<p>I too have this lens from my D70. I like the lens for the most part but it was always bit on the short side for things I wanted to use it for (walk around single lens). I have an old 35-105 AF-D that suited the need better so it didn't get much use, except when I needed something shorter, than 35mm. </p>

<p>When the 24-120/f4 came out, I replaced both the need for 18-70/35-105 with 24-120, with the intent to pickup 8-16 or 10-24 range zoom (which I still have not... Just don't have the need for it other than once in a blue moon). Maybe a fast prime in the teens or 20mm would be just fine instead of zoom for my needs but it cost more than most zooms....</p>

<p>Btw, I still have my original D70 and 18-70, along with 35-105, in a excellent conditions collecting dust. I tried to get my kids interested in it but they prefer the use of iPhone/ipad camera with all the photo apps to tweak them and wouldn't be caught dead lugging a DSLR.....</p>

 

Even now on eBay the 18-70 is more expensive. The marketplace sets the value.