How is the 18-55 for landscape?

I have a d7200 with 35 1.8. I love it, but I want something wider. I don't like going wider than a 28mm equivalency, so I know my best

option is the 20 1.8g, but it's more lens than I want or need, and quite frankly I would rather the money. I've previously tried the 20mm

2.8d, and I personally thought it was terrible, even stopped down. I've not tried the 18-55 (I bought just the camera body), but essentially

a 18mm 3.5 would suit me perfectly (if only there were a dx only prime). How does the lens stand up? Is it sharp and contrasty wide

open? How does it handle flare/CA/ etc? What version of the 18-55 is best on the wide end? I'm fine with distortion, vignette and CA

corrections in lightroom. I'm not bothered about the VR or 19-55mm. They might be used now and again, but I wouldn't miss them. If there's a prime lens out there that would suit my needs better, please recommend it. I've previously had the sigma 18-35 1.8 and it was far too heavy for someone who has shot primes and canon f4 zooms for years. The reason I'm interested in the 18-55 is due to its small size and lightweightness. Being able to carry it and not notice it in my bag is what appeals to me, as long as image quality is there. Something with more reach isn't really appealling, as I don't care for the zoom range and it just adds size and weight. As for the 17-55 2.8, it's big, heavy, expensive and more lens than I need. I'd rather stick with Nikon lenses, so would rather pay a little more for the 20 1.8g than the sigma 17-50 2.8, if the 18-55 isn't suitable.

<p>I wouldn't buy the 20mm f/1.8 to use on the D7200. It's a waste to do do.</p>

<p>The 18-55mm is a good performer and is recommended by Thom Hogan in this article:<br>

http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/thoms-recommended-lenses.html<br>

Previously, he had recommended the VRII version, the one prior to the VR AF-P.<br>

The image below was taken with the VRII.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>"How is the 18-55 for landscape?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Normally, I shoot landscapes with large format (4x5 inch) or medium format (6x9cm) cameras. However, when I need to travel with a light photographic load, I will use the 18-55mm on a DX body. I was so pleased with the image quality and field performance of this low-priced lens that I bought a second one as a backup.</p>

<p> </div>

<p>The 18-55 lenses are surprisingly good at around f/5.6-f/8. You can check out credible lab results at imaging-resource.com, <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/18-55mm-f3.5-5.6g-vr-ii-af-s-dx-nikkor/review/">here.</a> Click on the lens blur results in the upper right corner and push the slider through the various apertures to compare performance.</p>

<p>I have the kit lens for the D3200, which is the earlier 18-55 VR. As others note, it's surprisingly good. Sharp and quite decent for flare as well. Its sweet spot is F8, and if you are satisfied with the width, it should work fine. Especially if you don't mind the older version, it can be found used very inexpensively. I recently replaced mine because the focus mechanism was damaged, and now have the much more expensive 16-85. I like the range and the more robust construction, but I think my sample of the 18-55 was as sharp or sharper.</p>

<p>I have tested AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G II ED on 10 Mpix D200. There is no distance scale on the lens. Shooting landscapes is very well doable with tripod at base ISO 100. Image quality is good even though there is purple fringing in high contrast edges. Post processing with Capture NX-D with Lateral color correction tick on helps with that. Wide open at f/3.5 there is noticiable light falloff and some softness in corners. F/5.6 and things are good of not great for such a light lens. F/8 and there is improvement in dof if not in image quality. f/11 and I get dust bunnies, perhaps it would be time to clean sensor.</p>

<p>There seem to be several versions of this lens. In particular, appear to be:<br>

DX<br>

DX II<br>

VR<br>

VR II<br>

AF-P G (non-VR)<br>

AF-P G VR</p>

<p>Do I have this right? Today, B&H has the AF-P non-VR for $196 and the AF-P VR for $246<br>

Alan, your image looks excellent. </p>

<p>These ~18 to ~55mm "kit" lenses are much better than their prices would suggest. Even when you "upgrade", you should keep them for their small size and weight.<br>

As always, check for compatibility with your own (camera) body, AF, stabilization, etc.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There seem to be several versions of this lens. In particular, appear to be:<br />DX - Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED (4/18/2005)<br />DX II - Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II (11/16/2006)<br />VR - Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR (10/20/2007)<br />VR II - Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II (1/7/2014)<br />AF-P G (non-VR) - Nikon AF-P DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G (1/5/2016)<br />AF-P G VR - Nikon AF-P DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR (1/5/2016)<br /> Do I have this right?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Looks about right - I added the full naming designations and release dates. For my purpose, I'd want VR and I'd want a relatively newer model, i.e., the VR II ( 1/7/2014) or the AFP VR (1/5/2016). I actually did just order a "like new" VR II. Thom Hogan likes the AFP VR, but I doubt that I'd see any difference between the VR II and the AFP VR. </p>

<p>The VRII lens does not rotate as the earlier one does, a considerable advantage if you're using a polarizing filter or graduated ND filters with auto focus.</p>

The thing about the kit lenses is that, while they're

absolutely designed to a budget, they're also what every

non-specialist magazine is going to stick on the camera

when they do a consumer DSLR round-up - it's really in

the camera manufacturers' interests not to make a dud.

Given that they're not too ambitious in zoom range or

aperture, camera manufacturers should be able to make

something decent. Obviously the same doesn't have to

be as true for "optional" kits, like the 18-200 or variable

aperture 24-120.

Stop it down to f8 and it's better than you expect. I'd look for a VR2 version. It's the previous model without the newer AF

motor so it should be cheaper, and it has a non rotating filter ring which is good if you want to use a CPL filter.

<p>I have the VR version that was the kit lens for my D5000, and have used it on the D7000 and my sons D7200 as well. I think that it is surprisingly good for a kit lens. It is not as sharp as the Nikkor 17-55, but it is much nicer to carry for longer periods of time. I think that the 18-55VR punches somewhat above its weight.</p>

<p>In 2005 I got the D70 and the kit lens for that was the 18-70mm. I'm still using it now for general landscape work and people shots with my D7100. Mine is very sharp wide open in close range portrait shots, and at f8 very good for wide angle landscapes. I think all kit lenses have a lot of sample variation. If you test used ones at the camera store, which I have done just for fun, you will see a lot of used ones that are not as sharp, and that's why they are being sold used. I remember I did send mine back to Nikon when I first got it because it was soft on one side. Nikon ended up sending me another replacement, which was soft all around, so I sent it back immediately, and surprisingly they did some adjustment on that lens and returned it to me very sharp, which is the one I still use today. Long story short, test any lens you buy. There are really good ones out there but there are quite a few "clunkers" out there too. If you browse through my folders you will see lots of landscapes and people photos taken with my 18-70 on three different cameras, and quite a few done with my 18-105 vr, which is also a great kit lens. It came with my D7100. I usually indicate on the photo info which lens I used for easy reference.</p>