Nikon 18-55 VR versus 18-105 VR?

<p>Bought my wife a D3200 kit last month and my wife is in camera heaven. She always wanted one for herself and she's completely satisfied with everything but would like more reach. Cameta Auction on eBay is selling a refurbished 18-105 VR lens for $199. Would this lens be a good lens for a beginner? It has more reach that she wants and it is affordable. How does it compare the 18-55 VR which is a very nice lens, it and the D3200 + wife = fantastic pictures.</p>

<p>Some people complain about it not being the absolute sharpest, etc., but it's still a decent lens, and the price is good. Since refurbished, you may want to check that you can return it if you're not happy.<br>

But I suspect she'll like it. I have better lenses but still use it for general shooting from time to time. There are of course lots of other options too.</p>

<p>I hope you don't mind that I am giving you a very direct answer. Both the 18-55 DX and 18-105 DX are entry-level, consumer zooms for casual photography. They can give you good images as long as you are not very demanding and there is plenty of light. I have used them both, and they drive me crazy indoors. Recently I tested the 18-105 on the 24MP D7100, and off-center performance is very mediocre on both the long end and wide end.</p>

<p>Not sure your wife needs up to 300mm or not, but if she wants reach, why not get a 70-300mm AF-S VR or the less expensive 55-300mm DX AF-S VR? She may stay happy with the 18-55 or as she progresses as a photographer, she may gradually become less satisified with those consumer lenses. I am not suggesting that she should get a 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR immediately, but since she already has the 18-55, why not get something a step better?</p>

<p>To me the deciding factor was that the 18-55 could focus much closer and results at close range are very good. I have had both and kept the 18-55. The 18-105 seems big and cumbersome by comparison and the 105 end of the zoom was not very good quality. Go with an 18-55 and also a 55-200 and enjoy a 2 lens combo that will perform well.</p>

<p>Since you are asking about the comparative point between the both of them, and if we have to focus on both of them, some people, not to mention popular reviewers on the net, would have different opinions. That, putting bad copies factors aside. On the field, there's really not much use to compare both of them related to IQ, Shun said it already.<br>

So we are left with range, which naturally the 18-105 wins hands down.<br>

range+quality on dx = 17-55 f/2.8 + 70-200 f/2.8, but for some of us that is still floating in the realm of aspiration.</p>

<p>Of course there are different opinions... let me add one :-)<br /> For sure, the 18-105VR is not the best lens, but it is a very good lens for the money. Personally, I think in value for money, it's about the best zoom you'll find in Nikon's line-up. What sets it above the 18-55 for me, is handling: it has a decent focusring, the front does not rotate, the zoom action just feels better. <br /> But, that's all subjective stuff. Shun is right that adding a 55-300VR could be a nicer way to spend money. However, if she does not need that much zoom-range, but just a bit more than 55, then the 18-105VR is a really good <em>convenient</em> lens. Optically better than the 18-200/18-300 lenses, a lot cheaper than most of those and about as allround in most cases. Obviously, it cannot stand critical viewing on 24MP sensors, but on a picture level, normal sized prints, it will do fine enough - just like the 18-55.</p>

<p>So, there's the choice, as far as I see it: how happy will she be switching lenses? If it's no issue, a 55-300VR or 70-300VR will be nicer ways to spend the money. If it is, the 18-105VR would get my vote.</p>

<p>Well, a step up, without going to extremes, is the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/635-nikkor16853556vr">16-85mm</a> lens. I really love this sort of focal range for everyday shooting.</p>

<p>I have owned both lenses, used them indoors and out, enlarged output from both. I found the extra reach of the 18-105 to be nice. I struggled with its unique distortion characteristics: <em>both</em> barrel and pincushion distortion on the same horizon, in landscape shooting. (I do a lot of shooting with water horizons which need to be straighter.) As others have said it's a good performer for its price. I currently use the 18-55. It's smaller and lighter on the neck strap and doesn't always point down like the 18-105 when hanging. This sounds like a niggle, but after a whole day it makes a difference. I believe the 18-55 focuses closer. I like its color output a bit better: warmer, a bit more saturated. To my eyes the front element coating looks better. The 18-55 front element rotates when focusing, but that usually only bothers shooters who want to use polarizers. The manual focusing ring is very thin and not easy to use. At f/8 or f/11 this lens performs very well for its price. Not so great on the edges wide open, where a lot of us shoot indoors in low light. Most reviewers would point you to the 18-105. I think the 18-55 comes in a very close second, and like others have said a 16-85 would deliver better image quality than either.</p><div></div>

<p>Even though I shoot professionally with high end gear, I did buy a Nikon 18-135 (before the 18-105 was released) just to shoot snap shots of the family (with an SB600) because I didn't want to carry a second lens in that circumstance. I find it to be plenty sharp, and if it was a little later in time, I would have bought the 18-105.</p>

<p>Mark,<br>

Two questions (for your wife, really). 1) How <strong>much</strong> more reach does she want? 2) Is she willing to carry two lenses and deal with lens changes, or is she more interested in convenience?</p>

<p>If she's interested in shots of birds on the feeder, for example, I can't really see either the 18-55 or the 18-105 being really suitable. I have no experience with the 18-105. The 18-55 is amazing for what it cost me (I got my working-fine copy free from the junk bin at the local camera store, so I guess it's a worthless statement since I have an infinite performance/price ratio). In the novice-level "rather more reach" category I have a 55-200 VR that doesn't suck when used with the FT-1 on a V1 (speaking of pixel density), but isn't very satisfactory long-and-wide open (at all of f/5.6 at 200mm) either. Stopped down a bit, not too bad, and it's small, low-weight and cheap ($100 USD used in good shape with hood and caps at the same camera shop), making it a cost-effective way for a beginner to see if she likes that range of focal lengths (or angles of view).</p>

Answers to your question can get very long and technical. I'll cut to the chase. The 18-105 VR would be perfect for your

wife. She would be very happy with it as a replacement for the 18-55. When the time comes for another lens, the perfect

complement would be the 35 1.8 to shoot indoors without a flash.

<p>I'd get the used 18-70 instead (that's what I did).</p>

A lens that will actually have improved image sharpness and the advantage of a faster aperture, works excellent on your

camera and can be used in more low light/marginal light situations, plus is a great lens to learn with is the plain old 35mm

f1.8 G. As for more reach, you can just get the plain 55-200 which is very decent and around the same price.

BTW, I like the little 18-55 a lot, it's a cool lens and can take very useable images for general purposes. I say stick with it, get something different and continue practicing with good technique.

 

I have a few band shots floating around some bridal publications in NJ/NY that I shot with a D3100 and 18-55 on a tripod and SB600 fill flash. You would never be able to tell me what I shot them with or that they weren't any good.

<p>I've used the 18-55 and the 18-105. For $199, the 18-105 is a pretty good lens if all she needs is just a little more reach as Wouter said. It sounds like she's very happy with the quality of the photos she gets from the 18-55, so I wouldn't worry about buying a lens of much higher quality now. The 18-105 is a very good lens for $199...not to mention you can unload the 18-55...probably not for much since those lens are about as plentiful as ants at a picnic, but it's better than nothing.</p>

<p>there you see, two pages of opinions already :)<br /> FWIW I've made (and sold :D / no I'm not laugh "at" but "with") 40x60cm to 60x90cm (i suppose multiply them by 10 for mm..) prints with both lenses coupled with a D3000 body (talk about the combinations that are generally considered as horrible), to my ignorant eyes they look "normal." Sometimes all the technicalities just don't matter, somehow try the lenses, do some readings, take what she likes, shoot, and make some likeable pictures. Within their class, quality wise, it just doesn't matter which one she chooses, just leave it to feeling :) <br /> None of the people whom I gave the prints to cared about whether I took the pics using the kit lenses or Canon's L series, which is alright, since I myself can't really tell them apart on prints :) so we're fine.</p>

<p>It's not the sharpest lens in Nikon's catalog, but for $200 I'd take it. It's an improvement over the 18-55, for sure. If you're okay with spending $500 or more, there are 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses from Sigma and Tamron that are big improvements over the 18-55, but between those and $200 there aren't many options. Only thing I can think of is the previous version of the Sigma 17-70.</p>

<p>I have the 18-55 kit lens tat came with my D5000. Then I bought the 70-300 for sports and wildlife. Then I upgrade to the 18-105 lens. It might be slightly better than the 18-55 plus double the mm. Now I bought a D7000 body only, and my 18-105 is on it when the 70-300 is not. Shun is right put your money into a lens with more reach. I love the 70-300, great at little league games, Tiger & Lion games, at the zoo, birds in the backyard feeders, deer in the woods, are just a very few uses of a longer tele zoom. I carried the 18-105 all over Italy last year and did get some great shots. It is a good 'walk-a-round' lens. I wish I had had a 35 F1.8 for inside all the dark cathedrals. <br>

Duane</p>

<p>i dont think you can do better for $200. for a beginner, it's a good buy. lens changing is a bore when you're just starting out, and i cant on good faith really recommend an 18-200 or 18-300 superzoom, which tilts toward the wrong end of the price/performance spectrum. i'd jump on the 18-105 and add an inexpensive, sharp/fast prime like the 35/1.8 or 50/1.8 g next. down the line, a 70-300 VR would be the next investment i'd make, then an UWA. of course, the benefits of having a two-DSLR family is that you can swap gear.</p>

<p>If you use the 18-105mm @ f8 it would be pretty indistinguishable from a lens costing many times more. If you own a tripod/monopod (or use flash) and can manage that aperture without camera shake with the VR's help, you cannot get a better lens for the money.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lenstip.com/182.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_DX_18-105_mm_f_3.5-5.6_VR_ED_Image_resolution.html">http://www.lenstip.com/182.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_DX_18-105_mm_f_3.5-5.6_VR_ED_Image_resolution.html</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you use the 18-105mm @ f8 it would be pretty indistinguishable from a lens costing many times more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is not my experience with the 18-105 DX at all. On the D7100, which is also 24MP like the D3200, corner performance is rather poor even at f8, f11, and the problem is on both the wide end and the long end. The center is very good, but there is no sharpness to speak of on both the left and right ends of the frame and there is also plenty of chromatic aberration.</p>

<p>There are plenty of decent lenses that can give you very good performance at f8 from corner to corner at 18mm or 105mm on the D7100's DX frame, but the 18-105mm DX is not one of them.</p>

<p>A beginner might not understand the difference at all, but when you gain experience, hopefully one will know better and if so, most likely you'll want to upgrade that lens again. In this particular case, since the OP has higher-end cameras such as the D800. IMO they are better off getting more decent lenses for his wife so that he can share them as well.</p><div></div>

<p>If your wife is happy with the image quality from the 18-55, then she will be happy with the image quality of the 18-105 and appreciate the longer reach. Actually, anyone who is happy with the image quality of the 18-55 would also be happy with the image quality of the 18-105.<br>

If you've got nothing better to do, go look up the size and weight of the 70-300 and compare it to the weight of the D3200 + 18-55. </p>

<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>

<p>I wonder if Shun's copy was a bit off or the review copy that produced these graphs was an especially good copy?</p>

<p>30 is deemed to be acceptable performance. That makes the wide end of the 16-85mm poor until f5.6/8. That is supported by the results from my own copy. Considering the 18-105mm is so inexpensive, it's not bad at-all, and has more reach, which was what was wanted.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder if Shun's copy was a bit off or the review copy that produced these graphs was an especially good copy?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No offense, Mike. I was totally prepared that all these excuses for "bad copy" would come up. The 18-105mm DX test sample I used was a brand new lens shipped to me directly from Nikon USA along with the D7100 test sample. I have since bought my own D7100 but of course without the kit lens.</p>

<p>The fact of the matter is that 24MP from the D7100, and D3200, would greatly expose weaknesses on a lot of DX lenses. Remember this thread: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bTT6">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bTT6</a><br /> Within a few hours after I received that D7100 back in March, I showed how poor the 12-24mm/f4 DX, which is considered to be a higher-end DX lens, is on the 12mm end on the D7100? People also suggested that maybe the lens is bad.</p>

<p>The fact of the matter is that a lot of these DX lenses such as the 12-24mm/f4 DX, 18-105mm DX plus the 18-200, etc. were introduced when DX DSLRs were 6mp, 12MP. Those lenses were fine. Once we reached 16MP with the D7000, it started to expose a lot of their issues. For whatever reason, the 16MP D7000 is far more demanding on lenses than the 12MP D300. 24MP today merely pushes things further into the extreme.</p>

<p>I have also tried that same 18-105mm DX on my D300, and it works out much better, so is my 12-24mm DX.</p>

<p>But as long as you don't pixel peep and are willing to shrink your images down for e-mail and Facebook posting, any junk lens will probably look fine.</p>

<p>P.S. It looks like LensTip.com owns the copyright for those test results. Mike, do you have permission from them to repost them here?</p>

<p>Shun, as a side-by-side comparison on the same camera, would you recommend the 16-85mm over the 18-105mm for it's edge performance wide-open at the wide or long end?</p>