Replacing a 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 with a 18-70 f/3.5-4.5?

[breogan_gomez]

Hi!

 

I've bought a D40x with a 18-55 kit lens few months ago. I didn't like much the

picture quality of this kit lens so I've got some prime AF lenses and a katz

eyes focussing screen. I've been using the 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2 with

excellent results.

 

Still the 18-55 remains my main family lens. The camera can be used in a very

intuitive way (almost like a P&S) so everybody can pick the camera and make a

shot without manual focusing.

 

Now I have the chance to buy a nikon 18-70 lens at an affordable price and I was

wondering if this lens may be an improvement from the 18-55.

 

I like the 18-70 over the 18-135 because of the size and weight remains on a

light and small package to carry around.

 

Can you compare both lens?

 

Thanks!

[jason_tanner]

The 18-70 is better quality than the 18-55. Not that price tells the whole story, but that is why the older 18-70 sells for more (~$300). But just do a google search and you can find lots of searches to compare the images from both and more of a discussion. The 18-55 is a cheap kit lens and not great quality from what I've seen which is limited.

[tri-x1]

I believe the 18-55 has a plastic mount while the 18-70 is metal. The 18-70 remains on my D100 virtually all the time. Hard to beat for sharpness and feels more like a real lens.

[timreaves]

Check out Ken Rockwell's review............

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm

[hiro]

There are the physical differences. 70mm @ F4.5 instead of 55mm @ F5.6, a little faster focus, and a little better build. I owned both and loved the 18-70.. the 18-55 not so much, but both made excellent images.

[carl_becker2]

You might want to have the 18-55 looked at. From what I have read it should deliver good results. I have the 18-70 but prefer the speed of primes.

[vivek iyer]

I have tried the 18-55 and the 18-70 on the D40x. Surprisingly, the 18-55 has an edge over the other zoom. Tiny bit more contrasty.

 

It is a sharp lens. Has distortions at the ends (so does the 18-70).

 

If you can get the 18-70 for cheap get it otherwise do not as you will not be missing much!

[sampson]

Why are you using MF with your AF primes?

[breogan_gomez]

One of the reasons for me to change the lens is that 18-70 feels much more substantial and durable. The 18-55 doesn't look like like a lens that is going to last long. Also MF is more accessible.

 

I was wondering if this lens (18-70) would be a bit better in terms of picture quality than 18-55. From what you have posted there is only a slightly difference between both.

 

'Why are you using MF with your AF primes?'

 

D40x doesn't have a focusing motor so it only has AF with AF-S lenses. I come from a MF background and I feel more comfortable focusing this way. D40x + 35mm f/2 make a very compact combo which I love.

[vivek iyer]

<i>I was wondering if this lens (18-70) would be a bit better in terms of picture quality than 18-55. From what you have posted there is only a slightly difference between both.</i>

<p>

It is my impression that the 18-55 version II is actually <u>better</u> on the D40x than the 18-70, despite its fragile construction!

[elliot1]

Obviously Nikon made a mistake in the construction of the 18-55. They should have put lead weights in it to make it heavy as exceptional image quality and a 5 year warranty just isn't enough.

 

My well constructed, heavy, $1500 Nikon 70-200 had a major failure and required servicing by Nikon with many electronic parts being replaced.

 

Obviously you are not happy with your current lens. Get the new one as see if you like it better. If you don't, you can always resell it.

[dave_lee6]

I tested the Nikon 18-55mm II against the Nikon 18-70mm on a D40 and the 18-70mm is noticeably sharper. I am always amazed how good the 18-70mm lens is, it is a real sleeper. A friend scored one on ebay recently for $140!

[breogan_gomez]

'Obviously Nikon made a mistake in the construction of the 18-55. They should have put lead weights in it to make it heavy as exceptional image quality and a 5 year warranty just isn't enough.'

 

Elliot, I understand that you find this lens a little gem, but i think it is undeniable it isn't made to last forever. Anyway, in my country Spain, warranty is only 2 years. Also, in my opinion, general picture quality is not so good. I agree that pictures are sharp in the center showing a lot of detail but colors are soft and lifeless. Especially compared to my 35mm f/2.

 

I am not a pro and I may not have enough skills to make this lens work.

 

I should say that I also prefer how 18-70 fits my hand... Yes, I am completely biased towards this lens, I am going to buy it. I may post my conclusions afterwards.

[eric_arnold]

yeah, post your shots and let us know how it went. general consensus (except for elliot) is that 18-70 is better, but spec-wise they are pretty close, with some key differences, all in favor of 18-70: internal focus, higher aperture on the wide end (4.5 compared to 5.6), metal lens mount. YMMV.

[elliot1]

As with any product, there are good and bad samples. You may have a bad one. Or I may just have an exceptionally good one. I have purchased new lenses and had to exchange them or have them serviced because they did not perform as expected (on at least 3 separate occasions). Certainly the possibility exists that you may have a bad sample - not all of them out there are good. The 18-55 has received excellent reviews. And ultimately your opinion is the only one that counts.

 

"colors are soft and lifeless' - usually a result of camera settings. My 70-200 and 300mm AF give noticeably better color and contrast than some of my other lenses, including my 17-55. I adjust the setting in my camera or fix during post processing.

 

As I said before, since you are obviously not satisfied with your lens, change it. You may or may not find the 18-70 any better. It is my opinion that as long as there is nothing wrong with your 18-55, you won't notice much, if any difference with the 18-70.

[ShunCheung]

On its long end, the 18-55 is an f5.6 and is about a stop slower than the 18-70, which is f4.5 at 70mm and therefore a bit faster at 55mm. The 18-70 will also give you a better range and to me, the more important issue is the higher construction quality, which is still not Nikon's best but at least solid, consumer-grade.

 

All Nikon lenses with a plastic mount such as the 18-55, 55-200 are cheaply built. I have a lot of concerns that the elements are not securely mounted onto the barrel internally. Even though the lens may be ok initially, just some bumps over time will knock some elements slightly out of alignment and that will eventually affect your image quality. I think that is why there are so many so called sample variation among those lenses. For those with a limited budget and are not too demanding, those lenses are an affordable way to enter the SLR world, but if you can afford to upgrade, I would.

[breogan_gomez]

Elliot, thanks for your advice, I'll try to play with my camera settings (sharpness +1 and Saturation +1 ??) This may help to improve the quality of the colours.

 

Shun, I completely agree with you. It isn't only a matter of picture quality. Usually I prefer to have thing that would resist in time. This 18-55 looks like it is going to break only resting on the table! I prefer to sell my zoom while it looks "new" and replace it with something that looks more durable. I plan to use my D40x for some years now, including my family trips.