What's wrong with the Nikon 18-70 3.5-4.5G?

[dberryhill]

I bought this lens several years ago as part of the D70 kit, and continue to use

it with my D200. I use it for portraits, 'rural street' shots, and some

landscape. I have been delighted with the lens. It is sharp and has good

contrast. If I want a portrait with a shallow DOF, I use the 50mm 1.8. I have a

longer zoom, which I rarely need.

 

I know that kit lenses aren't normally considered top quality, and am thus

nagged by the feeling that I just don't know how much better a more expensive

medium lens would be, except that it would be faster. Would it be better?

[photo5]

nothing wrong with it. I loved it until I bought the Nikon 16-85mm VR. The 18-70mm has pretty severe distortion at 18mm, the 16-85 does not. I recommend the 18-70 to anyone who wants a good cheap zoom. I don't think the 16-85mm is much better in terms of actual resolution, but it is a better lens.

[eric_arnold]

doug, go back and read your own post: "I use it for portraits, 'rural street' shots, and some landscape. I have been delighted with the lens. It is sharp and has good contrast."

 

sounds to me like it works just fine for you. nothing wrong with that.

 

my biggest issue with the 18-70 was that it wasnt fast enough for what i needed. so i bought a tamron 28-75, which has the benefit of 2.8 constant aperture throughout the zoom range. that's good for low-light shooting and throwing backgrounds out of focus, but if you don't need a lens that does that, don't worry about it.

[toddcwilson]

One thing the 18-70 can't do, and that is open up to 2.8 at all, let alone the entire focal range - if in fact you need it. The 18-70 is a great lens, but it isn't that fast and won't offer the DOF you desire as stated in your first paragraph. I would continue to use your 50mm prime for portraits and the 18-70 for all else, unless you really want the sharpness and DOF offered by the 17-55 f/2.8. Remember, the 17-55 is 2.8 throughout the entire focal range, unlike the variable aperture on the 18-70.

[tri-x1]

An 18-70 3.5-4.5 isn't going to have any less depth of field that a 17-55 f2.8--at least not enogh between 17 and 18mm to notice. Stopping down a len determines depth of field. How fast a lens is isn't a factor.

[toddcwilson]

Okay - left out the word shallow - as in shallow DOF which corresponds to the first paragraph of Doug's inquiry. Feel like I'm in a classroom here, wow. But anyway, Doug, the 18-70 is a great lens, and I still use it sometimes when I don't want to risk damaging my 17-55 (which I use for wedding work mostly).

[toddcwilson]

Oh, and to point out there may not be much of a difference between 17-18, but at 55mm the difference between 2.8 and 4.5 (which is the largest aperture on the 18-70 @ 55mm) is 1 1/3 of a stop if my math serves me correctly.

[peter_nelson1]

If you're happy with it, then great; you should keep using it. Maybe you got a really good copy.

 

I just went to a couple of test sites and they both agreed that the center sharpness is pretty good, but a bit shy of the pro lenses, and the edge sharpness was well short of the pro lenses. Also that it has a problem with vignetting and distortion (which can be corrected in PP) . But to me the biggest issue is speed - giving up a stop not only shortens the shooting day, but makes low-light AF harder. And that's assuming you don't stop down further to get better IQ.

 

On the other hand, being slow also means that it's lighter, which makes it a more comfortable walking-around lens.

 

FWIW my two favorite walking around lenses are the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 35 f/2, but in both of those I give up FOV to the 18-70.

[tholte]

Doug, I can't believe you are asking this question! Wouldn't you assume a lawyer that charges $300 an hour is better than one that charges $150.00 an hour. The 18-70 kit lens is around $350 (I have one and like it) and the 17-55 2.8 is $1200, it's gotta be better don't you think? Quit being a tight wad, you have a birthday or something coming up?

[david.elliott]

"Wouldn't you assume a lawyer that charges $300 an hour is better than one that charges

$150.00 an hour."

 

No. And I'm in law school. :)

[toddcwilson]

A lawyer with a camera ... and now the jokes begin;)

[dberryhill]

Wow! I'm a bit overwhelmed by the knowledge and experience of you guys. Thanks sincerely!! I do understand that faster lenses provide more versatility - valuable for low light and isolating a subject with a shallow DOF. I also understand the distortion issue. But I try to keep the camera level when I'm shooting at the wide end. I was struck by Peter's research that indicated the pro quality lenses have better sharpness. That, for me, could be a deciding factor. I want my pictures to look as much as possible like the scene I see through my viewfinder, with all the detail I can get. If more expensive lenses provide that, I'm interested. I just haven't seen it. I'm usually as pleased with the quality of portrait taken with the 18-70 as I am with my 50mm 1.8.

[tholte]

David, wait till you get out of law school and it will become much more clear to you.

[marypar4]

I have the 18-70 lens and its is a very good lens..sounds like you don't do much indoor low light stuff..so I don't think you will see a drastic difference by spending more money on "big glass" If you have $600 to spend I think the 16-85VR would be a nice step up as that would give you the advantage of image stablization..which will allow for hand hold at low shutter speeds VR helps make remarkably sharper photos when hand-held between 1/4 and 1/30 second. I am sticking with my 18-70 and keeping $600 in the bank!

[tholte]

Mary, help out the economy, buy some camera gear!

[david.elliott]

Tim,

 

Probably. :D

[nsfbr]

I think the 18-70 is a great lens for what it is. It is the best kit lens around sold by

anyone. It is not a $1k+ lens, and doesn't pretend to be.

 

It is a lot better than Nikons other "cheap" zooms that they started throwing on the

consumer bodies.

 

I've got lenses that cost 5-6 times as much, but for walking around outdoors, no lens

stays on my cameras more. It isn't fast, but it is sharp.

 

Use it until you think you need something better for specific reasons - not because you

need to stimulate the economy or because someone else thinks you should.

 

As a general rule, I think your next lens should be one of the fast primes (one of the

50s or 85s), but do it after considerable thought. Bodies get the attention, lenses get

the image.

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

I've just started seeing complaints about how it preforms on the D300 on DPR.

 

Lil :-)

[shuo_zhao]

The 18-70 is not a bad lens for its price. But it's not perfect neither. It has a very strange distortion pattern at 18mm, and it vignetts at f/2.5 and 18mm. These characteristics could be a pain in the neck or nothing to you. It all depends.

[peter_nelson1]

<I>Mary, help out the economy, buy some camera gear!</i><br><br>

 

I agree - in the last 6 weeks I've bought Nikkors - 70-200 f/2.8 VR, 12-24 f/4, 300 f/4 AF-S, TC14E II, and 24-70 f/2.8. I'm doing my bit to help the economy!

 

<br>

 

<br>

 

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp . . . the Japanese economy, that is!

[photo_dark]

I help you nikon guys out by sticking with canon gear. Gotta make sure the stores are well stocked ;)

 

But seriously, the same arguments exist on the EOS forum... the kit lens is fine. Unless you want a fast constant aperture, sharp corners, minimal vignetting and minimal barrel distortion :) In that case, stick with the more expensive ones.

[lex_jenkins]

You're not really missing as much as you might think, Doug.

 

When I got my D2H I tacked on the 18-70, mostly out of curiosity about this new-fangled DX format and its consarned smaller image circle lenses. I already had a bagful of good, fast, sharp manual focus Nikkors, so I wasn't worried. If it turned out to be a bum lens, no big deal.

 

While my history of comments about the 18-70 DX shows I'm no fanboy (it definitely has flaws), I'm still using it fairly often after three years. It does what it's supposed to do and is one of the best values ever offered by any lens maker, the zoom equivalent to the longtime standard bargain 50mm f/1.8 normal lens.

 

Something like the 17-55/2.8 would give you the ability to shoot in lower light at faster shutter speeds or without cranking up the ISO. The brighter view would also help with low light composition and autofocus efficiency. But don't expect dramatically "sharper" photos. That's not the real reason for buying a fast pro grade zoom. The main advantage, other than speed, is often ruggedness. The 18-70, while not fragile, is not the most rugged zoom on the market and over the past few years some users have begun reporting problems, not unexpected considering it's lightweight construction.

 

Rather than replacing midrange zooms, you might consider something like a macro lens, which can serve well as a general purpose lens in place of the 50 (assuming the 60/2.8 Micro Nikkor), or all purpose short tele (105mm).

 

Aside from the funhouse mirror distortion at 18-20mm, some light falloff wide open (never bothered me), and the fact that the 70mm maximum focal length actually shrinks to only 50mm at minimum focus (due to the optical design), it's really a pretty good lens. While resolution is not exceptional, it's not really lacking. Contrast is outstanding, as is internal flare resistance, which contribute to punchy looking photos. It's reputation for satisfactory performance is well deserved.

[ko]

I use exactly the same set up these days and the 18-70 is a great lens. One thing to consider, a 'pro' lens will be heavier and bulkier to carry around and might not balance as well on the D70. I was tempted to supplement with the 70-200 2.8 nikkor but declined. Not because I wasn't happy with its performance, (far from it), but it was heavy and cumbersome to carry around. Bjorn Rorslett rates it 4 out of 5 which means, in by his definition, "Very good, quality results can be expected. Such lenses can safely be applied to professional photography"

[michaelchristensen]

I have the D200 and the 18-70 which is used for most of my shots. I also have the 85 1.4 which is about as sharp a lens as they get. I can see the difference in sharpness, but it is not enough for me to be concerned about. The 18-70 is a damn good lens at a bargain price. I've used it for weddings, events, and landscape .. one would have thought a lens this good should command a higher price .. very satisfactory and excellent at the F8 sweet spot. Ironically, I thought I'd be using my 85 1.4 more than I do for portraits (for which every F stop is sweet) but the sharpness is sometimes too sharp for facials ... hence, I do tend to use the 18-70 as an all-purpose lens. My luck, it will probably break after its' discontinued and people discover it as a cult lens and jack up the prices. Strange, but I find my 85 1.4 better on my F5 than on my D200 (could be that film vs. digital thing) ..

[tonmestrom]

Although his metaphor is a bit off Tim is absolutely right. I've never been a friend of zoomlenses. However, while I have different high quality lenses I tried out the 18-70 DX myself since I got it as a kit lens and it's damned good value for money so I got to use more often than I ever expected. Frankly when I bought the kit I was considering giving it away. Glad I didn't. Just yesterday I got back some large prints (50x75 cm) with lots of details. Taken in good lighting conditions sure but tack sharp all over the place. Would I buy another one this would be it. I can't see myself spending 1200 on a lens that hardly gives me more to play with. Got other lenses for that.