Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm DX Lens

[zoid]

<p>I have an AF-S 18-55mm DX G on my wife's D50 and for her it does okay. I put it on my D100 and . . . bleh.<br>

I then stuck my Nikkor AF 50MM f1.8 on my D100 and boy does that 50 continue to show just how awesome a lens it really is.<br>

However, I need to get down to 18mm pretty regularly.<br>

So, I've been eyeing the Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm DX.<br>

As far as focal length, the 18-70 matches up to my Nikkor AF 28-105mm D-type. And to be honest, that 28-105 sits on at least one my N90s bodies probably 90% of the time. So my gut tells me the 18-70 should put be right at home as far as range goes in the DX world.<br>

And before the suggestions start flying, I'm not considering any other Nikkor, Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina DX lenses. Way too much money for not a lot of gain... Plus, I'm sitting on my AF and AF-D Nikkors until FX gets down to about $1600.00, which will probably be a good 2-3 years from now.<br>

I'm sure there's a bunch of photographers around here that have shot this 18-70 lens. Do/Did you like it?</p>

<p>Much Thanks in advance,<br>

-Zoid</p>

[nsfbr]

<p>I got my first DSLR, a D70, with the 18-70 as the kit lens and it is very nice for a walk around consumer lens. Since then I took thousands of images with it, and although it gradually became a less frequently used item, it still takes great pictures. I did recently replace it, walking around lens wise, with the 16-85, but you aren't looking for alternative suggestions so ignore that part. </p>

[ronald_olsen]

<p>Mine was mediocre when I bought it. It took a hard knock, and I sent it in to Nikon for adjustment. It came back sharper than when it was new. So, there may be more sample variation than in a pro-level lens. I use a 24-70 now for "money" shots, but for family and vacation photos or when you want to travel lighter, the 18-70 is a good lens to have.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Bought the 18-70 with the D70 a little over 5 years ago. Except for the rather high distortion and vignetting at 18mm, the lens did not disappoint. I let it go in favor of keeping the 24-85/3.5-4.5 AF-S and 18-35/3.5-4.5 in a misguided attempt to stick to FX lenses. Now these two are also gone and if I were to purchase a lighter alternative to the 17-55/2.8, I'd be looking at the new Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS HSM.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> It's a great unilens. Yes, it has complex waveform distortion, so if you are planning on shooting a lot of architecture or copy work, you may want something else. If not, you'll love it. National Geo photographer David Alan Harvey shot an entire assignment with one, so it might be good enough for some of us.</p>

<p> </p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>my experience has been exactly the same as Joel's; enjoy the 18-70-it's quite good. regards, cb :-)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Back in 2004 when the 18-70mm AF-S first came out with the D70, I got to borrow one from a friend at work and used that for like 20 minutes or so. See the test image I posted on March 31, 2004. The wave-form "mustache" distortion at 18mm is very pronounced: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/007r7T">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/007r7T</a></p>

<p>But as long as you are not shooting architecutre, etc. with it, even some serious distortion is typically not a big deal.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>i love the lens. still use it on a D90 and a D200, sometimes even on professional shoots. it is my everyday/lightweight/getaway lens for my D60.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>The Nikon 18-70 f3.5-4.5 is sharp, reasonably priced, and has a rubber gasket on the metal mount that seals out dust and moisture. In my opinion, it is a good choice for you.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>lots of people love the 18-70 and it has a big advantage over the later kit lenses, namely, the 4.5 max aperture on the long end. it also has better build than the 18-55. i was never that impressed with mine, however, and rarely used it once i got the tamron 28-75 (needed the speed). still, i've held onto it. one thing that always struck me a little weird about the 18-70 ergonomically was the placement of the focus ring after the manual focus override ring. unlike my other lenses, you can't zoom with the lens hood reversed. not quite sure why nikon did this.</p>

[joey1]

<p>One of the better kit lenses Nikon has made. Great for portraits, travel lens, just a great all arounder real world Joe lunch bucket type of lens. Still use it for a lot of my digital work!</p>

[bob_flood1]

<p>In case you haven't noticed, you get varying reviews from owners of this lens. That's the nature of consumer lenses - production tolerances aren't as tight as the much higher priced pro lenses, and that leads to variations in the final quality. My copy is a very good one, but others can disappoint. If you plan to buy locally, I strongly suggest you put the lens on your camera and take some shots in the store and thru an open door (not thru a window), and examine them closely for barrel distortion, pincushion, and sharpness. If the one you try isn't good, ask to try another.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>It's my main lens. I got mine on my 2nd D70, didn't need the 2nd body so I sold it but kept the lens (!).</p>

<p>It is my travel lens, my walking around lens, I don't have a better mid lens, that's it.</p>

<p>I have the 50 f/1.8 which is a awesome lens. The pro 2.8 lenses are just too big for me and the 28 and 24mm f/1.4 again too large for me but I probably would get one in due time for home shooting. Via travel not sure. I am a cityscape, landscape guy so fast lenses are nice for the odd occasion walking down HK or Tokyo at night for a grab shot - but it does not capture motion.</p>

<p>A lens I miss is the Nikon 80-200mm f/4-5.6 as used by Galen Rowell. Very sharp at f/8, like Galen said f/8 and be there.</p>

<p>My D70 is still my main camera, still under 10,000 clicks.</p>

[breogan_gomez]

<p>I have used the 18-70 for a few months on my D40x, I was really pleased with the color saturation. Really beautifull! However I didn't liked the slow aperture and I sold it for a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. The colors are not as vibrant, but I much prefer the faster aperture.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I have owned the 18-70, and only sold it to make sales of a body easier. I saw no reason to part from it. It's a very nice lens, well-made for the money. But the distortion mentioned at 18 mm are very real, and for really sharp shots, I regarded it a f/5.6 constant lens. Not that performance wide open was bad, but not that good either.</p>

<p>However: ..<em>Way too much money for not a lot of gain</em>...<br>

It's your wallet obviously, but I'd try to be a bit more open minded here. Sure, the 16-85 is too expensive, but I was amazed how much better it was than my 18-70. Seriously sharper, and VR opens some options too. Worth the money? To me, eventually, yes.<br>

All the happy owners of the Tamron 17-50 f.2.8 cannot be wrong, and Sigma has the new 17-70 with VR which may be very interesting. Also, the 18-105VR is a very very nice lens, and not that expensive. Between a new 18-105VR or a second hand 18-70, I think I'd go for the 18-105.</p>

[walterh]

<p>A nice lens for a low price. Used these lenses were 100 to 150 Euro a few years ago.<br>

Yes one would expect some sample variation and I found out there really is. I tried three copies that I owned and one was pretty good but the two others were only slightly less in IQ and not bad at all. For good statistics you would need a few hundred from different origins to test^^.</p>

<p>This lens was the one that made many photographers rethink what a cheap plastic lens can do. I guess that says a lot.</p>

<p>The 17-55 f2.8 pro-zoom is better at first sight. No mistake you see it on the first image :-)<br>

But the price is in a different range.</p>

<p>The D70 with this zoom was a nice little and capable package that I liked a lot.</p>

[holger]

<p>I loved mine too, now my son loves it since he took my D70 and the 18-70. I prefer it to the 18-55 in every respect. Depending on your subjects, VR would be nice. And / or wider aperture. But that's another thread...</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Good lens. Sharp, slightly faster than the other kit lenses, reasonable size. You wouldn't have any complaints.</p>

<p>Somebody mentioned the Sigma 17-70. I used to have the non-VR version and it didn't disappoint. At times I regretted selling it. You'll be able to find the Nikon cheaper though.</p>

[zoid]

<p>A sincere thank you to those who have responded.<br>

I think the Nikkor 16-85 is waaaay over-priced. Nearly 30% over-priced, IMHO.<br>

If I need to consider Tokina, Tamron and Sigma, then why do I need to use Nikon at all? What I need is a solid 17-70 Nikkor without VR for about $400. VR is just something else to break on me in the field.<br>

I'll try the 18-70. There are two used ones here locally. They're a tad more than what they sell for on ebay, but I can mount them up before buying. Thanks again to everyone for the help.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>I had one for a few years, used it as my main lens on a D70. It was good, a bit soft at the long end but totally acceptable. Moved into using more prime lenses when getting a D300, but on a D50 I wouldn't hesitate to use it as a universal lens.</p>

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>I have both the 18-55 and 18-70, both the f3.5 to something versions,and the thing I immediately noticed was that the "18"mm setting on the 18-55 was noticeably less wide than the same setting on the 18-70 lens.<br>

The deciding point for me was the effective 105mm focal length on DX format ,on the long end the absolute best length ,IMHO,for headshots,and a pretty respectable effective 28mm for a walk-around wideangle.<br>

And,being slightly soft at 70mm,when used for portraits,could be considered a plus.<br>

But the complex distortion at 18mm would make either of these lenses a poor choice for architechture.</p>