tombest Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 <p>I just purchased a D7000 in kit form with the 18-105 lens. I understand about the plastic mount and all but thought the 18-105 might be a better walk-about lens than what I already have. The other two lenses I have in this relative range I have accumulated since my D70 days; the 18-70 f3.5-4.5 and the 24-120 F3.5-5.6 VR. The 24-120 was never a well-reviewed lens, the 18-70 almost always is. But I don't really need three lenses in the same relative focal lengths. I am thinking strongly of dumping the 24-120 and the 18-70, with the only caviat being that the 24-120 will accommodate a full-frame sensor in the off chance I can swing one at some time in the future. From what I can determine from the posts I can find comparing the 18-70 to the 18-105, the 18-70 is slightly better optically, is faster, has a metal mount, but has no VR. The 18-105 is slower on the long end, seems to be sharp enough, has a plastic mount, but has VR. </p> <p>I don't really have to sell any of them but would put the few hundred dollars I would get for them towards something in the ultra-wide category (such as the Tokina 11-16 F2.8). Any thoughts?<br> Tom</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 <p>Even though the 24-105 accommodates the FX sensor, it is, according to reviews, so poor that it's not worth using on them.</p> <p>If I had all three of those, I might sell them all and get the Tamron 17-50, or I might keep the 18-70 cause it's so small and light. For myself, I discovered I didn't miss VR in that range when I replaced my 18-200 with the 18-70/70-300VR combo. ymmv.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_sheen Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 <p> I would suggest you keep the 18-105 and sell the other lenses. The 18-70 and 24-120 3.5-5.6 really aren't optically superior to the 18-105 and the lack of VR on the 18-70 and poor optical quality of the 24-120 really won't give you any reasons to keep them at all. Sell them and...perhaps get a few set of nice filters if you shoot landscape or perhaps a 50mm F1.8 and a flash if you shoot portraits? Though at this price range you can't really get anything great.</p> <p>As for ultra-wides, I would suggest the sigma 10-20 over the tokina 11-16. Sigma 10-20 has much better distortion control than the 11-16 and way less dispersion. One of the biggest problems with the Tokina 11-16 is the dispersion on the corners which persists even when stopped down, unless CA is not a big issue to you, then it is a great lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombest Posted June 2, 2012 Author Share Posted June 2, 2012 <p>I agree that the 24-120 isn't worth hanging on to. Thanks for the confirmation. I had not considered the Sigma but will look into it. As far as flashes goes, I have and SB 800 and an SB 600. My other lenses are the 60mm F2.8D micro-Nikkor, the 85mm F1.8D and the 70-200 F2.8 VRI with a TC-14. I also have considered selling or trading both the 60 and the 85 and getting a 105 macro instead but for now, I am just working on the previous dilemma. Mine is not a well thought out camera bag, for sure. Thanks for the feedback. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mihai_ciuca Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 <p>Let me throw another idea... sell the three zooms in discussion and buy a Nikon 16-85/VRII. You get 2mm on the wide area, a very solid lens with very good IQ. IMHO a single good lens is better than a bag full of not so good glass.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_l3 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 <p>I had both the 18-70 and 18-105 lenses. Tested them toe to toe on my new D7000 to decide which to keep. Gave the 18-70 with D40 to my step-daughter and kept the 18-105. Sharpness alone was a close call, but the 18-70 had far more vignetting (it was always very noticeable at 70mm) and its color was not quite as pleasing. The 18-105 images just look better overall and it's been a great walk about lens. VR is generally nice to have too. I have numerous 18-105 images that are impressive in sharpness and contrast so have few complaints with it. If Nikon only gave it a metal mount I'd be happier. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombest Posted June 3, 2012 Author Share Posted June 3, 2012 <p>I'm a small engine mechanic by trade and have been for 37 years. I remember reading a Consumers Report review of riding mowers many years ago where they knocked the Snapper rider because of a clutch cable that ran through the frame and rubbed on it. They cited it as a problem and downgraded the mower because of it. In all my years of repairing them I never saw one break because of that. So the reality is that even though it appeared to be a problem, it never actually was one. I suspect that much of the dialog about the plastic mount is like that. Has one ever failed <em>because</em> it was plastic? Maybe, but it seems smooth to me and locks on just as tightly as all my other lenses with metal mounts. David, in the few test shots I've taken with the 18-105, it does seem plenty sharp. Mihai, I am looking into the 16-85 also. Much to think about. Thanks. I appreciate the responses. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 <p>The 24-120mm is a lot better than most give it credit for.</p> <p>While it is certainly not one of Nikon's best lenses, for the money, it is a bargain. Unless you are a pixel peeper or printing huge posters, you likely won't see differences in IQ to your other lenses. Or even to other know lenses that are among Nikon's best.</p> <p>Based on tests I have done, on the wide end, the 24-120mm is as sharp at 24mm as the 24-70mm f2.8. On the long end, at 120mm is is not quite as sharp as the 70-200mm VRII but it is not that far off. And you can only see the differences when pixel peeping. And after post processing with DXO, the two are very, very close in IQ. DXOs lens softness correction does an amazing job in images from this lens.</p> <p>Which should you keep? I would suggest you do your own comparisons between the three and decide based on which lens most meets your shooting needs. IQ should be too close to call. I originally bought this lens because I liked the extended zoom range and its low cost. If you plan on going to FX and will be on a tight budget, it is certainly a good starter lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 <p>The following are 100% crops of test shots that were shot on a tripod with the D3.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 <p>24-120mm</p> <p>(I applied the same amount of lens sharpness correction to both images.)</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 <p>plastic mounts aren't "un-well-made" because of the plastic mount. The plastic mount is an indicator of other shortcuts taken inside (parts held together with tape, etc.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanleyBeck Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 <p>I have a 24-120mm VR, and I used it for about 95% of my shooting for several years, and am generally satisfied with the results. Other lenses that I had were the 18-70mm, 80-400mm, 50mm f/1.8, and a 105mm f/2.8 micro.</p> <p>No surprise, the 105mm prime is the sharpest of the group.</p> <p>I just added an 18-200mm DX VR, and a 1989 mod. 75-300mm (auto focus, but no VR). All are Nikon. I will probably sell the 24-120mm (redundant).</p> <p>The reasoning is this: The 18-200mm is my single lens solution; The 18-70mm + the 75-300mm is my two-lens solution, and the rest of the time, I hope to carry my entire kit.</p> <p>I did some quick and dirty tests, and the 24-120mm, 18-200mm and the 75-300mm all have approximately the same sharpness (quite satisfactory), while the 75-300 has less barrel/pincushion distortion than the other two. That being said, and notwithstanding the convenience of zooms, nothing beats a good prime lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Sigma 10-20 has much better distortion control than the 11-16 and way less dispersion. One of the biggest problems with the Tokina 11-16 is the dispersion on the corners which persists even when stopped down, unless CA is not a big issue to you, then it is a great lens.</p> </blockquote> <p>Huh? Which Sigma? The mustache distortion on the original Sigma 10-20 is horrific. The distortion on my 11-16 is very very workable, in fact, in real world photography I have never had to do one single distortion correction.</p> <p>Also, in real-world photography, the CA has never been an issue for me (of course, it's also not hard to correct when it is... but I haven't had to do that except when testing), and sharpness on the 11-16 is GREAT across the frame 1.5 stops down or more and even usable (up to about 8 x 10 or 11 x 14) wide open.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombest Posted June 3, 2012 Author Share Posted June 3, 2012 <p>Peter,I have heard about the 'tape' assembly fo the plastic mount lenses. If that is true, and I expect that it is, does it make the lens less durable? I read from one of Shun's posts that the 'tape' is most likely to manifest itself in a drop, dislodging elements. While other lenses may fare better in a fall, clearly no lens is meant to be dropped. I am not a photo journalist and am very careful in my lens handling and am wondering if that is a real issue for me. Also, I have read reviews of the Tokina 11-16 and have read nothing but praise for its clarity and contrast.</p> <p>Elliot, very revealing examples posted of the two lenses's images. I would have never thought the 24-120 would have held up so well. With my D200, I never noticed anything wrong with any of the images I used it for that were truly attributable to the lens. But then, the D200 wasn't that demanding of it, the D70 being even less so.</p> <p>I originally bought the 24-120 because of the VR and the extra reach it provided. The 18-105 covers most of that and gives me the wide to boot along with VR. I'm certainly not married to the 18-105 yet and am actually considering the 16-85 but other than a slightly better build, not sure if I get a lot more IQ. What with turning 60 in a few months, I have a little more latitude in a purchase that I might not have had otherwise. </p> <p>My thoughts were to have my lovely wife get me the Tokina 11-16 for my birthday and use the money I would get from the sale of the two lenses I chose not to keep to buy a better ball head for my tripod. It is really a great thing to be able to bounce ideas off of the enormous think tank this site provides. Thanks again,</p> <p>Tom</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 <blockquote> <p>My thoughts were to have my lovely wife get me the Tokina 11-16 for my birthday and use the money I would get from the sale of the two lenses I chose not to keep to buy a better ball head for my tripod.</p> </blockquote> <p>Sounds like a great plan to me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 <p>If you plan on going full frame, you may want to consider Sigma's 12-24mm.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnr78735 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Tom, If you decide to sell and buy something feel comfortable with the Tokina 11-16....I've shot Nikon glass for over 40 years...everything from the 10.5 fisheye to the 400 f2.8 VR and the Tokina was the first non Nikon glass I have ever purchased and I absolutely love it. John in Austin NAS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombest Posted June 3, 2012 Author Share Posted June 3, 2012 <p>Thanks John. A buddy of mine loaned me his Nikon 12-24 f4.0 a year ago and I had a blast with it. I started looking at used versions of that lens when I discovered the Tokina. Wasn't sure about their reputation but in direct comparison between the two, the nod always seemed to go to the Tokina. I have heard of complains about the CA but frankly I would rather fix some of that occasionally instead of fixing sharpness issues. Sharp gets my attention everytime. Thanks,</p> <p>Tom</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 <p>18-70 is one of the most underrated lenses in Nikon bag because it came as a "kit" lens. It still is a very handy lens for walk about and can take very sharp pics.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl_becker2 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 <p>I would keep the one that you like,use the most. I liked the 18-70mm as a travel lens, small, light and OK speed. I would not keep three in the same range but the 24-120mm is not quite apples to apples in DX. I do prefer faster tele's than what the 18-105mm offers.<br> IMHO a 12-24mm type wide zoom is much more versatile than the 11-16mm unless you are doing interior shots.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombest Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 <p>I agree that the 12-24 has more reach on the long end and would be more 'versatile' but I think I was initially drawn to the sharpness reviews of the Tokina. I found that I was using my friend's Nikon 12-24 much more on the short end than the long end so didn't think the limited range of the 11-16 would be a limiting factor. I want a lens of this type for the distortion it provides, not because of any special need I can't get done with what I already have. But I am no expert and am listening carefully to everything I hear.<br> Someone suggested looking at the 16-85 and selling all three lenses I currently have. I think I could get within $200 of a 16-85 if I sell all three, including the new 18-105. Is it worth considering? If I did that, the 11-16 fits nicely in the scheme. More money but perhaps a cleaner, better overall lens set. The 24-120 has only a little value if I eventually went full frame, but frankly, after using the D7000 for a couple of day, I am so impressed with it I think I will be happy for a while.</p> <p>Tom</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I thought the story about the tape was in reference to an older model 18-55 lens. The 18-105 is better made than that. In my experience with both the 18-105 and 16-85 on a D7000 the 16-85 offers no advantage at all, beyond the 2mm at the wide end and having more metal parts. As you've observed, I'm not even convinced that metal parts are important. I've had a Nikon camera with a bent mount ring from having been dropped with a lens on, and if it's true that a plastic mount on the lens is more likely to break, a broken $20 mount on a $300 lens would have been preferable to a broken ring on the camera and whatever internal damage would have gone with it if it had been a complex, current model, $1200 DSLR. But anyway, the 16-85 offers no optical advantage that's visible in actual photos, so no, it's not worth the substantial expense over the 18-105. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 <blockquote> <p>But anyway, the 16-85 offers no optical advantage that's visible in actual photos, so no, it's not worth the substantial expense over the 18-105.</p> </blockquote> <p>Unless you care about those 2mm at the wide end, which frankly to me make a whole lot more difference than the 20mm at the long end. I like the extra bit wideness a lot, saves me quite a lot of changes to the 12-24 I have, as 16mm is frequently wide enough. And the 16-85VR is a very good lens, but indeed it is pricey. If I'd had a 18-105VR already.... I would add a Tokina 12-24 f/4 instead to get the extra wide angle (even if I use the 12-24 mostly at the wide end, the flexibility of reaching to 24mm is really frequently useful - if I'd have an 11-16, I'd be using it a whole lot less than I use my 12-24).<br> If you had no lenses, a different story. But I agree with Andy that "upgrading" the 18-105 to a 16-85 is not a great way of spending money.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombest Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 <p>I'm glad to hear about the 18-105's relative merits. I really don't want to spend any extra money if I don't have to. After weighing all the advice, it seems the best plan for me is to keep the 18-105 and sell the 18-70 and 24-120. I'm pretty sure I can get my wife to buy me an ultra-wide lens for my birthday outright without me kicking in my lens money towards it. So that would leave me enough to invest in a better tripod head or an MB-D11 grip. So the 12-24 is truly a better 'only' ultra-wide than an 11-16? Is the Tokina 12-24 as sharp as the 11-16? It's certainly cheaper in the old version than the 11-16 is.</p> <p>Tom</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Is the Tokina 12-24 as sharp as the 11-16? It's certainly cheaper in the old version than the 11-16 is.</p> </blockquote> <p>the 11-16 is one stop faster and one stop sharper than the tokina 12-24. it reaches max sharpness at 5.6, not f/8, which frequently doesnt matter with an UWA. but at f/8 i dont think you could tell a difference between the two. i've had the tokina 12-24 for 5+ years and only a few times have i regretting it not having 2.8. but more than once i've wished it went to 10mm. still, can't complain; overall, it's been stellar. well worth the purchase price, and i still use it often.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now