DX Lens Question: 18-70, or 18-105 ??

[ross_lipman]

<p>I can purchase either lens very cheaply. Use would be on a D90 and possibly a D7000. Which is the better lens ? I like the longer reach of the 105, but am put off by reported distortion. I have some experience with the 70 and I have noticed distortion at the wide end. Is the 105 worse in this regard ? I like the metal mount of the 70 compared to the plastic of the 105.<br>

<br />Anyone have experience comparing both lenses ?</p>

<p>Thanks !</p>

[Stephen L]

<p>I bought the D90 with the 18-105 and found it to be an excellent kit lens. I really appreciated the extra reach and it was very sharp in good light. I hear the 18-70 is fine too and may be built a bit more ruggedly - I do not own it though. If the extra reach is important to you, then the 18-105 will serve you well with either camera. Otherwise I think it may be a toss up. Distortion is easily corrected in post using Capture NX2 and other software so I'm not sure you need to be overly concerned.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I've casually used both (the 18-70 came along in a kit once upon a time, and I've used another's 18-105). I like the 18-70's build a bit more. But the 18-105's 18-70 range ain't bad, and it's got a bit more reach. But the difference between 70mm and 105mm isn't really all that great. On DX, you notice small differences on the wide end more than in the traditional mid-tele ranges, I find.<br /><br />You'll probably find you'll end up with the 18-105 in your hands even more cheaply than the 18-70.</p>

[istvan_l_rincz]

<p>Hi Ross,<br>

it depends on you what you are looking for. I personaly like the 18-70 more than the 18-105. I used the 18-70 for a long time before I bought some prime lenses. I used it for portraits and wide angle group shots. I was always satisfied with the quality of the lens. Of course it is not the best one but for a cheaper DX lens it's more than a fair price. A lot of my friends and colleagues don't like it but for me its still a good and useable DX lens. <br>

If the 70mm is too short buy the 18-105. I would never buy a plastic bajonet lens.</p>

[Stephen L]

<p>I just want to add that a better choice over either of these would be the 16-85 - if the budget allows.</p>

 

[owen_omeara]

<p>I have never owned the 18-105 but have had an 18-70 for a long time and I still love it. Although it was sold as a kit lens but soon became a cult lens. I have heard the 18-105 is a very good lens as well. The build quality of the 18-70 is excellent.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Distortion is very easy to fix through software during post. I have the 18-105mm and it is extremely sharp and offers an expanded zoom range as compared to the 18-70mm. I doubt that you would see any differences in IQ between the two after processing. Nor would you be disappointed with either. If you don't need the extra reach, get the 18-70mm. If you need the extra reach, get the 18-105mm.</p>

[kj_thomas]

<p>18-105. More range and VR. 18-70 has a metal mount though. I would still go with the 18-105.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I think the 18-105 with the extra reach is very useful. Distortion is in the eyes of the beholder; I've had the Nikon 18-135 for over five years and use it for snapshots (I have a variety of f/2.8 lenses for my paid work), I don't have a problem with the distortion at 18mm, it's fine with me. I usually use that wide for large groups in a party setting, and it's one of the sharpest lenses I've used. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The 18-70 also has wild distortion at the wide end, it's not much better on a whole. I've had the 18-70, and liked it a lot, though. Mine was not great at wide apertures, the 16-85VR I got later was a serious step up in that sense - otherwise, hard to flaw the 18-70.<br>

But... I'd get the 18-105, because of the VR. It can be incredibly useful at times.</p>

[peter_gaunt]

<p>I love my 18-70 which I've had since 2006 and currently use with a D7000. Always wished Nikon had produced a VR version. It's as near as damn it a constant f4 lens too which is kind of nice (there's only 0.6 of a stop difference between the f3.5 at the wide end and the f4.5 at the long end) which makes it good in lowish light.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>I got the 18-70 with my D70 back in the day - it's a nice carry around lens - and has the build quality normally associated with a "pro" lens - it's fairly big and heavy. </p>

<p>I got my 18-105 with a D7000 and honestly haven't used it once. It is light, plastic, and too small for my hands...and I have small hands for a man. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

[jon_s.1]

<p>I've never used the 18-70, so I can't comment on that one, but I did briefly own the 18-105 and 16-85 simultaneously. In their shared range, I found these lenses to be equal in terms of image quality. So I don't think you can go wrong with the 18-105. </p>

[vrankin]

<p>I used the 18-70 on a D70s and currently use the 18-105 on a D5000. The 18-105 is very good for its price, and the VR is helpful. Care must be taken with the plastic lens mount, though. People reportedly have snapped it off when picking up their cameras by the lens instead of the body. I'm also especially careful about bumping it. I have enlarged its work to 24" X 36" and am very happy with that size. Individual tastes may vary.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I had a 18-70 that came with my D200 and loved the IQ on it all the way til the day it broke! (not Nikon's fault, beer and gravity were involved). It performed quite well though and was a hidden jewel according to several of the various lens reviewers. </p>

[tombest]

<p>Ross, I own them both. They have the same image quality. They both have a certain amount of distortion but unless you routinely photograph brick walls I doubt if either will be an issue. The 18-70 actually has more complex distortion than the 18-105 and would be harder to completely rectify if you're into the brick wall thing. I never noticed a problem with the 18-70's distortion personally. That said...</p>

<p>There are a few differences worth noting. The 18-70 is heavier and probably constructed slightly more robustly. Not a big advantage unless you are rough with your gear. It does have the metal mount. Probably a plus but not as big an issue as some would make it out to be. If heft is important, go with the 18-70.</p>

<p>The extra range of the 18-105 is actually pretty nice. The VR is a plus too. It is lighter but that is a plus<em> or</em> a minus and only you can determine if that's important. However... the 18-105 focuses noticeably slower. It is also a slower lens wide open and will hunt more in low light. If you plan to use your lens mostly indoors get the 18-70. If you plan to use it mostly outdoors get the 18-105. Image quality will be the same, which is very good. A D7000 with the 18-105 is a pretty light rig and not a chore to carry for extended amounts of time but the weight difference between the two is really pretty small. I stopped carrying the 18-70 once I had the 18-105, FYI. <br>

Tom</p>

 

[wilpenusa]

<p>I have the D-7000 and the 18-70mm and It is a very nice lens, but I find it has a problem with flare when shooting sunrise or sunsets and not just when the sun is in view. It is just something that must be considered when using it. It is a very robust lens considering the build quality. The 18-70mm does not have VR which I miss, but I just shoot at a higher ISO of 200 instead of 100. I have never used the 18-105mm afs w/VR but I have seen tests and in comparisons I think the 18-105 outdid the 18-70. I shoot what I have until I can buy something better. </p>