definitive answer to Nikon lense question?

Irish_Tom

Irish_Tom

Irish_Tom

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
15,065
Lo all,

I'm about to order a D50 but cant decide whether to get the 18-55mm or 18-70mm lense. I've read loads of thread on here and no one seems to be able to agree.
The extra money for the 18-70 lense isn't a problem so it's all down to which will give me the best image quality etc etc for my first lense.

so which should I go for?

Cheers

Panzer
 
Well if the extra cost isn't an issue then the 18-70 is a no brainer :p it really is a premium quality lens, its sharpness, weight, build quality and features are up there with the rest of the good lenses
 
I have the 18-55 lense and have no complaints with it at all. Bright colourful images, sharp, responsive. Can't complain.

King.
 
gitara said:
The 18-55 :
-is lighter
-has less distortion
-has better zooming

The 18-70 :
-is 2/3 stops faster (doesn't matter at all in digital)
-has faster auto focus
-manual focus override

I would get the 18-55 and the 55-200.
Click to expand...

By that token it's not such a no brainer and If I went with Gitara's advice I could put the extra cash towards the 55-200mm lense...

Panzer
 
Panzerbjorn said:
By that token it's not such a no brainer and If I went with Gitara's advice I could put the extra cash towards the 55-200mm lense...

Panzer
Click to expand...

Well there are differences and there is a reason why it costs more..

The 18-55 :
-is lighter
-has less distortion (because it has less zoom range so can reduce that compensation)
-has better zooming (I don't know what this means, better zooming? the zoom ring on the 18-70 is just fine, maybe he means it has a bigger zoom ring so is easier to szoom with..)

The 18-70 :
-is 2/3 stops faster (doesn't matter at all in digital) (wrong, those extra stops give nicer bokeh, the extra stops at the long end also means you can use faster shutter without having to add extra noise by increasing ISO so actually it does matter)
-has faster auto focus
-manual focus override

On top of that the 18-70 is better at getting AF lock in low light without having to use the AF assist beam on camera body or a flashgun, the 18-55 can tend to hunt if an AF point isn't clearly visible to the lens.

Both lenses are optically good, it's the differences in specification and built quality and range that make up the extra cost of the more expensive one.

The op says the extra cost is a non issue, in this instance the op will benefit more from the 18-70 and can later get a 70-200 2.8 lens which will provide a much better combination that was has been mentioned in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Ok cool thanks for that.
I've just found another option which is the D50 with Sigma 18-50mm and 55-200mm for more or less the same price as the D50 with the Nikon 18-70mm. Should I assume that 2 lenses for the price of one will mean poor lenses?

Panzer
 
Is that the sigma 18-50 2.8? the 2.8 got AP mags lens recommendation so if you need 2.8 in a standard zoom then it can't be half bad!
 
I would say dont bother - I got the canon fit Sigma 18-50 and 55-200 lenses and sold them on very quickly

One thing with lenses whether Canon or Nikon or Sigma or whoever - you get what you pay for and quality costs.
 
18-70 is the best bet - I'd also recommend getting the nikon 50mm 1.8 - brilliant lens for sharpness and bokeh, but also forces you to understnad framing better as you can't just zoom to fit.
 
When people refer to "better zooming" on the 18-55, they mean it doesn't buch up, like the 18-70 - which can be annoying. You have to move it very little at the wide end to make a big difference, but tons at the long end to make very little difference at all.

Things like distortion, bunched zooming & weight are all "niggles" as opposed to big factors, though. The 18-70, at the end of the day, will deliver sharper, nicer shots. It isn't a "heavy" lens (the 18-55 is just lighter), you'll get used to the zooming & you'll probably never even notice the distortion.

Get the 18-70.

As an aside, the 55-200 is all kinds of average. If you want a budget tele to accompany your 18-70, get a 70-300.
 
As an aside, the 55-200 is all kinds of average. If you want a budget tele to accompany your 18-70, get a 70-300.

---

Agreed, I ended up with the 18-70mm DX AFS ED kit lens with my new Fuji S3 and also got a cheap n cheerful 70-300mm AFS G lens too.

Not too keen on the G as its very plasticy but since Im not doing F1 racing Im sure it will do for the time being.

18-70mm is unbelievable and blows the stuffing out of the 24-85mm AFS I was using on the S2 3 years ago.

Id agree on Sigma stuff, like for like with Nikkor glass its crud and tends to wash colour out. Also doesnt play ball with TTL/DTTL/iTTL from what I can gather.

R.
 
Nothing wrong with sigma lenses. I have loads of them from cheap to well over £400 variants. every single one has performed to my liking. Unfortunately they dont fit my new D50 :(. Just ordered some more :).
 
hoodmeister said:
I'm just being a pedantic so-and-so, but the 18-70 is a G lens, too! :D
Click to expand...

You know what, you're right! Didnt even notice that myself. What I meant by my post thought was that the 70-300 G type lens is very Fisher Price, it doesnt have a metal F mount on it for example whereas the "other" 70-300 is more robust :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom