Which Nikkor Zoom?

monkeypants

monkeypants

monkeypants

Soldato
Joined
12 Jun 2005
Posts
2,816
Location
A lake!
I got my first DSLR for my 21st last month, a D60 with 18-55mm Kit (Non-VR).

Now I'm looking to increase my range a bit, but I'm not sure which lens would be best. I'm looking at either:

AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

or

18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S DX NIKKOR

I just need a versatile lens for non-specialist photos. I'm leaning towards the 18-135 due to its increased zoom range, but the option of VR is quite appealing. I'd just like some opinions as to whether VR will really make that much difference to amateur photos, or whether I should go for the longer range and learn to do without the VR until it would make a noticable difference to my photos.
 
I went from the 18-55 kit to the 18-135 and noticed no difference in image quality. In hindsight I wouldn't have bothered with the 18-135 and just gone straight to the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 as the quality and versatility regarding the aperture is more useful than range to me.

The 18-135 was a decent lens for travelling but I never use it now (ie for sale!) because the 17-50 is so sharp!
 
I have got the 18mm - 135mm Kit lense its ok, but nothing special. I guess if you would like to get into photography you could get it but im sure you could spend the ammount somewhere better!
 
Both lenses are kit lenses and wont offer any increase in IQ. In fact the 18-55 might be the best.

The options are a fast zoom, like the Nikon 17-55 or Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. Otherwise for a versatile walk around lens the 16-85mm VR. Both serve different purposes.

If you actually want to get some reach then consider the 70-300mm VR (make sure it is the VR version), or 80-200 AF-D.
 
I don't need telephoto range, I just want a bit more than I have, hence the ~100mm focal length. Autofocus with the D60 is a must. My budget's about £200.

Given that, and everyone saying the IQ is not the best with these lenses, can anyone recommend a lens that I can use to replace my existing 18-55 while also increasing my zoom range?
 
monkeypants said:
I don't need telephoto range, I just want a bit more than I have, hence the ~100mm focal length. Autofocus with the D60 is a must. My budget's about £200.

Given that, and everyone saying the IQ is not the best with these lenses, can anyone recommend a lens that I can use to replace my existing 18-55 while also increasing my zoom range?
Click to expand...

The Nikon 16-85mm increases your range and should increase you IQ a little. The Nikon 17-55mm will increase your range on the wide end slightly.

If you want lens specifically at 100mm or so then look at the 105 Micro, the 105 f/2 DC etc.
 
GeX said:
what about the 18-200 VR?
Click to expand...

It has worse image quality than the 18-55, 18-55VR, 18-70, 18-105 VR and 18-135.

The 18-55 and 55-200 make a better combo.


My theory is is that if you are going to use an 18-200 you might as well buy a bridge camera.

The best lightweight convenient walkabout travel combo would be the 16-85VR2 + 70-300 VR. Throw in a 50 1.8 and you're done. IF you really like landscape add a 10-20mm, if you like Macros the Sigma 700 2.8 or Nikon 60mm for travel (Sigma 150mm for home use).
 
thats the first negative thing ive heard about the 18-200's IQ! I was planning to replace my kit lens with it and use it as a walkabout lens
 
GeX said:
thats the first negative thing ive heard about the 18-200's IQ! I was planning to replace my kit lens with it and use it as a walkabout lens
Click to expand...

No one has ever said the 18-200 has good objective IQ . This is just not possible with todays lens technology. The Nikon 18-200 might be the best super zoom and may have moderate IQ at certain settings, but such a super zoom has lots of compromises. The Chromatic aberrations are high throughout, vignetting is present on lower apertures, the geometric distortion is very high, the corners soft wide open and the lens never really reaches critical sharpness. The brokeh is poor and the lens has a moderate field curvature.


Combing the 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses will give better image quality, every review should indicate this.

You have to decide whether convenience or IQ is more important And if convenience over rides then a Bridge camera probably makes more sense than a DSLR.
 
I see your points, and IQ is king, I've had bridges cameras in the past and got frusrated with them so moved on and i dont know any that are 10(15)mm, which is what i shoot at most often - i just fancied having the extra reach avaible if i wanted it. I'd rather have that in the kit bag than comprise every shot taken between 20-200 !
 
Thanks for the info guys, I'm still a bit confused about zoom.. The 55-200 says it's a 3.6x zoom lens, but the 18-135 is a 7.5x lens. Can anyone tell me why? Or point me to a good website that explains the basics?
 
the 10x, 3x, 4.5x whatever is just a thing that fixed lens cameras normally have so joe public can compare them.

it is the difference between the minium and maximum focal lengths of the lens.

In DSLR world, you just look at focal length. Put simple, 35mm is what the eye sees. 200mm would be zoomed in a lot and 10mm is zoomed out.
 
monkeypants said:
Ahh right, I get you. 135 is 18x7.5 and likewise 200 is 55x3.6. Thanks!
Click to expand...


Max Focal length / min focal length equals zoom ratio.

In general the larger the Zoom ratio the worse the image quality is but the more convenient the lens.
Pro lenses like the 14-24, 24-70,70-200,200-400 have a relative short zoom range. Amature lenses like 18-200, 70-300, Sigma 150-500 etc have large ranges.

It is very hard to make a lens that has good IQ at all focal lengths. This is also why prime lenses are so much better than zoom lenses- there is a fixed focal length to design towards.
 
I'm going to go for the 55-200, but I'm now not sure whether to get the VR version, or the ED version. Are there noticable chromatic abberations with this lens that ED glass would reduce?
 
monkeypants said:
I'm going to go for the 55-200, but I'm now not sure whether to get the VR version, or the ED version. Are there noticable chromatic abberations with this lens that ED glass would reduce?
Click to expand...

AFAIK both lenses have ED elements and both don't suffer from CA. They have similar IQ, perhaps the VR version is better.

The main problem is the vignetting which is pretty severe.

The alternative isa the 70-300 VR lens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom