Posted by Bruce King on February 21, 2010 at 11:29 AM
I'm considering a Nikon 18-70 factory demo w/1 yr warranty by seller for $200. This would be a replacement for my 18-55 kit lens. Is this a worthy upgrade, or should I wait, save more $ and look at something else. I'll be using it for landscapes on my Nikon D5000. Thanks.
Posted by Greg Maklae on February 21, 2010 at 2:02 PM
I thought about the 18-70 to replace my kit lens, but got the 18-105 instead. It had slightly better reviews on image quality. I got a Nikon refurbished one for $249 from Adorama, (3 month warrenty). I have been very pleased with the sharpness images, especially in the f/8-f/16 range at 25-90 mm. The extra 35 mm is handy over the 18-70, and the VR works wonders. Hand held a 45 mm at 1/10 sec and image was very crisp.
Posted by Gene Lugo on February 23, 2010 at 6:39 AM
Bruce, I think that you'll find, as I did, that the performance will likely be better on the 18-55 than on the 18-105 at the same focal lengths. Both are made of plastic, but for a roughly $100 lens (the 18-55) you don't mind if it doesn't last a lifetime. The 18-70 matches or exceeds the 18-55 in image quality, is a bit faster at the long end at F4.5, has a metal lens mount, and in general feels a bit more substantial. It is definitely a step up from a kit lens. Compared to the 18-105, it focuses faster, definitely sharper especially at 18 mm and wide open. The only drawback is the zooming on some copies - some seem to get stiff in the middle of the zoom range. True for all copies, at the short end, small adjustments on the zoom ring make large changes in focal length, but at the other end everything is pretty normal. $200 is a good price for a store-bought refurb. The only thing an 18-105 will give you is a longer focal length, but at the expense of some image quality at the wide end and at maximum aperture.
I am going to through something out there - used Nikon 18-200 lenses are currently selling for less than $500 and if you can justify the extra cost, it is a worthwhile purchase.
Posted by Bruce King on February 23, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Thanks for the input you guys. I've got several lenses now but find I shoot most of my landscapes with the 18-55 simply because the focal lenght seems appropriate in most situations. Coincidentally, it's the poorest quality lens in my arsenal. I'm leaning toward holding back for awhile until I can go for the Nikon 17-55, but I'm still looking. Gene, I never thought of something as long as the 18-200. I'll do some reading on it. I've got a Tokina 12-24 f4 II that I'm very happy with. One lens that covers the rest of the range might be a great choice if it's IQ is high at both ends. VR is nice but not crucial since I do 99% of my shooting off a tripod.
Posted by Basil Greber on February 27, 2010 at 7:12 PM
I have to disagree with a number of the things Gene said. Sorry. I've owned the 18-55 DX, 18-70 DX, 18-135 DX, and used the 18-105 DX VR (which is rather close to the 18-135 DX, which I've used a lot, anyway). My conclusion is this: The 18-70 DX is definitely a step up in terms of build quality and handling (better AF, full time override, non-rotating filter ring), but I didn't really find it better than the 18-55 DX in terms of optics, in particular at the wide end (the long end is quite nice, though). Overall, I was not very happy with the 18-70 DX. It just didn't meet the expecations of "a step up in image quality" that lead me to buy it in the first place. The 18-135 DX was the best of the bunch for my use. It has quite some distortions (the 18-55 DX is best in that regard) and some CA (which are automatically removed on the modern bodies) - but sharpness is excellent.
Could be a case of bad copy vs good copy Basil. True, my experience was with only 2 copies of the 18-70 and one copy of the 18-55, certainly not representative of the entire bunch of lenses out there, but by the same token it appears that you are basing your evaluations on limited samples. Also, you did not mention what bodies you are using the lenses on - I own a D70s, D200 and D300.
I do agree that the 18-55 DX is a fine lens, especially for the small price Nikon asks, it still does not approach the 18-70 in many respects:
Handling and build quality - we both agree that the 70 is better made and handles smoother than the 55. It also focuses faster, and is a faster lens, with a minimum aperture of 4.5 at the long end. Zooming on the 55mm is better, as the action on the 70 is not linear - a small movement of the zoom ring results in different amounts of change in the focal length. Takes a bit of getting used to. The 70's zoom was a little "sticky" in the middle. Not the case on the 55, which was uniformly stiff throughout its range.
Contrast - 70 wins - it is closer to other lenses (subjectively) than the 55 was. I have an 18-200 VR, a Sigma 18-50 2.8 and have used a Nikon 17-55 2.8.
Sharpness - again, the 70 is visibly sharper, closer to the other lenses, than the 55 was. Performance was different on different bodies, though. On the D70s, it was crisp, on the D200 and D300 it was even sharper in the center. Corner performance seemed to suffer a bit on the D300, not quite as much on the D200. This might have to do with the size of the image circle, which is very small on the 70mm. The 55 seems to be more consistent on all the cameras I evaluated it on.
Light falloff and vignetting - seems it is equally bad on both lenses wide open, equally decent with an edge to the 55 at 50mm, and there is some falloff at the 70mm end on the 70. Falloff is more noticeable on the D300 than the other bodies.
Flare - both are pretty good.
Chromatic aberration - slightly better on the 70mm, not bad at all on the 55mm. Since I do not shoot jpg, I do not rely on in-camera processing to remove CA. However, if you shoot raw and use a decent raw converter, it is not an issue in any case.
When comparing both lenses at wide open apertures I would say the 70mm was slightly better. At F8, they are closer, but the 70 still seems to have better sharpness and contrast, but worse light falloff. The 70 is clearly sharper than the D70s can reproduce, and works great on the D200, but not nearly as nicely on the D300, primarily because of the light falloff.
There is a difference, but not a great one, between the two. Maybe a half-step to a full step up, depending on what and how you shoot.
If you take a look at the reviews on these lenses from the usual sources, you will find that my experience is more consistent with what they are reporting, taking into consideration sample variations.
I have a Sigma 10-20 that was absolutely horrible, until I returned it to Sigma for an "adjustment." When it came back 10 days later, it became one of my sharpest lenses. The reviews on this lens reflect a quality that range from acceptable to pretty darn good. I got lucky and ended up with the latter. You might have had a bad copy of the 18-70.
Discussion
5 repliesI am going to through something out there - used Nikon 18-200 lenses are currently selling for less than $500 and if you can justify the extra cost, it is a worthwhile purchase.
I do agree that the 18-55 DX is a fine lens, especially for the small price Nikon asks, it still does not approach the 18-70 in many respects:
Handling and build quality - we both agree that the 70 is better made and handles smoother than the 55. It also focuses faster, and is a faster lens, with a minimum aperture of 4.5 at the long end. Zooming on the 55mm is better, as the action on the 70 is not linear - a small movement of the zoom ring results in different amounts of change in the focal length. Takes a bit of getting used to. The 70's zoom was a little "sticky" in the middle. Not the case on the 55, which was uniformly stiff throughout its range.
Contrast - 70 wins - it is closer to other lenses (subjectively) than the 55 was. I have an 18-200 VR, a Sigma 18-50 2.8 and have used a Nikon 17-55 2.8.
Sharpness - again, the 70 is visibly sharper, closer to the other lenses, than the 55 was. Performance was different on different bodies, though. On the D70s, it was crisp, on the D200 and D300 it was even sharper in the center. Corner performance seemed to suffer a bit on the D300, not quite as much on the D200. This might have to do with the size of the image circle, which is very small on the 70mm. The 55 seems to be more consistent on all the cameras I evaluated it on.
Light falloff and vignetting - seems it is equally bad on both lenses wide open, equally decent with an edge to the 55 at 50mm, and there is some falloff at the 70mm end on the 70. Falloff is more noticeable on the D300 than the other bodies.
Flare - both are pretty good.
Chromatic aberration - slightly better on the 70mm, not bad at all on the 55mm. Since I do not shoot jpg, I do not rely on in-camera processing to remove CA. However, if you shoot raw and use a decent raw converter, it is not an issue in any case.
When comparing both lenses at wide open apertures I would say the 70mm was slightly better. At F8, they are closer, but the 70 still seems to have better sharpness and contrast, but worse light falloff. The 70 is clearly sharper than the D70s can reproduce, and works great on the D200, but not nearly as nicely on the D300, primarily because of the light falloff.
There is a difference, but not a great one, between the two. Maybe a half-step to a full step up, depending on what and how you shoot.
If you take a look at the reviews on these lenses from the usual sources, you will find that my experience is more consistent with what they are reporting, taking into consideration sample variations.
I have a Sigma 10-20 that was absolutely horrible, until I returned it to Sigma for an "adjustment." When it came back 10 days later, it became one of my sharpest lenses. The reviews on this lens reflect a quality that range from acceptable to pretty darn good. I got lucky and ended up with the latter. You might have had a bad copy of the 18-70.