Reading mode: Light Dark

D90 with 18-105 or keep my 18-70

Go to last post
B

Bob Wells

Well-known member
Messages
117
Reaction score
1
Location
US
After much deliberation I have decided to buy a D90 and sell my D50. I am trying to decide if I Should get the kit lens (18-105 VR) or just the body only and use my 18-70 which I really like. It probably would be easiy for me to sell my D50 with the 18-70 rather than body only, but mainly I want to do the right thing. Is the 18-105 as good a lens as the 18-70? Aside from slightly slower f stop, has anyone encountered any problems or defiencies in the 18-105? Here is a photo I took with my D50 and 70-300 VR hand held (f/5.7 270mm).

D50/18-70/35D/105VR/70-300VR/10.5 fisheye/Canon SD950IS



--
Bob in Seattle
 
Hi Bob,

I just got my D90 tonight. It looks great with first few shots. Nice upgrade from D70 for me. So you seem to be in the same boat :)

I kept my 18-70. It has never let me down. Another reason was I am on a tight budget, but my camera was acting up giving frequent err messages that I did not want to risk and so upgraded to this instead of D80. The main reason for me is the expected shutter life for D80 is 50,000 shots and that for D90 is 100,000 shots. The high ISO performance is outstanding for slightly well lit objects. Shadows get noisy though.

If I had money, I would have bought the 18-105 for VR. It makes a stunning difference in low light shooting, no doubt. So, if you money to spare, ($200 more) then get it. Else, keep your 18-70 which is the sharpest known kit lens, as good as 16-85 without but without VR.

Hope that helps.
Nitin.
 
I've been sitting on that question myself for the past 6 weeks or so. Given that there are currently no significant discounts on the body-only (if you can find it), but the kit can be had for US $1240 or thereabouts, I've decided to get the kit and shoot the two lenses together. Whichever one doesn't cut it will get sold.

The 18-105 lens is selling on ebay for over the price difference between the kit and the body (for the moment) so there's not much to lose in getting the kit and testing the two lenses together.

Good luck with your decision Bob.
--
From Dublin, Ireland, but live in Dallas, Texas, USA
My web site: http://www.caudata.org/
My galleries: http://www.pbase.com/johnclare
 
I have been thinking of updating my D50 of almost 4 years. How much do you hope to get for it may I ask?
--
Terry Gelgen
D50
18-55ED
Nikkor 70-300VR ED
Nikkor 105mm Macro VR ED
 
Looking at SLRGear, it seems the 18-105mm is sharper than the 18-70mm wide open. Not sure about CA, Distortion, etc but I bet the 18-70 may be better in that. The 18-105mm has VR for those that want it and the 18-70mm is apparently built better for those that care about that.

I replaced my 18-135mm with the 18-105mm VR (didn't buy a D90, though). The 18-105 and 18-135mm seem to be very similar in build, size, feel and IQ with the exception of a 30mm difference in focal length and he addition of VR. I think the 18-105mm goes well with my 10-20mm Sigma and my 70-300VR and it makes a nice walk around lens.

I got the 18-105mm for $279 from Cameta and am glad I didn't pass it up.

--
Stu
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stujoe/

.
 
I hadn't thought much about a price because right now a local friend is interested in it so I'd let it go cheap. It avoids the hassle of shipping etc. The fact that my friend needs a lens prompted my question about the 18-70 vs. the 18-105. I subsequently found out that the 18-105 has a plastic mount --seems cheap to me. Now I am thinking about the new 16-85 which is of good quality. The 18-70 is very well made. With the economy tanking I was thinking of asking my private dealer for a package dsicount of the D90/16-85 VR.

You can see what D50s are going for on the great equalizer EBay. They actually go for more than I thought but it is a great camerua. To wit: the photo I have appended.

--
Bob in Seattle
 
Save $250 and get the body only. If you want to upgrade your lens don't do it with a kit lens.
 
I have take some pictures with 18-105 and Nikon D90 and I was quite disapointed. I would skip that lense. I have make some comparison with Sigma 17-70. But at a "real life pictures", it can be OK, if you dont look at pictures on your LCD @ 100%.
See for yourself.







It's seems that Sigma @ 70m is a little bit wider.

--
http://photosc.blogspot.com/
 
D50 released April 2005. It's a great camera. were you unhappy with it from the day you bought it or even before it was released? :-)
Sorry Terry ,just having a little fun.
T Gelgen said:
I have been thinking of updating my D50 of almost 4 years. How much
do you hope to get for it may I ask?
--
Terry Gelgen
D50
18-55ED
Nikkor 70-300VR ED
Nikkor 105mm Macro VR ED
Click to expand...
--
Check my Photo Blog
http://parisea.blogspot.com

 
Are these photos of the LCD on the back of the camera? Or are they images from the camera (jpeg or raw)? A bit more detail would be useful.

The results are not consistent the SLRgear results which shows excellent sharpness for 18-105 over the whole range. For 70mm, the blur results from their reviews least as good as the Sigma. The sigma does do better for CA and distortion. In Canada at least, the Sigma is more expensive ($530 vs 380). Of, it is also faster and has greater macro capacity (and has a distance scale for manual focusing).

--
Nick
 
nbirkett said:
The results are not consistent the SLRgear results which shows
excellent sharpness for 18-105 over the whole range.
Click to expand...
Having read all the available reviews and looked at the pictures people post here (not to mention my own), I'm coming to a conclusion that all 18-105s out there are very different from each other. Some people get 'sharp' specimens, some (like me) get 'soft' ones. Did not expect such incostistent quality from Nikon.
nbirkett said:
Are these photos of the LCD on the back of the camera?
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right? ;)

--
Andrei -- http://www.pbase.com/nd/
Nikon D90 + 18-105 VR
Panasonic DMC FZ-10
 
Vertigon said:
Some very good and kind posters submitted portraits with the 105 macro:
Click to expand...
Do you realize that 105 f/2.8G you are referring to is an entirely different lens than 18-105 discussed above and costs about three times as much?

--
Andrei -- http://www.pbase.com/nd/
Nikon D90 + 18-105 VR
Panasonic DMC FZ-10
 
Andrei Orehov said:
Andrei Orehov said:
Are these photos of the LCD on the back of the camera?
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right? ;)
Click to expand...
No, it was a serious question. The original posting talked about 'OK, if you dont look at pictures on your LCD @ 100%' I wondered if this referred to the LCD on the back of the camera and using the in camera zoom option. I don't know anyone who refers to the their computer monitor as their LCD (even though it is an LCD type display). This isn't a big deal. I was just looking for reasons to explain the discrepancy in the results from the SLRgear review.

--
Nick
 
In Slovenia, for comp. screen we have expression "LCD". I ment computer screen
nbirkett said:
Andrei Orehov said:
nbirkett said:
Are these photos of the LCD on the back of the camera?
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right? ;)
Click to expand...
No, it was a serious question. The original posting talked about
'OK, if you dont look at pictures on your LCD @ 100%' I wondered if
this referred to the LCD on the back of the camera and using the in
camera zoom option. I don't know anyone who refers to the their
computer monitor as their LCD (even though it is an LCD type
display). This isn't a big deal. I was just looking for reasons to
explain the discrepancy in the results from the SLRgear review.

--
Nick
Click to expand...
--
http://photosc.blogspot.com/
 
There must be some sample variations with this lens. These are not pro lens sharp, but I think they look a little better than the ones posted above.

70mm f/5.6 with 18-105VR



70mm f/8 with 18-105VR



Both with D40x RAW 100% crops.

--
Stu
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stujoe/

.
 
Bob,

For what it is worth, I have a D40 w 18-55 and a 70-300 vr . My son has a D300 and the 16-85 vr. (we also have a number of other lenses between us - and swap back and forth). The extra 2 mm on the 16-85 is a big plus for me as I have a "wide" sensibility about photography and it is as you say, really quite sharp all over and very very sharp at f8.

As you know, the VR on the 70-300 can make a big difference in some circumstances. Same for the 16-85.....VR lets you do things you would not get away with otherwise including really slow hand held at the wide end....1/6th, 1/8th etc.

so I'm sending you a vote for the 16-85 on the D90....that would be a killer diller combo especially since you already have the 70-300 ..... if you can swing it ($$)

Fred
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top