Need new lens (or not)

A mere 9 months ago, I purchased a D90 and the 18-105 kit lens. Have been a happy camper ever since. Along the way I acquired the 35 1.8 lens and the Sigma 105 macro, both of which I love, particularly the 105. (I also bought the SB600 flash, which I have yet to figure out).

Last weekend, my camera fell and the plastic housing on the kit lens broke. I've taken it to the camera shop to have it fixed. They need to send it to the Nikon repair people and were unable to tell me how much it may cost to repair. The general prognosis wasn't favourable. Any guesstimates?

So now I'm toying wih the idea of replacing it with the 16-85 Nikkor lens, which I understand is good. How good I'm wondering? It costs twice as much as the 18-105. Is it noticeably better?

I've checked out the B&H store and even with the exchange rate and cost of shipping, I'd still save buying it from there as opposed to here in Vancouver where before tax it comes to $720 (add 12% tax and I'm looking at $806).

On the B&H website, they had the lens for $600 imported and $630 USA. My question is what is the difference besides the $30? Can anyone enlighten me?

I appreciate your taking the time to read this and, hopefully, to reply with any information and suggestions.
Alice.

The non-usa one is a gray market lens. Nikon will not warranty it nor will they repair it. Spend the $30 and get the full 5 year coverage.

tellalice said:

On the B&H website, they had the lens for $600 imported and $630 USA. My question is what is the difference besides the $30? Can anyone enlighten me?

I appreciate your taking the time to read this and, hopefully, to reply with any information and suggestions.
Alice.

Click to expand...

--
-Dan Rode
http://rodephoto.com

Yes, the savings on the "Grey" market model is just not worth it due to the warranty issue. Get the USA version.

With regards to the difference between the 18-105 and the 16-85, this has been discussed within this forum ad nauseum.

Basically they both have very similar IQ and the 16-85 has a more "sturdy" construction (tighter tolerances and a metal mount). Will that make a difference in a fall like the one that broke your last 18-105? Probably not. While the mount is stronger, this may be offset by the extra weight of the 16-85. Besides lens mounts seemed to be designed anymore to fail before the frame mount deforms.

I went through this dilemma and ended up picking up the 16-85. I like the lens and the extra 2mm does help. I wouldn't switch if I were to decide again. I am very happy with the 16-85. But, you do need to analyze if the extra money is worth it for the construction, slightly different focal length and slightly different image characteristics.

+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Aaron Killen

I would suggest also considering finding a used Nikkor AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5. You can usually get them used on craigslist for about $200... less if you swoop in on a deal (I got mine for $100). This was the kit lens with the D70 -- but it has a metal mount, and obviously a f/3.5-4.5 is a faster lens than most kit lenses. The IQ is very good, so the only thing it really lacks over the 16-85 is a few millimeters of focal length at either end, and VR. It's a shame Nikon no longer seems to sell this lens.

To reiterate the other posts, if you do buy a new 16-85mm, don't buy the gray market lens if all it saves is $30.

I would send in the 18-105 VR to Nikon. This sounds like a small repair. Remember the outside of this lens is mostly plastic.

I have had a lens with a huge chip off the filter threads and barrel and Nikon fixed it for about $120. They had to replace the front element too during the repair.

Check out photozone.de for reviews of the 16-85 and 18-105. For me, I would rather spend the money on faster glass to get the shallower depth of field. I just got the 24-70 and it is just amazing. My old Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 was also pretty good and had better subject isolation capabilities than the kit lens.

--
Catallaxy

Thank you everybody for your help. I will wait now for the verdict as to how much the repair will cost before I do anything. I'd really rather pay to have it fixed than accept that the lens is "disposable".

I have the 16~85 and think it an excellent lens, but I'm thinking of selling itm in favour of a Sigma 17~70 f2.8~4 OS. It is a faster lens and has nicer bokeh. Cheaper too I think.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

You might also want to consider selling the damaged lens (while being upfront about what happened), then apply those funds towards a new lens. It's what I did when my D80 mount was damaged, and now I have a new (to me) D200.