Nikon 18-105 vr. Looks good in reviews, is it?

[john Clinch]

I'll start with the traditional intro. I have Nikon D90, a very elderly 18-70 and a Sigm 10-20 (f4-5.6). I also have a Sony RX100 for times when weight matters.

I shoot holiday travel type stuff and Landscapes.

I have spent months planning to sell up for a few quid and start again in another system. But now that feels like I'd be saving a few grams and spending alot for the latest fad

The 18-70 really needs to go. The threads are worn from the filter going on and off. The zoom rubber round the zoom ring is hanging loose. It is over 10 years old. Most of the time it has been my only lens and it earned it's keep

So I want a "new to me" mid range zoom. I would really rather have VR and more reach. More reach is because as the 18-70 is the same range as the RX100 I tend to not bother taking if I'm off out for a walk. I'd also like a 2 lens landscape solution and some times 70mm isn't quite enough

The 18-140 looks good in some ways but it's at its worst at 18mm. The 18-105 looks more consistent across the frame (although never quite as sharp) at 18mm. 18mm seems important to. Similarly the 16-85 doesn't look it's best at the wide end. It also adds less if I'm carrying 2 lenses as it just overlaps the ultra wide more. I'm probably over thinking it. The D70s prints were fine 18 by 12 inches and I've only twice printed bigger than that

I'll forgive the plastic mount for a low price

PS I'll probably get a 70 300 AFS VR as well as they are cheap as chips at the moment. But I won't always take that with me.

Obviously these links will give a feel for what I've been up to photographically

Thanks

John

 

[anotherMike]

From my point of view, even as someone who aims at a much higher level of lenses, is that having at one time used them all on a D300 or D90 back in the day, I liked the 18-140 kit lens the best of all, followed by the 18-105. As long as you can accept you're not getting the build quality of a more serious (and more expensive) lens, you'll be fine with either to replace your aging 18-70.

-m

 

[Steve Bingham]

Mike pretty much said it all.

 

[evan47]

The 18-105 was a lens that never really impressed me whereas the 18-140 gave me nicer results as a walkabout lens.

 

[john Clinch]

Enough love for the 18-140 to get me looking at it again

More opinions always welcome

 

[fishy wishy]

I think it's quite a good first lens, but for people who know what they're doing, it's a retrograde step. Too slow, and the plasticky wobbles and reasonably complicated optical design guarantee enough sample variation that nobody can claim either the 18-105 or 18-140 is optically better than the other based on testing one of each.

I thought it would be a good idea, but the non-landscape portion of the zoom range was just too slow and the wide end was losing out in contests v shorter range lenses. It was not as good optically as the simpler 18-70.

 

[Ruekon]

Enough love for the 18-140 to get me looking at it again

More opinions always welcome

Don't know where you got your initial judgement from. Optically the 18-105 and the 18-140 are similar. The 18-140 offers more reach and a metal mount with rubber sealing.

I owned the 18-70, 16-85 and the 18-140. The latter gives the best results, provided you have a modern body that corrects for distortion and aberration (including D90 as well).

 

[john Clinch]

I think it's quite a good first lens, but for people who know what they're doing, it's a retrograde step. Too slow, and the plasticky wobbles and reasonably complicated optical design guarantee enough sample variation that nobody can claim either the 18-105 or 18-140 is optically better than the other based on testing one of each.

I thought it would be a good idea, but the non-landscape portion of the zoom range was just too slow and the wide end was losing out in contests v shorter range lenses.

I keep thinking about it but I'm still not sure. Are you talking about the 18-105 or 18-140 here?

It was not as good optically as the simpler 18-70.

 

[fishy wishy]

I had the 18-105 for a little while without growing to really appreciate it. That long end is too slow to use indoors. It was also very varifocal. Focusing at infinity on a landscape and zooming in would bring the effective focus to about 5ft. There is sample variation on that characteristic.

 

[MK]

Thom prefers the 18-140 over the 18-105 (scroll to the bottom). He would not consider the 18-105 for the higher end DX bodies. He didn't give a specific reason why.

Thom’s Recommended Lenses for DX Users | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

Thom Hogan's recommended lenses for Nikon DX cameras

www.dslrbodies.com

 

[Hello123]

I'll start with the traditional intro. I have Nikon D90, a very elderly 18-70 and a Sigm 10-20 (f4-5.6). I also have a Sony RX100 for times when weight matters.

I shoot holiday travel type stuff and Landscapes.

I have spent months planning to sell up for a few quid and start again in another system. But now that feels like I'd be saving a few grams and spending alot for the latest fad

The 18-70 really needs to go. The threads are worn from the filter going on and off. The zoom rubber round the zoom ring is hanging loose. It is over 10 years old. Most of the time it has been my only lens and it earned it's keep

So I want a "new to me" mid range zoom. I would really rather have VR and more reach. More reach is because as the 18-70 is the same range as the RX100 I tend to not bother taking if I'm off out for a walk. I'd also like a 2 lens landscape solution and some times 70mm isn't quite enough

The 18-140 looks good in some ways but it's at its worst at 18mm. The 18-105 looks more consistent across the frame (although never quite as sharp) at 18mm. 18mm seems important to. Similarly the 16-85 doesn't look it's best at the wide end. It also adds less if I'm carrying 2 lenses as it just overlaps the ultra wide more. I'm probably over thinking it. The D70s prints were fine 18 by 12 inches and I've only twice printed bigger than that
I'll forgive the plastic mount for a low price

PS I'll probably get a 70 300 AFS VR as well as they are cheap as chips at the moment. But I won't always take that with me.

Obviously these links will give a feel for what I've been up to photographically
Thanks

John

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/john_clinch/popular-interesting/

I've had the 18-105 for close to 9 years and I've managed to put 40k clicks on this lens. Three DSLR bodies and numerous lens have come and gone and the 18-105 has been the mainstay for me. At its price point to performance ratio, I don't think the 18-105 can be surpassed for general photography. What I like about this lens over the 18-140 is its focal length, I think it matches up with a 70-200 or in my case 70-210 very well. I don't like the idea of carrying lenses that overlap in focal lengths to the extent the 18-140 does.

I wouldn't worry too much about the plastic lens mount, mine has never broken and its been used quite heavily. Even if you should break the mount, this lens is very cheap... especially used. As far as sharpness, its sharp across the frame at f/5.6 to f/11 where I use it exclusively. If I need a faster lens, I just pull out my 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8. Frankly, there is no zoom (<> Sigma 18-35) that can compete with a small prime in low light.

As you can see below, my copy is well worn. I've rubbed off the paint from the raised lettering. The rubber grip for the zoom is filthy and has lifted up off the lens barrel and covered the numbers. In spite of this, it's still sharp has heck That said, I've worn out the lens zoom so that the "lens creep" has turned into a lens run... and I can't live with that. Currently, I'm trying to decide if I should upgrade to the 16-80 f/2.8 - f/4. What interests me most is the additional 2mm at the wide end which I think will be very useful for me. I used to carry a Tonika 11-16 f/2.8 and I miss it. I also am interested in all of the new glass coatings that Nikon has put onto it. I just can't decide if its worth a $1k to me... I can always just buy another 18-105.... for about $180 used

 

[EKB]

I used the 18-105mm for several years as the kit lens that came with my D90. It was not a bad lens, and I was never able to put my finger on anything wrong with it, but after a few years I did start getting a faint but persistent "I can do better than this" itch. So I started looking for an upgrade.

It says something good about the 18-105mm that finding a new lens I liked better was difficult and took a long time. (I finally settled on the 24-120mm f/4.)

So my two cents is that if you're using a D90 then the 18-105mm is a decent choice for a cheap & cheerful replacement/upgrade of your 18-70mm. You might be able to do better with another lens, but you'd definitely pay more.

 

[john Clinch]

I'll start with the traditional intro. I have Nikon D90, a very elderly 18-70 and a Sigm 10-20 (f4-5.6). I also have a Sony RX100 for times when weight matters.

I shoot holiday travel type stuff and Landscapes.

I have spent months planning to sell up for a few quid and start again in another system. But now that feels like I'd be saving a few grams and spending alot for the latest fad

The 18-70 really needs to go. The threads are worn from the filter going on and off. The zoom rubber round the zoom ring is hanging loose. It is over 10 years old. Most of the time it has been my only lens and it earned it's keep

So I want a "new to me" mid range zoom. I would really rather have VR and more reach. More reach is because as the 18-70 is the same range as the RX100 I tend to not bother taking if I'm off out for a walk. I'd also like a 2 lens landscape solution and some times 70mm isn't quite enough

The 18-140 looks good in some ways but it's at its worst at 18mm. The 18-105 looks more consistent across the frame (although never quite as sharp) at 18mm. 18mm seems important to. Similarly the 16-85 doesn't look it's best at the wide end. It also adds less if I'm carrying 2 lenses as it just overlaps the ultra wide more. I'm probably over thinking it. The D70s prints were fine 18 by 12 inches and I've only twice printed bigger than that
I'll forgive the plastic mount for a low price

PS I'll probably get a 70 300 AFS VR as well as they are cheap as chips at the moment. But I won't always take that with me.

Obviously these links will give a feel for what I've been up to photographically
Thanks

John

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/john_clinch/popular-interesting/

I've had the 18-105 for close to 9 years and I've managed to put 40k clicks on this lens. Three DSLR bodies and numerous lens have come and gone and the 18-105 has been the mainstay for me. At its price point to performance ratio, I don't think the 18-105 can be surpassed for general photography. What I like about this lens over the 18-140 is its focal length, I think it matches up with a 70-200 or in my case 70-210 very well. I don't like the idea of carrying lenses that overlap in focal lengths to the extent the 18-140 does.

I wouldn't worry too much about the plastic lens mount, mine has never broken and its been used quite heavily. Even if you should break the mount, this lens is very cheap... especially used. As far as sharpness, its sharp across the frame at f/5.6 to f/11 where I use it exclusively. If I need a faster lens, I just pull out my 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8. Frankly, there is no zoom (<> Sigma 18-35) that can compete with a small prime in low light.

As you can see below, my copy is well worn. I've rubbed off the paint from the raised lettering. The rubber grip for the zoom is filthy and has lifted up off the lens barrel and covered the numbers. In spite of this, it's still sharp has heck That said, I've worn out the lens zoom so that the "lens creep" has turned into a lens run... and I can't live with that. Currently, I'm trying to decide if I should upgrade to the 16-80 f/2.8 - f/4. What interests me most is the additional 2mm at the wide end which I think will be very useful for me. I used to carry a Tonika 11-16 f/2.8 and I miss it. I also am interested in all of the new glass coatings that Nikon has put onto it. I just can't decide if its worth a $1k to me... I can always just buy another 18-105.... for about $180 used

One of dpreviews great posts. I love lens in that photo. It is a story of photography not endless wondering what gear to buy

The 16-80 is very tempting on many levels. I think f4 80mm is just fast and long enough to allow some useful depth of field control as well. But I think it is too much money for me at the moment even used

The uk 18-105 price is also very low and very tempting. I think I can assume that the plastic mount will last long enough now.

Here is my 18-70. Nearly new compared to your lens. It looks like it has done 30,000 shots. I might let it fight on.....



--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/john_clinch/popular-interesting/

 

[john Clinch]

Thom prefers the 18-140 over the 18-105 (scroll to the bottom). He would not consider the 18-105 for the higher end DX bodies. He didn't give a specific reason why.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/thoms-recommended-lenses.html

It was good to re read some of Thom's stuff he is good at giving an overview of lenses. But my 18-105 would go on a D90 and then maybe a d7000.....

 

[CSG123]

The 18-105 was a good lens for the earlier generation crop sensor cameras and the 18-140 is a good kit lens for the newer generation. I have both and the 18-105 is just for my D90 and the 18-140 sits on my D7200. I also have the 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 3.5 macro.

 

[Peter in Canberra]

I can't really comment on the fine questions of sharpness vs other lenses and so on.

But I have an 18-105 that I use on a D90 and a D3300. I find it has a good focal range, very smooth zoom, and size-wise is a good match for both those bodies. It is a little fatter and a little heavier than the old 18-135 (zoom rough compared to 18-105). (I liked the 18-135 as a walk around lens but I eventually missed VR). I've looked at the 18-140 based on the 'works better on new sensors' reviews but it is a bit heavier and bigger again.

In summary, I find the 18-105 a nice compromise as a walk around lens.

 

[SteveinColonie]

Enough love for the 18-140 to get me looking at it again

More opinions always welcome

Don't know where you got your initial judgement from. Optically the 18-105 and the 18-140 are similar. The 18-140 offers more reach and a metal mount with rubber sealing.

I owned the 18-70, 16-85 and the 18-140. The latter gives the best results, provided you have a modern body that corrects for distortion and aberration (including D90 as well).

Ruekon, I clicked on your gear list and noticed that you had a Sigma 17-50mm 2.8F lens. May I ask how you liked it? Would you regard it higher than the 18-140? Thanks. Steve

 

[Ruekon]

Enough love for the 18-140 to get me looking at it again

More opinions always welcome

Don't know where you got your initial judgement from. Optically the 18-105 and the 18-140 are similar. The 18-140 offers more reach and a metal mount with rubber sealing.

I owned the 18-70, 16-85 and the 18-140. The latter gives the best results, provided you have a modern body that corrects for distortion and aberration (including D90 as well).

Ruekon, I clicked on your gear list and noticed that you had a Sigma 17-50mm 2.8F lens. May I ask how you liked it? Would you regard it higher than the 18-140? Thanks. Steve

I was quite pleased by the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8: sharp and fast. Then I went for the 18-35 f/1.8, which is even sharper and faster. It replaced my 17-50. Outdoors and for portraits I like the additional reach of the 18-140. Actually I'm positively surprised by the bokeh and compression that can be achieved with the 18-140 towards its long end.

I wouldn't regard either lens higher: the 17-50 is faster in low light (e.g. indoors without flash) and it simplifies manual exposure thanks to constant max aperture. The 18-140 is longer in good light.

 

[RRowlett]

I think the 18-140 is the pick of the litter for the 18-xxx lenses. The 16-80 is the best of Nikon's mid range zoom. I won't hesitate to use the 18-140 as a one lens walkabout when the 16-80 won't be enough.

The 70-300 VR is a good companion to a mid range zoom and gives you an excellent three lens kit. Mine is 12-24dx, 16-80 DX, 70-300 vr.

 

[SteveinColonie]

I think the 18-140 is the pick of the litter for the 18-xxx lenses. The 16-80 is the best of Nikon's mid range zoom. I won't hesitate to use the 18-140 as a one lens walkabout when the 16-80 won't be enough.

The 70-300 VR is a good companion to a mid range zoom and gives you an excellent three lens kit. Mine is 12-24dx, 16-80 DX, 70-300 vr.

Literally just bought the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM. It'll pair well with my new D7500. I do want to see how my existing lenses work with the 7500 before purchasing a longer lens. I generally shoot scapes, so a zoom isn't a priority unless a seal is bobbing in the ocean. And then even a 200mm is too short. I'm more inclined to shoot 17mm and try to capture a rain drop falling off of a leaf.