Which Nikon lens?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Sosumi, Jan 1, 2008.

  1. Sosumi

    Sosumi Guest

    I'm a little confused by the stories and tests on the net: which lens is
    better. the 18-70mm or the 18-135mm?
    Some say one, some say the other.
    I know the 18-70 has metal connection, but I don't care.
    I don't care for the bigger range, just the sharpest lens.
    Are they an improvement over the 18-55mm kitlens?
    Most pictures that are not real zoom, are made with that 18-55 at the RR
    station. Looks pretty sharp to me.

    Happy New-year!
    Sosumi, Jan 1, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. The 18-70 is a really nice lens and a super bargain for the performance it
    delivers. I got one and haven't used it that much after I got all my pro
    glass. It's the best kit lens ever!
    Back at ya!

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 1, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sosumi

    Not4wood Guest

    I have the 18-135 kit lens w/D80 and it looks very sharp to me, I have no
    problems with this lens. I am new to Nikon and this is currently my only
    lens. I've been seeing posts by people that have similar lens or coverage
    for different ranges. I don't know why, If I would buy another lens it
    wouldn't be for the same coverage it would be for 135 or higher to hopefully
    up to 300 or something close to whats offered. I do see that the
    Teleconverters will not take away too much detail from the lens but I can't
    put the tele on my Kit Lens. Oh, my kit lens isn't VR but my larger Tele
    will be. I can also see going wider but I wouldn't buy anything that again
    wont be a duplicate of my current range. I would try to get lower then the

    Not4wood, Jan 1, 2008
  4. Sosumi

    C J Campbell Guest

    I don't have the 18-135. I like the 18-70. It is a very nice lens for
    the money. Ken Rockwell hates it because he thinks the rings are poorly
    placed. Bah.

    You shoot mostly handheld, you know, so the difference in sharpness of
    any of these lenses is a moot point.
    C J Campbell, Jan 1, 2008
  5. Sosumi

    flambe Guest

    If you do not already know the answer to your question you will be happier
    with the 18-135. It is a fine lens for its purposes and, for its price. The
    18-70 is the great bargain of the otherwise overpriced Nikon lens catalog
    (along with the 50 1.8). Technically the 18-70 is a better lens at the wide
    end than the 18-135 but I would not lose sleep over the difference.
    Ultimately minor to moderate differences in lens quality are often
    meaningless because of digital post processing apart from severe chromatic
    aberration. Regardless of capture medium the talent/craft of the
    photographer will always be more important than minor to moderate
    differences in gear technical quality.
    flambe, Jan 2, 2008
  6. Get both. I did. ;-)

    Get that one too. I did. ;-)

    Seriously, I think all three are great. The 18-55 doesn't have much range
    but it's compact, very light weight and surprisingly close focusing. I love
    the range of the 18-135, though it would be nice if it weren't f/5.6 or
    close to it for so much of that range. At the 135 end it's about as long a
    non-VR lens as I can hand hold comfortably on a DX camera. The 18-70
    obviously is 2/3 stop faster at the long end than the other two and to me
    has more of a quality feel, but I have no complaints there about the other
    two. It also has a distance scale which the other two don't, which looks
    classier but since I rarely look at it it doesn't really matter much to me.

    Optically I haven't really noticed any difference between 'em, though I'm
    sure that people who obsess over such things must find some differences. I
    think all three are wonderfully sharp. Like you, I don't care about the
    mounts of the 18-55 and 18-135 not being metal. I'm confident that Nikon
    designers know what they're doing when they decide to use a non-metal mount.

    The fact is, I have the 18-70 because it came with my D70s. The 18-55 came
    with my D40 and the 18-135 came with my D80. If I only had the latter two
    lenses I think I'd be satisfied and probably wouldn't feel the need for the
    18-70, though I might buy one anyway because I really enjoy buying Nikon

    Neil Harrington, Jan 2, 2008
  7. Sosumi

    RichA Guest

    Get the 18-70mm, get better images and get closer to subjects if 70mm
    isn't enough. Long range zooms = glorification of laziness.
    RichA, Jan 2, 2008
  8. Unless you use a tripod most of the time, the biggest improvement for the
    price over the 18-55 kit lens is likely to be the new 18-55 VR kit lens.
    Andrew Koenig, Jan 6, 2008
  9. Does that mean that in at least the more common Nikon bodies, the
    general default settings the camera chooses in the point-&-shoot auto
    modes don't select fast enough shutter speeds and ISO settings to
    freeze blurring due to camera shake if you're not using an image
    stabilisation system?
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 7, 2008
  10. Now, that is a 'resourceful' interpretation of Andrew's comment. It is
    amazing how some people can twist words.

    Jürgen Exner, Jan 7, 2008
  11. Sosumi

    Chris Savage Guest

    No. It means Andrew Koenig thinks that the biggest improvement for the
    price over the 18-55 kit lens is likely to be the new 18-55 VR kit lens.
    But he also points out that VR is useless if one shoots on a tripod.
    Chris Savage, Jan 7, 2008
  12. I wouldn't have put it that way, Chris. In P mode, there's no restriction
    such as a 1/FL rule (i.e. never select lower than 1/55s when using a 55mm
    lens). Whether you allow the ISO to increase is, in any case, an option
    which you may not enable. So it's up to the user to judge whether a
    tripod is required or not. I'm not aware of there being any difference in
    what the camera selects whether VR is enabled or not.

    I just checked in Auto mode (which I've never used before) and there slow
    shutter speeds result in the flash being raised.

    I think what Nikon have done is to recognise that IS/VR can add additional
    capabilities in reduced light levels, even with wider lenses, so they now
    provide their customers with that additional capability.

    David J Taylor, Jan 7, 2008
  13. Apologies for my clumsy phrasing. I did not mean to imply that that
    was what Andrew Koenig meant. I was asking a genuine question about
    how Hikon cameras do their default auto shutter speeds when a) image
    stabilisation is turned on, and b) it is turned off or absent. I've
    seen reports that in some other cameras that the auto-selected shutter
    speeds are not always good enough to ensure top sharpness when image
    stabilisation is switched off or absent.
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 7, 2008
  14. Sosumi

    Paul Furman Guest

    I don't think any of the auto modes take the focal length into
    consideration. I could be wrong. For example with auto ISO you can set
    the minimum shutter speed before ISO gets boosted but you have to change
    that for each lens or change in zoom.
    Paul Furman, Jan 8, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.