kit lens war 18-55mm vs 18-105mm

[domu221]

wait, do kit lenses (18-55, 18-105) produce far worse quality images than others??

 

[Solarflare]

Well, definitely not "far worse".

No big zoom, not fast, no fast autofocus, awful manual focus for the 18-55mm, very plastic, but very lightweight, quite sharp in the center and not completely off at the borders, and at least the 18-55mm can even manage some noteworthy lesser macro (max magnification 1:3.2 at 28cm distance).

In the sum, nothing exciting, but also not completely awful.

Nikkor AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR - Review / Test Report
Nikkor AF-S DX 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR - Review / Test Report

 

[domu221]

Ok, i probably wont buy an 18-105.But can u guys help me with one last thing:Im looking into buying the 16-85 vr that costs a significant fraction of the D3100 but:1.) what's the difference?? It costs so much for a metal mount and a wider angle.2.) i'm not looking into upgrading to an fx format, is the best that can replace my 18-55?

 

[fjrabon]

Ok, i probably wont buy an 18-105.But can u guys help me with one last thing:Im looking into buying the 16-85 vr that costs a significant fraction of the D3100 but:1.) what's the difference?? It costs so much for a metal mount and a wider angle.2.) i'm not looking into upgrading to an fx format, is the best that can replace my 18-55?

I think a better upgrade if you still want a zoom is the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 or the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 (if you have the cash). Both are substantially faster than the Nikon 16-85mm. I think the sigma 17-70 is as sharp as the nikon 16-85mm and is cheaper. The sigma 17-70 also has macro capability.

The sigma 17-50 is substantially faster, is constant aperture, and is MUCH sharper.

 

[orb9220]

Ok, i probably wont buy an 18-105.But can u guys help me with one last thing:Im looking into buying the 16-85 vr that costs a significant fraction of the D3100 but:1.) what's the difference?? It costs so much for a metal mount and a wider angle.2.) i'm not looking into upgrading to an fx format, is the best that can replace my 18-55?

I think a better upgrade if you still want a zoom is the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 or the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 (if you have the cash). Both are substantially faster than the Nikon 16-85mm. I think the sigma 17-70 is as sharp as the nikon 16-85mm and is cheaper. The sigma 17-70 also has macro capability.

The sigma 17-50 is substantially faster, is constant aperture, and is MUCH sharper.

Aren't those DC lenses? And designed for Crop sensor cameras and not ideal since Op is going to go to full frame.
.

 

[Alan92RTTT]

The 18-55 the OP has is a DX lens. If he is getting a new body that is full frame this entire thread is moot as the 18-55 and the 18-105 are DX lenses.

 

[fjrabon]

Ok, i probably wont buy an 18-105.But can u guys help me with one last thing:Im looking into buying the 16-85 vr that costs a significant fraction of the D3100 but:1.) what's the difference?? It costs so much for a metal mount and a wider angle.2.) i'm not looking into upgrading to an fx format, is the best that can replace my 18-55?

I think a better upgrade if you still want a zoom is the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 or the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 (if you have the cash). Both are substantially faster than the Nikon 16-85mm. I think the sigma 17-70 is as sharp as the nikon 16-85mm and is cheaper. The sigma 17-70 also has macro capability.

The sigma 17-50 is substantially faster, is constant aperture, and is MUCH sharper.

Aren't those DC lenses? And designed for Crop sensor cameras and not ideal since Op is going to go to full frame.
.

Pretty sure the OP said he has no intent on going to FX.

 

[greybeard]

Ok, i probably wont buy an 18-105.But can u guys help me with one last thing:Im looking into buying the 16-85 vr that costs a significant fraction of the D3100 but:1.) what's the difference?? It costs so much for a metal mount and a wider angle.2.) i'm not looking into upgrading to an fx format, is the best that can replace my 18-55?

Like I have written in other threads, the 16-85mm is arguably Nikon's best normal DX zoom. I have seen professionals use this lens day in and day out for studio and field work. But, a professional might have to swap lenses hundreds of times in a day of shooting and needs a metal mount, how many times in a days shooting do you swap out a lens, and how rough do you treat your equipment? I also know a professional wedding/event pro who shot Mamiya RB67's for years that recently went digital with a d7000 with the 18-105mm and is perfectly happy with it and so are his clients. He doesn't even own any other lenses for it, just the 18-105.

 

[greybeard]

I don't get your guys when your taking about build quality.1. Build quality of Nikon lens are excellent.2. If the build quality of the lens wasn't good then IMHO, the lens wouldn't be very good altogether.3. Even though there is a lot of plastic, doesn't mean build quality is crap, plastic is good to make a lens light weight.4. Sure plastic is always the ideal material for every lens, but it's a cost saving measure, it's lighter, but shouldn't be construed as been worse quality then other lens.5. IMHO, the only advantage with metal and other material other than plastic is that they are more sturdy.For example, the D90 is made of plastic, a lot of people buy it because it's a really good camera, it's not crappy build quality either.

Build Quality might be a poor choice of words, Build Materials would be a better choice and mount material being the real sticking point here. Has anyone had of known of anyone who has had a plastic lens mount to fail?

 

[fjrabon]

Has anyone had of known of anyone who has had a plastic lens mount to fail?

sure, though they tend to be professionals who lug their equipment around everywhere, don't 'baby' lenses and might have to change lenses 50-100 times per day. For regular use plastic is more than fine if its otherwise well built.

 

[domu221]

Pretty sure the OP said he has no intent on going to FX.

the 16-85mm is arguably Nikon's best normal DX zoom. I have seen professionals use this lens day in and day out for studio and field work.

For regular use plastic is more than fine if its otherwise well built.

Yes, im not switching to fx because i dont see the point of it and it is way expensive. If we can all conclude that the 16-85 is the best zoom lens for dx, what makes it so special compared to the 18-55 or 18-105 besides the metal mount. Is there a significant difference in the16-85's construction that would unarguably make it more superior than the kit lenses? So far we've been discussing that the focal ranges aren't the only thing to consider.

Ps: and why cantthe 18-300 be more superior than 16-85?

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Forget all the Nikon kit lenses and buy a Tamron 17-50 2.8. Since I got my tammy, I would not go back to a Kit lens if you paid me too. It really is that much of an upgrade, 3.5 -5.6 is no longer appealing when you always have 2.8 and superior image quality at your disposal.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Ok, i probably wont buy an 18-105.But can u guys help me with one last thing:Im looking into buying the 16-85 vr that costs a significant fraction of the D3100 but:1.) what's the difference?? It costs so much for a metal mount and a wider angle.2.) i'm not looking into upgrading to an fx format, is the best that can replace my 18-55?

Like I have written in other threads, the 16-85mm is arguably Nikon's best normal DX zoom. I have seen professionals use this lens day in and day out for studio and field work. But, a professional might have to swap lenses hundreds of times in a day of shooting and needs a metal mount, how many times in a days shooting do you swap out a lens, and how rough do you treat your equipment? I also know a professional wedding/event pro who shot Mamiya RB67's for years that recently went digital with a d7000 with the 18-105mm and is perfectly happy with it and so are his clients. He doesn't even own any other lenses for it, just the 18-105.

Don't get me wrong Greybeard, the 16-85 is a fantastic lens in terms of sharpness.

But is still a slow kit lens with a metal mount..an over priced kit lens at that. You pay 5 times the price of an 18-55 for a metal mount? I mean seriously!

 

[greybeard]

Ok, i probably wont buy an 18-105.But can u guys help me with one last thing:Im looking into buying the 16-85 vr that costs a significant fraction of the D3100 but:1.) what's the difference?? It costs so much for a metal mount and a wider angle.2.) i'm not looking into upgrading to an fx format, is the best that can replace my 18-55?

Like I have written in other threads, the 16-85mm is arguably Nikon's best normal DX zoom. I have seen professionals use this lens day in and day out for studio and field work. But, a professional might have to swap lenses hundreds of times in a day of shooting and needs a metal mount, how many times in a days shooting do you swap out a lens, and how rough do you treat your equipment? I also know a professional wedding/event pro who shot Mamiya RB67's for years that recently went digital with a d7000 with the 18-105mm and is perfectly happy with it and so are his clients. He doesn't even own any other lenses for it, just the 18-105.

Don't get me wrong Greybeard, the 16-85 is a fantastic lens in terms of sharpness.

But is still a slow kit lens with a metal mount..an over priced kit lens at that. You pay 5 times the price of an 18-55 for a metal mount? I mean seriously!

Are you saying that the only difference between the 18-55 and the 16-85 is the mount?

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Like I have written in other threads, the 16-85mm is arguably Nikon's best normal DX zoom. I have seen professionals use this lens day in and day out for studio and field work. But, a professional might have to swap lenses hundreds of times in a day of shooting and needs a metal mount, how many times in a days shooting do you swap out a lens, and how rough do you treat your equipment? I also know a professional wedding/event pro who shot Mamiya RB67's for years that recently went digital with a d7000 with the 18-105mm and is perfectly happy with it and so are his clients. He doesn't even own any other lenses for it, just the 18-105.

Don't get me wrong Greybeard, the 16-85 is a fantastic lens in terms of sharpness.

But is still a slow kit lens with a metal mount..an over priced kit lens at that. You pay 5 times the price of an 18-55 for a metal mount? I mean seriously!

Are you saying that the only difference between the 18-55 and the 16-85 is the mount?

Pretty much yes!
The bigger differences are what?? The difference in focal length? The sharpness charts on photozone show the differences in sharpness are very minor.