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

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.

This is the whole point of this thread. The kit lenses are not made to be disposed of that easily. Although the people have been suggesting some good (and expensive) nikkor lenses like the 18-300 or the 16-85, what makes it so different from the kit lenses? besides the metal mount. If at the golden 35mm focal length, the difference in sharpness between the 18-55 and the 18-105 is marginal, and now with the 16-85 is also very minor, where then can i see the $700 value?
 
This is the whole point of this thread. The kit lenses are not made to be disposed of that easily. Although the people have been suggesting some good (and expensive) nikkor lenses like the 18-300 or the 16-85, what makes it so different from the kit lenses? besides the metal mount. If at the golden 35mm focal length, the difference in sharpness between the 18-55 and the 18-105 is marginal, and now with the 16-85 is also very minor, where then can i see the $700 value?

You will not see the 700 dollar value in any respect,

You will see the value when you buy faster glass i.e. 2.8 zooms. Then you begin to get your moneys worth!
 
I am not a pro I do this for fun.

I do not need 2.8 glass.

I got the 18-105 for 250 as a referb from adorama. I found the value in it the minute I went on vacation with it.
 
I am not a pro I do this for fun.

I do not need 2.8 glass.

I got the 18-105 for 250 as a referb from adorama. I found the value in it the minute I went on vacation with it.

no doubt. I have the 18-105 lens as well and I still see a lot of value in it for under $400. I don't think I would see the same value, even with a metal mount, at the $700 price range.
 
I really like Slrgear.com for help in choosing a lens/lenses. According to their tests the 105 is all around sharper than the 55. The 105 suffers a bit more from vignetting than the 55, and also a slight increase in CA.

I also have the 18-55 kit lens and had thought about getting the 105 but the cost is too high and considering the market (eBay, and Craigslist) is flooded with 18-55 that aren't even being sold for 100$ I can't justify the 300$ for a slight increase (almost unnoticeable) in sharpness. Though I would like a wide angle zoom to fill the 55-70mm hole that I have I between lenses. If, and more likely when, I choose to get the wide angle zoom lens my first 3 choices are:

1) Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 this one is 1800$

2) sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 this one is 900$

3) Nikon 24-120mm f/2.8. This one is 1300$

If your on more of a budget the 16-85 is probably the way to go.
I prefer constant aperture zooms. I also prefer full frame lenses on my D5100 because according to an article I read if the full frame lens suffers from vignetting on a full frame body the effect will be lessened on an DX body because the extreme corners of the glass aren't used. ( if I'm mistaken I hope I will be corrected).

If I were you I would save the money.
 
I'll bring this thread back vs. starting another. So if you were planning on buying a D7000 which would you pick the 18-55 or 18-105 to start with?
 
18-105 is the kit lens that came w/my d7000.I still use it quite a bit as a decent,compact,walk-around lens.More often than not,I'm using it on the long end,so the reach means more from my point of view.After reading this whole post,it seems they are both fairly equal in build,image quality,etc.,so I'm guessing it comes down to how much you want to spend.Maybe compare a bare body D7000,18-55,18-105.See what you can put together.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

Back
Top