Upgrading my lens - any disadvantage to this switch?

Jon_Are · May 16, 2009

I currently have:

Nikon AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF

I'm considering selling it and picking up:

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 VR

This will cost me around $100 - $120 to make the switch. Taking the money out of the equation, is there any reason not to do this?

Are the potential benefits worth the bother?

Thanks,

Jon

Sw1tchFX · May 16, 2009

Don't waste your money, the 18-70 is the better lens.

I have one and I ran it on a D90 with the 18-105, the 18-70 focused alot faster, has a metal mount, seals, focus scales and was quite a bit sharper wide open.

The only thing the 18-105 had was a little more range, and VR.

JustAnEngineer · May 16, 2009

Have you considered a better quality general purpose zoom lens with a wider aperture like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di-II or Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC? If you just need a longer telephoto reach, would you consider the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G AF-S DX VR?

TUX424 · May 16, 2009

That is more of a DOWNGRADE to me.

The 18-70 is much higher quality kit lens then the 18-105 VR. The 18-70 has the MA/M which is the best feature, but you know how it works.

I would also say if you want a better mid-zoom go for a Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Sigma 18-50 2.8, There is a large thread talking about these two lens you check it out, here.
I also second the chose if you want the greater reach go for a 55-200 VR which can be had for about $200.

Jon_Are · May 16, 2009

Wow, I'm glad I asked here first. :thumbup:

I'll check out the suggestions, but the 2.8's, while tempting, are way more than I want to spend.

Thanks, guys.

Jon

JerryPH · May 16, 2009

You are in an advantageous position... you have a camera and lens, and are looking to upgrade. Why upgrade big bucks to something only marginally better? I *always* say that there are 2 things we don't hold back on... lighting and lenses. A good lens today will be a good lens in 45 years. Buy the best even if it means going without longer, saving more and working harder. Your photography will thank you for it.

Jon_Are · May 16, 2009

I like what I read about the Nikkor 55-200 VR.

Have any of you actually used it? I'm wondering if f/4-5.6 would be so limiting as to not be worth the investment.

Maybe it'll be OK shooting ISO 800-ish (also considering the VR)?

(and I know there isn't really an answer to this - so many variables - just thinking out loud)

Jon

farmerj · May 16, 2009

I have the Nikkor 16-85 VR and looking to trade it for a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and 1.4X tele-converter.

I haven't used either of your lens, the one you have or want to go to. But your apertures are the same as mine. i find it VERY limiting. Hence, the trade to the fast glass.

I like the VR option, but I am finding more and more, I would rather shoot a faster shutter than have the VR option. My tele-zoom is the 70-300 VR. That will be traded onto a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 next.

Again. Fast glass. If I am hand holding and trying to take pictures of birds in flight, VR is turned off. On the tripod, VR is turned off. Hand held, slow moving items, about the only time I am shooting VR. And that isn't very often.

Jon_Are · May 16, 2009

(Quoting myself here):

the 2.8's, while tempting, are way more than I want to spend.

I must have not looked carefully at first; I thought these went for $650-$700.

I now see that they're actually around $420 - $460. That might be do-able.

Going from a 3.5 to a 2.8...not sure if the difference would be that dramatic, though. I suppose it would be for the 4.5 to 2.8 swap, though (4.5 is my current lens at 70mm).

The only decision I've arrived at so far is to not make a hasty decision.

Jon

benhasajeep · May 17, 2009

Jon_Are said:
(Quoting myself here):

I must have not looked carefully at first; I thought these went for $650-$700.

I now see that they're actually around $420 - $460. That might be do-able.

Going from a 3.5 to a 2.8...not sure if the difference would be that dramatic, though. I suppose it would be for the 4.5 to 2.8 swap, though (4.5 is my current lens at 70mm).

The only decision I've arrived at so far is to not make a hasty decision.

Jon

At 50mm with the Sigma or Tamron your just shy of getting 1 stop faster at f/2.8 vs. f/4.0 on your current lens.

But you have a decent lens already in that range. I say save some bucks. And pick up a Sigma or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. Around $630 for T $700 for S. Then you will have good coverage from 18mm to 200mm. Vs. spending more money just to upgrade slightly to your current lens.

One option is the Tokina 50-135. Gets you a little more range, fast lens f/2.8 and is about $530.

Jon_Are · May 17, 2009

One option is the Tokina 50-135.

Thanks for steering me toward the Tokina, Ben; I never would have considered this option. After reading the reviews (on both B&H and Adorama sites), it seems virtually unanimous that this is an outstanding value.

I'm assuming it does everything my Nikkors do, with regard to focusing, TTL flash settings/features, etc.??

Jon

KmH · May 17, 2009

Jon_Are said:
(Quoting myself here):

I must have not looked carefully at first; I thought these went for $650-$700.

I now see that they're actually around $420 - $460. That might be do-able.

Going from a 3.5 to a 2.8...not sure if the difference would be that dramatic, though. I suppose it would be for the 4.5 to 2.8 swap, though (4.5 is my current lens at 70mm).

The only decision I've arrived at so far is to not make a hasty decision.

Jon

Your current lens is a variable aperture. The maximum aperture gets smaller as you increase the focal length.

The 3rd party lenses recommended are constant aperture lenses. You can use f/2.8 anywhere in the zoom range.

dhilberg · May 17, 2009

You might also consider the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 HSM macro. I just bought this last week. I haven't used it too much, but it's real sharp, even at f/2.8, and it focuses like a couple inches from the front element. Specs say minimum focusing distance is 7.9 inches, but my limited experience with it shows that it gets much closer.

I'm surprised JerryPH didn't mention it! :lol:

Sigma | 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Macro Lens for Nik | 582-306

benhasajeep · May 17, 2009

Jon_Are said:
Thanks for steering me toward the Tokina, Ben; I never would have considered this option. After reading the reviews (on both B&H and Adorama sites), it seems virtually unanimous that this is an outstanding value.

I'm assuming it does everything my Nikkors do, with regard to focusing, TTL flash settings/features, etc.??

Jon

Actually, not sure the body you have. It will do everything your Nikons will do - UNLESS you have a D40, D40X, or D60. This lens is the standard screwdriver AF (no motor in lens). If you have one of those 3, you will not have AF.