Same quality but if you ever have a problem with it Nikon USA won't service it.

Thanks Testing123. I had ordered this Nikon AF-S 105/2.8G ED IF VR Vibration Reduction Micro Lens (62mm) from TriState. Found out it was a grey Market imported lens and thought it might not be the same quality. Sounds like you are saying that it should be the same quality, so when it arrives in the next day or two, maybe I should keep it as saving the 100.00 (less expensive than in the US) and the hassle of returning, paying the shipping costs both ways may not be worth the hassle. My real concern was whether it would perform as well as the Nikkor lens bought here in the States. How long is the warranty on most new lens? New to DSLR and lens purchasing. Thanks.

In the context of Nikon...

"Grey Market" refers to Nikon products sold in a country but not officially imported by the designated importer for said country. Nikon USA is a separate company from Nikon and has been granted a monopoly on the sale of "official" Nikon equipment in the USA. It is only Nikon USA imported equipment which receives the full level of factory support.

This is a common practice in many industries and allows price discrimination, a practice in which profits are maximized through the use of selective pricing based upon the unique markets found in different regions around the globe. Price discrimination only works, however, when markets are structurally maintained in a state of disequilibrium. This can be either through legal methods (see the contrast in Canadian vs USA drug prices) or through company incentives (Nikon USA extended warranty coverage.)

TL;DR?
Grey market camera gear is identical to "official" camera gear, but likely does not come with the same length warranty or availability of official service, depending on your country.

Any advice on ordering a grey market lens (imported) lens from TriState Camera,Video and Computers company over the internet? Would this be the same quality? What are you thoughts. The lens interested in is:Nikon AF-S 105/2.8G ED IF VR Vibration Reduction Micro Lens (62mm) Thanks for your advice.

Unitymind said:
I will tell you as a proud D90 owner I would get the kit lens and a cir polar (best you can afford) and you will be very happy with it. I bought a 50MM for indoors and low light but I have used the its a whole lot. If you can afford get the 24-70 2.8 instead but if money is tight you can't go wrong with the kit at all.

Only con it has is the stupid plastic mount instead of metal, whoever thought it was good to save $50 off retail for that design should be fired. My first one broke in a week and they took it back for return.

Although I would have probably bought the newer 18-200 VRII since that is what my wife uses all the time. I don't think it have ever left her camera except for the 105MM taking its place.

I will tell you as a proud D90 owner I would get the kit lens and a cir polar (best you can afford) and you will be very happy with it. I bought a 50MM for indoors and low light but I have used the its a whole lot. If you can afford get the 24-70 2.8 instead but if money is tight you can't go wrong with the kit at all.

Only con it has is the stupid plastic mount instead of metal, whoever thought it was good to save $50 off retail for that design should be fired. My first one broke in a week and they took it back for return.

Drab said:
Since you already have the 18-55 and 35 f/1.5, unless you really really want the 200-300mm range, the 55-200 has the advantage over the 55-300 of using the same 52mm filters as those other two.

Ah that's a great point. I didn't even realize the size changed to 58 mm. I'll definitely consider the 55-200 then. Thanks for pointing that out. I just wonder, since I want to do more intimiate sports and nature photography if the extra 100mm would make a big difference and I feel it might. But something to meditate on.

I have a D90 and only use two lens: The Nikon 18-200mm VR11 ( avoid the Tamron version it is very slow to focus ) the 18-200 is fine for portraits, unless you can afford the 70-200 f2.8, which is the bees knees. For wide angel I have the sigma 10-20 mm

Workodactyl said:
I'm waiting to see what comes with the D7000, but I'm in the market for the 18-105 or 16-85. I currently have the a 35mm 1.8 10-24mm and 18-55mm for my D3k. But I may just keep the 18-55 and pick up an 55-300 so I don't have many overlapping lenses and just keep the D3k for back up.

Since you already have the 18-55 and 35 f/1.5, unless you really really want the 200-300mm range, the 55-200 has the advantage over the 55-300 of using the same 52mm filters as those other two.

+1, and welcome to the forum, Vall.

Thanks. :-)

To be honest I'm also waiting for D7k preview as I'm planning to buy a new body soon. It'll either be D90 or D7k, depending on the specs and price. I thought about getting a lens with it, and decided that 50mm 1.8 could be a good start-off.

No zoom tho, but I could buy something much longer later on. :) Or a walkthrough lens for the matter (said Tamron, or the Nikkor 18-105, as I'll have a fast portrait glass already).

I'm waiting to see what comes with the D7000, but I'm in the market for the 18-105 or 16-85. I currently have the a 35mm 1.8 10-24mm and 18-55mm for my D3k. But I may just keep the 18-55 and pick up an 55-300 so I don't have many overlapping lenses and just keep the D3k for back up.

Vall said:
I would suggest taking a closer look at Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 as a walkaround lens.

+1, and welcome to the forum, Vall.

Mike Gunter said:
Which raises another question, what kind of budget did you set for self?

There is a possibility that Nikon will have a kit with the D7K that will be something extraordinary, who knows?

Yes, what is the budget?

Mike, I'm holding out for the D7000 + 24-120 f/4 VR kit. ;-)

widjayaman said:
I owned the 18-135, 18-105, Tamron 17-50, Nikon 17-55, and now 24-70 and on terms of image quality, color rendition, sharpness alone the 18-105 was exceptionally good value.

+1, and welcome widjayaman. It does have a plastic mount and is a little slow for some things as Mike was talking about, but optically the 18-105 is as good as it gets for a zoom in its price range (and even out of its price range).

Andrew, you know I've said before I love my tamron 17-50. I wish I had the VC version, but if I had it I guess I'd just wish I had something else, too.

17-50 2.8 VC Tamron. Great lens to go with the 35 1.8 for your stated purposes (except perhaps for architecture pics, with which I have no substantial experience)

widjayaman said:
I owned the 18-135, 18-105, Tamron 17-50, Nikon 17-55, and now 24-70 and on terms of image quality, color rendition, sharpness alone the 18-105 was exceptionally good value. In fact I did several tests between the 17-55 and the 18-105 and found to my amateur eyes that they look very similar.

Well said.

If you need a wider aperture, it can be a heartache, but it's a sharp lens.

My best to you all,

Mike

I'm a bit curious as of why you think the 18-105 isn't good enough. You own the 35 which has the same build quality roughly, so that's most likely not the issue.

I owned the 18-135, 18-105, Tamron 17-50, Nikon 17-55, and now 24-70 and on terms of image quality, color rendition, sharpness alone the 18-105 was exceptionally good value. In fact I did several tests between the 17-55 and the 18-105 and found to my amateur eyes that they look very similar.

The 35 IS a very good lens I think any zoom lens you get will somewhat fall short if you are comparing it against the 35. I myself often go to the 35 in favor of the 24-70 when I shoot weddings.

With that said, I'd recommend 16-85. Will suit what you're describing you'd like to do pretty well. When indoors and need low-light capability, switch to the 35.

If you like indoor, candid portrait and, street/urban I would suggest the 85mm f1.8. Sharp, long (128mm on dx) and very fast! I have found the longer throw enables you to fine the people across the room for more "unknowing" candid photos. I find a 2.8 is too slow for low light success even with pushing the the iso to 1600+.

Out side of that, for a street lens I am always looking for one myself and have never found the "one". I have the 24mm-120mm VR (older Model) and for the most part like the range but the 5.6 at the long end doesn't give the separation with my subject to background that I want. It is not a bad lens for sure though and I like the 120mm reach on the DX. Basically you get your classic street focals of 35mm and 50mm.

That being said - my "street/candid" bag = 17mm Tokina f3.5, 24mm Nikon f2.8, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8.

Hi,

I find the 18-105mm not a bad lens, just a little slow for anything indoors, even the 18-55mm which is a part of the kit lens is fine for what it is, a light weight lens. Although the 'plastic-y' feel of these lenses turn a lot people of, I am not so sure it should. My guess is that they are nearly as durable as the metal lenses, certainly for average users (oops - who's an average user?).

If you want fast and cheap, you might look into f1.8 primes, although either a 35mm or an 85mm are close to your 50mm. I have all three, but I want flexibility if I have to setup in various sizes of rooms.

I have a f2.8 17-55mm which is grand, but it's a heavy SOB, and I'd hate you suggest you carry around all day (I know I hate to carry for long). The 14-24mm f/2.8G ED is also nice, and another heavy SOB. Either of these will set one back a bit.

Which raises another question, what kind of budget did you set for self?

There is a possibility that Nikon will have a kit with the D7K that will be something extraordinary, who knows?

My best,

Mike

I'd go with the 16 - 85mm vr. I'm planing on getting one myself when I get the D7000. I havn't had to much of a problem with my D90 & 18-105 kit lens though. My kit came withthe 70 - 400mm vr lens also and LOVE that lens. That is a big reasion I'm getting the 16 -85mm Vr because it complements the 70 - 300mm so well.

Thanks guys. Will check out the other threads.....decisions decisions!! I do also have the 18-55mm but that will be going to my son when I part with the D60. Also have a tamron 70-300 which I am not too impressed with....so that probably won't be getting much use. Having some serious focus and blurring issues at the 300mm end. All my photos at 300mm have a blur in the top left corner. Thought is was a finger print at first, but after cleaning it is still there.

Welcome to the forum, noot. There're a couple of threads that cover this, one of which is http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1668

The 16-85 seems like it would give you a good range for the street and architecture, but it may be a bit slow (3.5 max aperture) for indoor/low light. I'm sure several others here will have oodles of useful suggestions as well.

Hello,

I would suggest taking a closer look at Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 as a walkaround lens. Heard quite some positive stuff about it. If not, there's always the cheaper Nikkor 18-70 mm F3.5-F4.5.

There's also a lot of older, used glass available (at least here). :)

Knowing what it is about the 18-105 you find not up to snuff will enable a better crop of recommendations.

That said IF you have no other lens only owning a 35 and a 50 seems like a waste, as they are quite close to each other.

Hi, I am looking to upgrade my D60 soon to either a D90 or it's possible successor D7000. I have the Nikkor AF-S DX35mm f1.8 lens which I will be keeping for the new body. I am really stuck as to what lens to buy with the D90 (7000). I don't want to go for the 18-105 as not impressed by the quality. I want to buy the body only and then a lens to suit. I have in mind the Nikkor 16-85mm, Nikkor 50mm (1.4 or 1.8), or may stretch to some serious glass. I usually do indoor, candid portrait, street/urban and architecture. Can I have some ideas on which lens would be good company for my trusty 35mm? Any suggestions greatly received.