adamz said:
and You can use pro glass as hammer in case of emergency :D

LOL ! but Yes it is true that the pro lenses need to be able to take a hammering. and that means the added cost of designing and testing a very robust lens that most consumers will never ever need. eg desert storms or Antarctic climates or outer space or war zones. Thats where Nikon makes their name. If I have a pro glass I expect it to outlive me and be a gift for my great grand child. I have several AIS lenses that are probably older than many members here.

and You can use pro glass as hammer in case of emergency :D

warprints said:
Yes, just because a lens is more expensive does not automatically mean that it will take "better" photos. Two lenses with practically identical specs can be vastly different in price, even with little difference in image quality (IQ), simply due to the build quality. "Pro" lenses are generally much more durable, with more metal, weather seals, smoother operation (focusing and zooming), etc.

Don't forget that "pro" lenses also tend to have more elements of the rather expensive glass and that those elements tend to be much larger than the smaller elements of the cheap plastic lenses. That has a huge impact on sharpness and IQ as well as light gathering ability.

Floyd - when was the last time you purchased a white Pro Nikkor?

Hey, Kyoshi and Warprints.

Don't forget to consider how cool it looks. eg: Black v White

Darn, thought I covered most everything. Thanks kyoshi.

You forgot Bokeh and mechanical speed... :)

Yes, just because a lens is more expensive does not automatically mean that it will take "better" photos. Two lenses with practically identical specs can be vastly different in price, even with little difference in image quality (IQ), simply due to the build quality. "Pro" lenses are generally much more durable, with more metal, weather seals, smoother operation (focusing and zooming), etc.

Also, there is a lot more to IQ than just how "sharp" a lens is. Vignetting, distortion, chromatic aberrations, etc., all play into it, and the best lenses are those that have good numbers for all these qualities, plus good build. Makes a lens very expensive to built.

Waffles123

The 18-105 lens is the kit lens normally bundled with the D90, hence it will be produced in large numbers, hence economies of scale kick in. If it's a kit lens, chances are Nikon will have gone to a lot of trouble when designing it to keep costs low.

Whilst both your lenses have the same maximum aperture, beware how much larger apertures increase price! Here in the UK the 70-200mm F2.8 retails at around 13x the price of the 55-200mm F4-5.6. Yes, THIRTEEN times as much for those extra couple of stops. Ouch!

The difference is not only this what You see from outside, i.e. plastic vs metal mount, better build. There are also some internal differences between cheap and expensive lense, and the major is glass and coating. As for full AF-S, only this feauture is worth it's price if You are more serious about photography.

gelu88 said:
and don't forget the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4. My 18-55 just got damaged and the sigma is my no 1 choice right now. It has IQ equivilent to the 16-85 but is a stop faster and $200 less.

But you sacrifice some features like M/MA and focus distance scale. perhaps some build quality (though not much from that i'm reading). Plus Nikon tends to have better quality control. but that just means testing the lens fully as soon as you get it.

Has anyone tested the "OS" (VR type) version of the Sigma yet? Photozone just has the old one. I wouldn't assume that performs identically, but perhaps it does.

After an unfortunate event with my old D70 and a Sigma AF 24/2.8 (nearly fatal for the D70), I avoided Sigma for about six years. But my new Sigma 10-20 is one of the nicest lenses I've used.

and don't forget the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4. My 18-55 just got damaged and the sigma is my no 1 choice right now. It has IQ equivilent to the 16-85 but is a stop faster and $200 less.

But you sacrifice some features like M/MA and focus distance scale. perhaps some build quality (though not much from that i'm reading). Plus Nikon tends to have better quality control. but that just means testing the lens fully as soon as you get it.

By the way, are all optics hand ground? If that's true, then that would explain that they're expensive. Also, you need to remember you need to factor in lens coatings as well, I'm sure that stuff is hard to apply.

waffles123 said:
So could I expect a much better picture between that $600 18-85mm lens and the 18-55mm lens that my camera came with? If so, when shopping for new lenses, what should I look for besides aperture and focal length (besides metal mounts). Thanks!

When you are in the range of the lenses that are f3.5-5.6 you are going to get similar sharpness from them all. Don't be fooled that paying the extra money solely based on the price will get your a "better lens". It might get you a better built lens with metal mounts that won't wear out or break as easy, but you might not see a difference in the picture quality.

I have been going through this right now. I have the 18-55 kit lens that came with my D5000 and comparing it to the 18-200 lens that costs 3 times as much. At 50 mm the 18-55 lens seems to maybe be a bit sharper, but then again it has a limited range and plastic mounts...to me it feels kind of cheap. A $200 35mm prime would blow both of my lenses away in picture quality and it only costs $200, but that is just another factor in the lenses. Look around and do some research...there is way more things to take into account then I ever thought before I got all my stuff.

From examples I've seen on the web, the 16-85mm is only a better lens in terms having 2mm more on the wide end. It also has a real AF-S SWM motor, and superior build quality. I haven't seen any photos take with a 16-85mm that would make me believe the optics are worth $350 more than the 18-105mm, or $200 more than the 18-55/55-200mm kit lenses.

So could I expect a much better picture between that $600 18-85mm lens and the 18-55mm lens that my camera came with? If so, when shopping for new lenses, what should I look for besides aperture and focal length (besides metal mounts). Thanks!

in addition to that, there is a reason all basic lenses start at 18 (or 24-28 in the case of FX) its cheap to do so and does to require any complex glass or optical configuration. every mm you go away from that is more complex. 16-85 is more difficult to produce than the 18-75.

and the points of those above apply as well. build quality, optical quality, features.

Yup, what tcole said. Better optics and build quality. Plastic mount versus metal etc.

Several factors including build quality and how old the lenses are. I believe one has metal mounts and the other plastic. One is VR and the other VRII. I can tell the difference between my 18-55 and 18-200 as far as build quality.

Hey, this is my first post after reading this forum for a few weeks. I've been photographing with a D40 for over a year, and have 3 lenses. When I purchased my last lens (35mm f/1.8), I noticed how expensive some lenses are. I know the lens influences the pictures greater than the actually body, but why do such similar lenses, have such big price differences? For example this 16-85mm (http://bit.ly/d5grlH) lens is twice as much as this 18-105mm lens (http://bit.ly/lD56L). They both appear to have nearly the same features except the focal length is a little different. Thanks!