If all you want is more focal range, and a lens with improved build quality, but don't want one of the newer kit lenses, then yes. If you are looking for a noticeable improvement in image quality, no DX kit lens is going to do that.

Is it worth it to upgrade to an 18-70mm from an 18-55mm VR or kit?

Jonny, I saw the same thing. I guess I just figured most kit lenses were not very sharp wide open. I took mine into a Nikon service center and they said the reason zoom lenses like the 18-70mm are not sharp wide open across the entire range was that lenses are adjusted to perform best at set ranges, but they did improve it. They also said the issue can be due to the body and the lenses AF algorithms not being perfectly synced. I gave the 18-70mm to my dad when I got him a D-50, and it seems fine on that camera.

I was duped last summer when I bought mine! :(

I really need a faster lens anyway. hoping to get a 24-70mm soon to replace it

You're right about sample variation, Rob, and my experience with the 18-70 was probably skewed by using it for most of the time I had it on a D100 (some on a D200, and very little on a D300). I guess I should have just said that mine wasn't sharp wide open, especially at the wide and long end. I had to stop it down to get it sharp, even on the D100. The 18-105 I would shoot wide open at any focal length.

Interesting, what flaws did the 18-70mm have that could not be corrected? The only issue that bugged me about it was vignetting on the wide end. From the tests I saw the 18-70mm has less distortion on the wide end, which is a big plus. Then again, we do always have to keep in mind there sample variation could lead two people to feel very differently about the same lens.

The 18-70mm and a 50 1.8 was my entire lens kit for about 18 months. Though I liked it, I wasn't impressed with the 18-70 like I am with the 18-105. It's not that the 18-105 doesn't have flaws, but that they're easy to correct. The 18-105 still gets my vote for the best kit lens to date (plastic mount is a downside, but matters more to some people than to others). VR is a huge advantage with the smaller max apertures.

edit: saw hearty's post. I agree with what you've said but don't have any experience with the 18-135 so I have to except that particular statement.

Don't know if its "the worst kit lens" .. When I had a play with it I thought that it was quite good. Probably better than the 18-135 and definitely better than the 18-55. It sure seems sharper than my 18-200. But I do agree that that 18-70 is a great little kit. Its really sharp and I still have it almost permanently mounted on my old D70.

Most review sites I've read would disagree about the quality of the 18-105mm. Some have even gone as far as to say that the 18-105mm is the worst kit lens. My first lens was the 18-70mm AF-S and I've got to say that from what I've seen it is the best kit lens Nikon has ever made. Just keep that in mind, it was a kit lens, the only one with a metal mount and the dust seal! It doesn't have the best focal range, but optically and build quality wise it is superior to the others. The 18-70mm was around $300, like the other mid range kit lenses (18-135 and 18-105), but was a lot cheaper than the 16-85mm, although the latter is more flexible in terms of focal range. I think Nikon realized that the 18-70mm was too cheap for the optical quality, so they cut production and made the 16-85mm.

I got the sigma 17-70, to replace my broken 18-55 and i'm very satisfied.

Very good macro, big aperture is noticeable.

Plus, a couple weeks after i got it, it won the TIPA award for the "best entry level lens".

Which makes me very happy to have got it.

The most rumors i've heard in this category is that the next D90 will have a new 18-135 with better AF-s and VR.

nothing about the 18-70, but given the quality of the current 18-105, its unnecessary.

The 18-70 at 70 is F4.5 so its slightly better than the 16-85 on 5.6 at 85mm both are great little lenses I have an 18-70 and have played with a 16-85 I am quite sure that the 16-85 vr is/was the replacement for the 18-70. It does everything the 18-70 does and does it better(except for the 4.5 aperture) Not that the 18-70 is a bad lens, its probably better than the 18-55/18-135/18-105

There are many people who use the 18-70 by choice! The new sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.0 OS looks like a great lens in this range. Would be worth checking that out.

18-70mm and 16-85 have the same maximum apertures.

On one hand you can get $150 mint condition 18-70 without VR or pay about $600 for the new 16-85 VR.

Edit: sorry you were correct.

I think the 16-85mm lens is the 18-70mm replacement, which is kind of sad, because the 18-70mm had a faster aperture. I would buy a VR version of the 18-70mm over the 16-85mm, simply because it has a faster maximum aperture. They could lower the price of the 16-85mm, which I feel is overpriced, and put a VR version of the 18-70mm at the price of the 16-85mm.

That being said, the 18-70mm has been listed as discontinued for some time now. The 18-70mm was a kit option with the D70 and the D80 in some countries. Once the D80 kits were cleared off the shelves, after the D90 was released, the 18-70 was quietly discontinued.

Ciao! Tifosi della Scuderia Ferrari! :^)

Not sure if Nikon will replace this lens with an exact new version. I think the 16-85mm VR is pretty much the replacement. Or perhaps there could be an f4 version in the works, but haven't heard of such a rumor. We should get a new lens with the D90 replacement.

Welcome to the forum Lucasc

Hi,
my name is Luca and I'm writing from Italy.
I'd like to know if the Nikon 18/70 is going to be replaced with a new lens. In fact at B&H is reported as "discontinued". Perhaps Nikon is preparing something like Sigma 17/70 f.2,8-4?
Thanks in advance for any news.
Luca.