Thanks for your reply. But, I honestly have no need for an f/5.6 105mm lens. I was just wondering about its construction. I already have quite a few lenses which overlap that range (e.g., AF 18mm f/2.8 through AF 105mm f/2.0). I like the 18-55mm VR because it's so small and it has VR, but I only really shoot that lens at 18mm.

studio: plastic mount_ yes
fragile - no
protudes: while zooming, however this seems [to me at least] difficult to damage, because if you should drop the camera the lens [glass] would hit the ground before the sides. You would normally retract the lens before removing it from the camera, so damage off camera should not be an issue.

I would suggest that the camera lens package be carried by the camera, not the lens on these plastic mount lens,and by the lens on heavy metal mount teles, not the camera.

never had 18-55 repaired, but the attraction on this lens is the price, so I would say get a refurbished.

IMHO I think the 18-105 is an upgrade to the 18-55, more versatile.

there are times when you would not want to use your expensive lens, so these somehow slot into the bill because they are easy and cost effective to replace.

18-105 is a fantastic walk around lens, good for everyday use, I would suggest you suplement it with faster lens as you progress, do not get rid of it, just add lens as you need them.

I think you should buy lens depending on what you want to achieve, you might want some for low light photography, then you might want to add one telephoto for reach, and then nearly everybody gets into portraits, so that will mean something that allows you to limit DOF, something for marco and a little wider for landscapes, so we keep adding lens according to our need.

To start with, you will be happy with the 18-105, and yes the VR does work,you can do alot with this lens and it will while you figure out where you want to go with your photography.

Nice lens, good price, good value for money, get it and add the others as you know what you need.

18-105mm VR kit lens questions:

I bought a D7000 kit because I didn't want to wait for the body-only version to become available. I really have no want or need for the 18-105mm VR kit lens. I haven't even opened the box it came in, trying to keep it "new" looking for maximum resale on Ebay. Of those of you that own it, can any of you tell me if it has the same plastic-constructed mount like the 18-55mm VR kit lens has?

Also, does it feel as fragile and plastic-ey as the 18-55mm VR does? You know how the 18-55mm VR lens' barrel protrudes in and out--does the 18-105mm VR do the same thing? I ask, because the protrusion apparently puts the plastic internal barrel components at risk, and even on the lightest of use, I somehow broke the front barrel on my 18-55mm VR (internal, front-element's barrel is no longer firmly attached--lens no longer auto-focuses).

And, lastly, slightly off-topic: on my broken 18-55mm VR--is this an "easy" repair? Or should I just buy another 18-55mm VR, since I can buy a refurb for only $99? (In contrast to the 18-105mm VR, I actually really like the 18-55mm VR. It's tack-sharp, and super light and compact, plus, it has VR!)

Thanks!

Hi DaveyJ,

I wish I could discipline myself to shoot just jpgs. I admire you for that. There are a few jobs I get that I do both RAW and jpg files (with a small amount of picture processing in camera) and hand off the jpgs to the client, but like a crack addict, I still have to have my RAW files.

I don't think there's a single workflow either. Getting the right image the first time - like you do is awesome. I tend to do people shots with something in mind and work on set with a notion to some post processing.

The 18-105mm lens is pretty sharp, though, just not a speed demon. Plastic gets a bum rap. I've mangled metal bodied lens barrels more often than I've broken plastic barrels, so I'm not so sure that plastic deserves the reputation it gets. I know I'd rather carry it around all day than my 17-55mm.

My best,

Mike

I own a 18-105VR which I got on a backup D90 as a kit from B&H. It is a very good lens but I prefer the 12-24 Nikkor DX or the 18-200VR. So I don't use that lens much. I also have practically dumped RAW images since taking both JPEG fine large and RAW and I decided getting the original exposure right is the key. Then I don't save them again, put them in a folder and use iPhoto or Aperature 3 for the faithful copy including the metadata (time, lens, focal length, etc.) Saves me a lot of computer space and I find I do not adjust my photos much at all as I very carefully get the plus minus settings and details right when I shoot the photos.

zsolex said:
Hi,

I get confused when I have made test photos with D7000.
I have compared the nef to jpg and there are serious difference between them.
http://picasaweb.google.com/109752382403285978265/D7000JpgVsNefJpg#
The jpg has very much light and less red. The nef->jpg is closer to the reality.
Why is it, some settings mistake?
Could someone make test photos for me at ISO100,800,1600,6400 in jpg and nef with default settings?
Many thx,

I am with Mike although not totally certain of what you are asking. From what I can tell your pictures are under different settings. A RAW photo is just that. It isn't using any of the camera settings to adjust the colors, light, distortion or any other things. So yeah a jpg is going to look totally different then a RAW picture. The RAW format is to give you the opportunity to adjust the pictures how you like without the camera first adjusting them...in terms of flexibility they allow for more correction. If you try to edit jpgs too much it can really deteriorate them.

Hi,

The only reason I can think of is that you have some picture controls that are affecting your jpgs.

My best,

Mike

Hi,

I get confused when I have made test photos with D7000.
I have compared the nef to jpg and there are serious difference between them.
http://picasaweb.google.com/109752382403285978265/D7000JpgVsNefJpg#
The jpg has very much light and less red. The nef->jpg is closer to the reality.
Why is it, some settings mistake?
Could someone make test photos for me at ISO100,800,1600,6400 in jpg and nef with default settings?
Many thx,

Personal the 18-105 for me covers the perfect, it isn't the fastest or sharpest but it gets the job done. Not to derail the topic but how do you get infinity focus on it, on a D7k?

I got the 18-105 with the D7000 and found very sharp images with F8, comparable to the 50/1.8 but not studying at 100% crop. I ended up returning it only because I found that the 50mm/1.8 forced me to get closer to subjects for portraiture than felt comfortable/normal so I end up using my Tokina 28-70/2.8 instead of the 50/1.8 for portraits. I think a used 35-70/2.8 or (ideally) 24-70/2.8 on eBay is probably a better choice than the 18-105+35 or 18-105+50. Tokina Pro II is probably $200, the Nikkor 35-70 can be had for not too much bread if you look carefully. 24-70 is more but probably ideal range and quality.

aslightdelay said:
Thanks for the replies.

@Niko: no worries, I already know the rest of my lens lineup/wishlist. My concern, which I'd say was pretty thoroughly addressed here -- thanks guys -- was whether the 18-105 was equal to the equipment it was being put on. I distinctly remember seeing someone (AdamZ, maybe?) saying the camera outresolved the kit lens, and I've seen similar comments elsewhere, so my main concern was whether I should be looking at something else as the first lens with the camera. From the sound of it, I don't need to worry.

And yes, I know it's going to be a bit slow. Not looking for the Swiss Army knife of lenses, though; I plan on getting either a 35 or 50 1.8 for low light.

Again, thanks for the replies.

If you have the money there are better lenses that you will probably want in the future anyway. If you could afford one of the f2.8 lenses then they are probably a better long term option, but if you can't then the kit lenses work just fine. From what I have heard the 18-105 is pretty sharp so if the D7000 is out resolving it then there are a lot of lenses that it would also out resolve until you got into the high $$$ lenses.

Thanks for the replies.

@Niko: no worries, I already know the rest of my lens lineup/wishlist. My concern, which I'd say was pretty thoroughly addressed here -- thanks guys -- was whether the 18-105 was equal to the equipment it was being put on. I distinctly remember seeing someone (AdamZ, maybe?) saying the camera outresolved the kit lens, and I've seen similar comments elsewhere, so my main concern was whether I should be looking at something else as the first lens with the camera. From the sound of it, I don't need to worry.

And yes, I know it's going to be a bit slow. Not looking for the Swiss Army knife of lenses, though; I plan on getting either a 35 or 50 1.8 for low light.

Again, thanks for the replies.

I think the 18-105 is rather nice. It might be slow, like Mike G. said, but it does the job.

Why would Nikon release the D7000 paired up with the 18-105 if it out resolved it?! That makes no sense. You guys need to stop looking for "design flaws" and go enjoy shooting with your camera.

IF this thread turns into another "What's the Best lens for my D7000" thread then I'm closing it.

Hi,

The 18-105 lens is great, it's a tad _slow_, but sharp. The kit lenses tend to stop down slowish. Nonetheless they are usually sharp.

One misconception is that they aren't good because they are made of plastic, something I favor for their light weight and durability, another is that they are inexpensive and thus have to be blurry, again false.

The minimum aperture of f3.5 at the widest opening and f4.5 at the most telephoto is and its construction why the lens is cheap, nothing more.

My best,

Mike

You really shouldn't have any problem with a Nikon lens. The D7000 won't out resolve any of them. There are better and worse lenses, but most dSLR cameras aren't to that point yet where the camera would outdo the lens. There are sharper lenses, but they are sharper on every camera and it always comes down to money doesn't it? There are a couple of gems out there though with the primes and what not that are sharp for less $$$

Anyway I haven't tried it, but I haven't heard anyone hate the 18-105. The only kit lens I have heard isn't great is the non-vr 70-300.

Out resolve ..? I have the D7000m kit with the 18-105. it's excellent
If this is your first DSLR you will be amazed at the quality.

How are you planning to view your images..? At this point the quality of the resolution depends more on
the quality of your monitor or what kind of printer is being used as opposed to the lens resolution ,

Sure there are sharper lenses, but but I'll bet that you will be more than happy with the kit lens

I love the 18-105 but if you want a little more light, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a great option (I think the VC version costs a couple hundred dollars more than the non-VC version). Have a look at the tokina 16-50 2.8, too. I haven't tried it but have read good things about it.

Did a quick search of the threads for this, and I'm not seeing it addressed specifically, so here goes. I know that at some point, there's the potential for the sensor to out-resolve lenses, especially with less expensive/kit lenses. With that said, and given that enough of you probably have the 7000 by now to be able to give a good critique, do y'all think that the 18-105 is a good choice for the 7000, or am I better off looking at something else?

By way of background (since I know someone will probably ask), I'm by no means a professional. This will be my first DSLR, and I don't have a ton of money to kick around. With that said, I am looking at this as an investment, so if I'm going to be plunking down what is, for me at least, a fairly big chunk of change, I don't want it to be wasted on something that will give substandard results. So if not the 18-105, what's my next best (affordable) option, in terms of good resolution? And I'm talking real-world results, not DXO data (I know the two aren't necessarily one and the same).

Thanks!