8-55 lens and a 18-105 VR Lens Kit?
This is for a Nikon D5000, I;m wanting to know much information so I can buy a great kit.
What's the difference?
(23 posts) (8 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
18-55 and 18-105 are very similar lens, same plastic build ...
18-105 is a bit better in all aspects, longer, sharper, has AF override (not as smooth as other AF-S though) but is more expensive and heavier.Posted 3 years ago # -
Do you think it would be better off buying the D5000 with the 18-105 lens? I am a noob at DSLR's so I'm not sure if I will be needing it. But I do tend to take wide and sharp shots.
Posted 3 years ago # -
If budget permits I would go for D5000 and 16-85, not much more expensive but much better lens, metal mount etc.
If not 18-105 is definitely better choice...Posted 3 years ago # -
Or get the 18-55vr and 55-200vr, great for a newbie; if You are more serious about photography invest in the 16-85
Posted 3 years ago # -
*link removed*
Is that price worth it? I;m not too serious about photography but hopefully when I learn enough I could upgrade. I just need something better than the standard lens that you get with the camera as I can buy it at the moment.
Posted 3 years ago # -
D5000 18-105 kit is much more versatile and has better IQ so it is certainly worth 100£ price difference over 18-55 kit. If you are not too serous about photography 18-105 kit is probably all you will ever need.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Please don't put direct links to commercial sites in the forum.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The 18-55 handles low light poorly. The vr only makes up for what the 18-105 can already do...
Posted 3 years ago # -
That makes no sense at all, both the 18-55mm and 18-105mm both are F3.5-5.6 and have VR. Both only have VR I, so in the same focal range, assuming the F stop is the same performance in low light will be the same.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I think Kyoshi meant that wide open the 18-105 is sharper, and I agree. Wide open is slightly wider on the 18-105 because it's 5.6 at 105 instead of 55 (it's not really significant, though—f/5 at 55mm compared with f/5.6 at 55). I would shoot the 18-105 wide open regularly but would hesitate with the 18-55.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Ah, yes first hand knowledge does make a difference there. The only times I've used a 18-55mm is when I do some shooting for my sister with her D40.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm not just referring to the sharpness I referring to the front glass element size vs the lighting conditions. Almost a year ago I ran a test of 4 nikkor lenses the 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6, 18-105mm F/3.5-5.6, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5, and the 17-55mm f/2.8. The test was run at f/5.6 50mm range on all of them (they are all Dx lenses). The camera was a D90 at ISO 100 (Low 1 [WTH do they call it that])
When shot outdoors (during cloudy daylight) the exposures were identical, but when inside under low light, the 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 needed 2 SS slower than the other 3. At first I thought it was just me so I pulled out a tripod and got the same exact results. After a little more troubleshooting I came to the conclusion that the front element was too small to let in the same amount of light as the other 3 in the given lighting conditions, and yes it was also the least sharp of the 4...
In most situations it shouldn't be a problem, and remember this was just a personal test (taken again a few weeks later with the same results) and not done by a pro camera tester. Still it lowered my opinion of KR's beloved 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 forever and caused me to never buy one as a result.
The 55-200 F/3.5-5.6 counterpart doesn't seem to have the same problem though...
Posted 3 years ago # -
I don't see how that could happen, Kyoshi. The f/number is useful because it's a ratio of the focal length to the aperture, and for a given f/number you should get the same exposure no matter the focal length. For example, the amount of light coming from the subject gets spread out onto an area that's a factor of 4 larger if you double the focal length (meaning your sensor captures light from only 1/4 of the original area), but if the f-number can be kept the same as before you still get the same exposure because your aperture has double the diameter from before and, so, 4 times the area (A=pi*r^2).
Now, if you're claiming the t-stop is different (which is talking about the combined effects of aperture size and light loss as it goes through the elements), that may be true but it's hard to believe they're 2 stops different. Or did you mean 2/3 of a stop? If you mean two shutter speeds by SS (each 1/3 stop) then that might be believable, but it still seems like you should see that outside, too. You probably know all this. I'm not attacking you, but it just seems so incredible and I'm thinking out loud.Posted 3 years ago # -
No worries it was just a test I did a while back that affected my opinion...
I did mean 2 shutter speeds and not f/ stops and should of clarified that. 2 f/stops would have been crazy to claim. I was just stating that I think a little less light seems to pass through the whole 18-55mm as opposed to the others.
Other non similar lenses that reach the length and f/stop have different results too, especially if they are Fx format as opposed to the Dx that I tested.
I say try it yourself (18-55mm and another similar lens) and see if you get the same or different results.
Posted 3 years ago # -
From a technical standpoint, any lens at 50mm, and F5.6, regardless of element size, should meter the same.
I tested this theory, using two lenses. 50mm F1.8D (52mm filter thread, like the 18-55mm VR), and 24-120mm VR (72mm filter thread)(@50mm), at F5.6. Manual exposure, ISO200, under dim florescent light. Both lenses metered the same 1/6s.
Posted 3 years ago # -
PB PM said:
I tested this theory, using two lenses. 50mm F1.8D (52mm filter thread, like the 18-55mm VR), and 24-120mm VR (72mm filter thread)(@50mm), at F5.6. Manual exposure, ISO200, under dim florescent light. Both lenses metered the same 1/6s.The front element may be the same between the 2 but the distance between the front element and back element on the 18-55mm is almost 3 times as long as the 50mm 1.8's. I am not taking about front element size exclusively. I am referring to the light lost down the length of the lens because the front element in comparison to the length of the lens and optical lack of the same sharpness as the other lenses, causes it to not send so much light down the lens.
The 50mm 1.8 also picks up minor highlights that the 18-55mm wont in a dark situation...
While still a theory, the test you ran wasn't effective for what I was explaining because I am referring to Element size + length + less sharp at edges = slight loss of light...
Posted 3 years ago # -
How was it not effective? Two totally different lenses, a fixed prime vs. a zoom lens, which has a more complex optical formula. Softness at the edge of a lens has no effect on metering, or the amount of light gathered.
I'm talking about metering the scene, not softness or focal length. Of course focal length effects the metering, unless you use spot metering on the same subject.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I headed ahead and bought tht 18-105 VR kit. Thanks for the help.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Post photos !! :-)
Posted 3 years ago # -
http://i43.tinypic.com/xp0qxe.jpg/img
http://i40.tinypic.com/2ch6xjm.jpg
What can I do to make my night shots more clear and less noise?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Unpopular answer would be by D3s.
You could improve however by turning of auto ISO and shoot at ISO 200, use tripod and turn long exposure NR on.Posted 3 years ago # -
For those night shots you need a tripod. Set ISO to 200 and NR on and close the aperture down to say f7 or F8 and take the shot .. should be a few seconds. and then a few more seconds as the NR kicks in.
The flower shots do show what a nice lens you have !
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
