Which Nikon lens?

I'm a little confused by the stories and tests on the net: which lens is
better. the 18-70mm or the 18-135mm?
Some say one, some say the other.
I know the 18-70 has metal connection, but I don't care.
I don't care for the bigger range, just the sharpest lens.
Are they an improvement over the 18-55mm kitlens?
Most pictures that are not real zoom, are made with that 18-55 at the RR
station. Looks pretty sharp to me.

Happy New-year!


--
Sosumi

I have the 18-135 kit lens w/D80 and it looks very sharp to me, I have no
problems with this lens. I am new to Nikon and this is currently my only
lens. I've been seeing posts by people that have similar lens or coverage
for different ranges. I don't know why, If I would buy another lens it
wouldn't be for the same coverage it would be for 135 or higher to hopefully
up to 300 or something close to whats offered. I do see that the
Teleconverters will not take away too much detail from the lens but I can't
put the tele on my Kit Lens. Oh, my kit lens isn't VR but my larger Tele
will be. I can also see going wider but I wouldn't buy anything that again
wont be a duplicate of my current range. I would try to get lower then the
18mm.

Not4wood



"Sosumi" wrote in message
...
I'm a little confused by the stories and tests on the net: which lens is
better. the 18-70mm or the 18-135mm?
Some say one, some say the other.
I know the 18-70 has metal connection, but I don't care.
I don't care for the bigger range, just the sharpest lens.
Are they an improvement over the 18-55mm kitlens?
Most pictures that are not real zoom, are made with that 18-55 at the RR
station. Looks pretty sharp to me.

Happy New-year!


--
Sosumi

On 2008-01-01 14:57:08 -0800, "Sosumi" said:

I'm a little confused by the stories and tests on the net: which lens is
better. the 18-70mm or the 18-135mm?
Some say one, some say the other.
I know the 18-70 has metal connection, but I don't care.
I don't care for the bigger range, just the sharpest lens.
Are they an improvement over the 18-55mm kitlens?
Most pictures that are not real zoom, are made with that 18-55 at the RR
station. Looks pretty sharp to me.

Happy New-year!

I don't have the 18-135. I like the 18-70. It is a very nice lens for
the money. Ken Rockwell hates it because he thinks the rings are poorly
placed. Bah.

You shoot mostly handheld, you know, so the difference in sharpness of
any of these lenses is a moot point.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

If you do not already know the answer to your question you will be happier
with the 18-135. It is a fine lens for its purposes and, for its price. The
18-70 is the great bargain of the otherwise overpriced Nikon lens catalog
(along with the 50 1.8). Technically the 18-70 is a better lens at the wide
end than the 18-135 but I would not lose sleep over the difference.
Ultimately minor to moderate differences in lens quality are often
meaningless because of digital post processing apart from severe chromatic
aberration. Regardless of capture medium the talent/craft of the
photographer will always be more important than minor to moderate
differences in gear technical quality.

"Sosumi" wrote in message
...
I'm a little confused by the stories and tests on the net: which lens is
better. the 18-70mm or the 18-135mm?
Some say one, some say the other.

Get both. I did. ;-)


I know the 18-70 has metal connection, but I don't care.
I don't care for the bigger range, just the sharpest lens.
Are they an improvement over the 18-55mm kitlens?

Get that one too. I did. ;-)

Seriously, I think all three are great. The 18-55 doesn't have much range
but it's compact, very light weight and surprisingly close focusing. I love
the range of the 18-135, though it would be nice if it weren't f/5.6 or
close to it for so much of that range. At the 135 end it's about as long a
non-VR lens as I can hand hold comfortably on a DX camera. The 18-70
obviously is 2/3 stop faster at the long end than the other two and to me
has more of a quality feel, but I have no complaints there about the other
two. It also has a distance scale which the other two don't, which looks
classier but since I rarely look at it it doesn't really matter much to me.

Optically I haven't really noticed any difference between 'em, though I'm
sure that people who obsess over such things must find some differences. I
think all three are wonderfully sharp. Like you, I don't care about the
mounts of the 18-55 and 18-135 not being metal. I'm confident that Nikon
designers know what they're doing when they decide to use a non-metal mount.

The fact is, I have the 18-70 because it came with my D70s. The 18-55 came
with my D40 and the 18-135 came with my D80. If I only had the latter two
lenses I think I'd be satisfied and probably wouldn't feel the need for the
18-70, though I might buy one anyway because I really enjoy buying Nikon
lenses.

Neil

On Jan 1, 5:57 pm, "Sosumi" wrote:
I'm a little confused by the stories and tests on the net: which lens is
better. the 18-70mm or the 18-135mm?
Some say one, some say the other.
I know the 18-70 has metal connection, but I don't care.
I don't care for the bigger range, just the sharpest lens.
Are they an improvement over the 18-55mm kitlens?
Most pictures that are not real zoom, are made with that 18-55 at the RR
station. Looks pretty sharp to me.

Happy New-year!

--
Sosumi

Get the 18-70mm, get better images and get closer to subjects if 70mm
isn't enough. Long range zooms = glorification of laziness.

"Sosumi" wrote in message
...

I don't care for the bigger range, just the sharpest lens.
Are they an improvement over the 18-55mm kitlens?

Unless you use a tripod most of the time, the biggest improvement for the
price over the 18-55 kit lens is likely to be the new 18-55 VR kit lens.

Andrew Koenig wrote:
"Sosumi" wrote in message
...

I don't care for the bigger range, just the sharpest lens.
Are they an improvement over the 18-55mm kitlens?

Unless you use a tripod most of the time, the biggest improvement for the
price over the 18-55 kit lens is likely to be the new 18-55 VR kit lens.

Does that mean that in at least the more common Nikon bodies, the
general default settings the camera chooses in the point-&-shoot auto
modes don't select fast enough shutter speeds and ISO settings to
freeze blurring due to camera shake if you're not using an image
stabilisation system?

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
Andrew Koenig wrote:
Unless you use a tripod most of the time, the biggest improvement for the
price over the 18-55 kit lens is likely to be the new 18-55 VR kit lens.

Does that mean that in at least the more common Nikon bodies, the
general default settings the camera chooses in the point-&-shoot auto
modes don't select fast enough shutter speeds and ISO settings to
freeze blurring due to camera shake if you're not using an image
stabilisation system?

Now, that is a 'resourceful' interpretation of Andrew's comment. It is
amazing how some people can twist words.

jue

On 2008-01-07, Chris Malcolm wrote:
Andrew Koenig wrote:
"Sosumi" wrote in message
...

I don't care for the bigger range, just the sharpest lens.
Are they an improvement over the 18-55mm kitlens?

Unless you use a tripod most of the time, the biggest improvement for the
price over the 18-55 kit lens is likely to be the new 18-55 VR kit lens.

Does that mean that in at least the more common Nikon bodies, the
general default settings the camera chooses in the point-&-shoot auto
modes don't select fast enough shutter speeds and ISO settings to
freeze blurring due to camera shake if you're not using an image
stabilisation system?


No. It means Andrew Koenig thinks that the biggest improvement for the
price over the 18-55 kit lens is likely to be the new 18-55 VR kit lens.
But he also points out that VR is useless if one shoots on a tripod.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg