Is a Nikkor 18-70 a noticeable step up from a 18-55 G II kit lens?

Hi,
I've got a Nikon D40 with the kit 18-55 and the new 55-200VR.
I found my 55-200 to be considerably sharper than the 18-55 GII. I've
therefore made some comparisons at 55mm on a tripod that really verifies
this. Maybe no surprise, as I did not expect wonders from a kit lens in this
price range, but it's really a bit softer than I expected. In fact the
55-200VR is sharper at 55mm f/4 than the 18-55 is at 55mm f/8!
However, I know Ken Rockwell writes a lot about how nice his 18-55 is, while
most everybody else say the 18-70 wins hands down. What do you think, is a
Nikkor 18-70 about as sharp as a 55-200VR or would it be no better than the
kit lens I already have?
/per

"per" wrote in message
...
Hi,
I've got a Nikon D40 with the kit 18-55 and the new 55-200VR.
I found my 55-200 to be considerably sharper than the 18-55 GII. I've
therefore made some comparisons at 55mm on a tripod that really verifies
this. Maybe no surprise, as I did not expect wonders from a kit lens in
this price range, but it's really a bit softer than I expected. In fact
the 55-200VR is sharper at 55mm f/4 than the 18-55 is at 55mm f/8!
However, I know Ken Rockwell writes a lot about how nice his 18-55 is,
while most everybody else say the 18-70 wins hands down. What do you
think, is a Nikkor 18-70 about as sharp as a 55-200VR or would it be no
better than the kit lens I already have?
/per

I have both the 18-70 that came with my D70s, and the 18-55 II that came
with my D40. I like them both just fine, and my photos so far with the 18-55
(mostly indoors in P mode with SB-600) have been very sharp. I haven't
tested it extensively or made elaborate comparisons with the 18-70 or any
other lens, however.

Neil

On May 5, 3:31 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
"per" wrote in message

...

Hi,
I've got a Nikon D40 with the kit 18-55 and the new 55-200VR.
I found my 55-200 to be considerably sharper than the 18-55 GII. I've
therefore made some comparisons at 55mm on a tripod that really verifies
this. Maybe no surprise, as I did not expect wonders from a kit lens in
this price range, but it's really a bit softer than I expected. In fact
the 55-200VR is sharper at 55mm f/4 than the 18-55 is at 55mm f/8!
However, I know Ken Rockwell writes a lot about how nice his 18-55 is,
while most everybody else say the 18-70 wins hands down. What do you
think, is a Nikkor 18-70 about as sharp as a 55-200VR or would it be no
better than the kit lens I already have?
/per

I have both the 18-70 that came with my D70s, and the 18-55 II that came
with my D40. I like them both just fine, and my photos so far with the 18-55
(mostly indoors in P mode with SB-600) have been very sharp. I haven't
tested it extensively or made elaborate comparisons with the 18-70 or any
other lens, however.

Neil

Compare CA.

"RichA" wrote:
Compare CA.

There are lots of things to compare, but measurements actually seem quite
similar, and the actual pics in my opinion seem to differ more than such
measurements would imply.
When I view through some pic galleries like flickr.com, I get the impression
that the 18-70 gives clearer, purer and more intense pictures, compared to
the 18-55 that appear to produce more dull and bland pics in comparison.
Now, this is certanly not a scientifically impeccable comparison, and the
result may depend on different customers, like enthusiasts having bought the
D70 and D80 with the 18-70 versus the point-and-shoot type of customers
having chosen the D50 and D40 with the 18-55. But I have seen some D50 pics
with the 18-70 that also shine and sparkle, quite unlike most every 18-55
pic out there. What do you guys think, am I seeing something thats not
there?
Also, would you think there will be a 18-70VR or 18-135VR out anytime soon?
/per

"per" wrote in message
...
"RichA" wrote:
Compare CA.

There are lots of things to compare, but measurements actually seem quite
similar, and the actual pics in my opinion seem to differ more than such
measurements would imply.
When I view through some pic galleries like flickr.com, I get the
impression that the 18-70 gives clearer, purer and more intense pictures,
compared to the 18-55 that appear to produce more dull and bland pics in
comparison.

My 18-55 does not produce noitceably "more dull and bland" pix compared to
my 18-70. Nor have I noticed any "clearer, purer and more intense"
difference between them. In clarity, purity and intensity they look about
the same to me. Maybe I just don't have enough imagination.

Now, this is certanly not a scientifically impeccable comparison, and the
result may depend on different customers, like enthusiasts having bought
the D70 and D80 with the 18-70 versus the point-and-shoot type of
customers having chosen the D50 and D40 with the 18-55. But I have seen
some D50 pics with the 18-70 that also shine and sparkle, quite unlike
most every 18-55 pic out there. What do you guys think, am I seeing
something thats not there?

Possibly. I wonder if you'd see any difference in "shine and sparkle" or
whatever in a double-blind test. Have the same person with the same camera
shoot the same subjects in the same way with both lenses at the same focal
lengths and apertures, mix up the shots and see if you can tell which are
which.

Also, would you think there will be a 18-70VR or 18-135VR out anytime
soon?

I doubt there's any need for the former. For the latter maybe, but that
seems sort of marginal.

Neil

On May 6, 7:01 am, "per" wrote:
"RichA" wrote:
Compare CA.

There are lots of things to compare, but measurements actually seem quite
similar, and the actual pics in my opinion seem to differ more than such
measurements would imply.
When I view through some pic galleries like flickr.com, I get the impression
that the 18-70 gives clearer, purer and more intense pictures, compared to
the 18-55 that appear to produce more dull and bland pics in comparison.
Now, this is certanly not a scientifically impeccable comparison, and the
result may depend on different customers, like enthusiasts having bought the
D70 and D80 with the 18-70 versus the point-and-shoot type of customers
having chosen the D50 and D40 with the 18-55. But I have seen some D50 pics
with the 18-70 that also shine and sparkle, quite unlike most every 18-55
pic out there. What do you guys think, am I seeing something thats not
there?
Also, would you think there will be a 18-70VR or 18-135VR out anytime soon?
/per

I think the 18-55 newest version is a good lens, purely based on
results I saw with a D40.
But VR on the 18-70? I doubt it. It would raise the cost of the
18-70 (which is already up there for a kit lens) to too high a level.
Maybe on the 18-135 because the equivalent long end of the lens is
200mm...

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:

My 18-55 does not produce noitceably "more dull and bland" pix
compared to my 18-70. Nor have I noticed any "clearer, purer and more
intense" difference between them. In clarity, purity and intensity
they look about the same to me. Maybe I just don't have enough
imagination.

Nonsense! The 18-70 is an optical marvel that exceeds the expectations
and
specifications of what people demand from a DX lens. If you must have a
DX
lens the 18-70 is it.

I like 'em both. The 18-55 is great because it's compact and lightweight,
and so is a perfect choice for the D40 which I bought for exactly the same
reasons. Of course I agree with you about the 18-70, but I also agree with
Ken Rockwell about the excellence of the 18-55.


Also, would you think there will be a 18-70VR or 18-135VR out anytime
soon?

I doubt there's any need for the former. For the latter maybe, but
that seems sort of marginal.

Correct! Nikon would never produce a VR lens in the 18-70mm range since
it
would seal their fate of being a manufacturer of consumer grade crap
instead
of the true optics company they are. Canon lost what little credibility
they had when they made the mistake of making an IS lens near that range.

Now that I have the 18-200 VR at last, I'll eventually be doing some
experimenting with VR on and off at all focal lengths and we will see what
we will see. Of course the vagaries of hand-held shooting at slow shutter
speeds being what they are, it may be hard to prove anything conclusively
one way or the other. Lots of shots in the same situations with it on and
off should show a clear difference if there is one though, and if there's no
real difference at the shorter focal lengths I'll admit you're right and I
was wrong.

But I would agree that in general, for most people, typically shooting
outdoors in good light, VR would serve no purpose on an 18-70 and have
little if any benefit on an 18-135. When I get the latter lens I don't
expect to miss VR on it at all, and probably wouldn't pay extra for it if it
were offered.

Neil

On May 6, 8:16 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
My 18-55 does not produce noitceably "more dull and bland" pix
compared to my 18-70. Nor have I noticed any "clearer, purer and more
intense" difference between them. In clarity, purity and intensity
they look about the same to me. Maybe I just don't have enough
imagination.

Nonsense! The 18-70 is an optical marvel that exceeds the expectations and
specifications of what people demand from a DX lens. If you must have a DX
lens the 18-70 is it.

Nikon was sensible, unlike some other companies. They sacrificed some
control over vignetting and distortion in order to better deal with
CA, SA, coma and astigmatism. Even the build quality is good. The
result is arguably the best kit lens currently on the market and they
did it without pushing the price towards high three figures.

In article ,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?= ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

My 18-55 does not produce noitceably "more dull and bland" pix
compared to my 18-70. Nor have I noticed any "clearer, purer and more
intense" difference between them. In clarity, purity and intensity
they look about the same to me. Maybe I just don't have enough
imagination.

Nonsense! The 18-70 is an optical marvel that exceeds the expectations and
specifications of what people demand from a DX lens. If you must have a DX
lens the 18-70 is it.

I guess that people expect very little from a DX lens, because the
18-70 may be decent lens, but it doesn't come close to the 17-35.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

On May 6, 5:58 pm, (Philip Homburg) wrote:
In article ,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?= ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

Neil Harrington wrote:

My 18-55 does not produce noitceably "more dull and bland" pix
compared to my 18-70. Nor have I noticed any "clearer, purer and more
intense" difference between them. In clarity, purity and intensity
they look about the same to me. Maybe I just don't have enough
imagination.

Nonsense! The 18-70 is an optical marvel that exceeds the expectations and
specifications of what people demand from a DX lens. If you must have a DX
lens the 18-70 is it.

I guess that people expect very little from a DX lens, because the
18-70 may be decent lens, but it doesn't come close to the 17-35.


No, it's much better from 36mm to 70mm than the 17-35mm.