I am getting this camera as a gift. I do like to know the diference btw With 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 NIKKOR Zoom Lens and With 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 ED NIKKOR? Is it worth the U$ 200 difference?
356774
I have both lenses. I never use and in fact just sold the 18-55. The 18-105 is amazing, I highly recommend it. Here's the first picture I took with it the first day I got the 18-105. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=557817730963053&set;=a.321466137931548.70815.321449031266592&type;=3&theater;
356775
The larger one is a zoom. So if starts at the same but the 200 will be able to bring in further pictures. if you take everyday pictures then the small one, if you take pictures that are further off like sports or wildlife get the other. I have several myself. e sure to buy nikon and they are auto focus. The d5200 nikon is real nice.
356776
How does this compare to say a Nikon camera that says 42X zoom capability? Is the 18-55 mean it is up to a 55x zoom?
356777
It depends on what $200 is worth to you. Assuming you just have the 18-55mm for a season, will the loss of pictures zoomed between and including 1x to 2x in addition to the ability to get that without changing lens with the higher quality of extra low dispersion (ED), be less than $200 to you?
356778
Depends on what kind of photos you're taking. The only difference is the zoom, you'll get clearer shots from a distance with the 18-105mm but if you're just taking indoor photos or just close ups you may just want to stick with the 18-55mm. It's entirely up to you though.
356779
If you don't want to change lenses throughout the zoom range, then it may be worth it. You will have more distortion at the extremes with the 108mm too.
1672482
Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens?~ Dan Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6... » Read More Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens?~ Dan « Show Less
503709
I have only shot it with the 14-35 f/2 and it was VERTY fast to AF even in indoor conditions. It is much much faster than the E-M5 from what I hear. Maybe not as fast as the E-5 but the 14-35 was plenty fast for me. I can not comment on other lenses as I have not tried them, and probably will not be as A: I am not a fan of large lenses and B: I can not afford to buy them all to test them :)
1044998
I just went through the same decision process, in fact I literally bought the D60+ lens kit and returned it (package unopened) for the D80 (body only) + the fabulous 18-200 VR lens. Why? 1) I wanted the additional metering controls vs. the D60 and in fact used all of them on my recent trip to the Hoh rain forest. 2) Keeping to my budget, I opted to spend the money on the 18-200mm VR, and yes, I used its FULL RANGE without having to change lenses. A great way to go when outdoors and taking advantage of opportunities as they present themselves (e.g. deer twins walking right towards us while on the trail!). 3) Quickly realizing the super-zoom wasn't going to get me a FAST lens, I was able to pick up the 50mm f/1.4 right before my travels (which would NOT have AF working with the D40 or D60). If I had the $$$ I might have opted for a D300 and picked up the D40/60 for a lightweight second body, but as the only Digital SLR that I'll be using for the next couple of years, and the small price difference, I am extremely happy with my purchase.
2078344
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise. Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
1664836
This is generally seen as a direct upgrade from the 18-55 Kit lens. It covers almost the same focal lengths, but with wider aperture (more possible light), better autofocus, and better overall image quality. If you like the zoom range on the kit lens but are unsatisfied with the images that come from it, this is a lens you should consider.
382374
I have both lenses and they are both pretty good. I probably like the 50mm a bit more than the 35mm. The real question for you to answer is what will I be my primary use for the lens ? Remember, we're shooting with a crop-sensor camera, so the lenses convert from a 35mm to a 52mm, and the 50mm converts to a 75mm lens. My recommendation for General Purpose Shooting would be to go with the 50mm ! A great bang for the buck and terrific bokeh !
2096571
It is hard to say.... I am very satisfied with the 18-200mm. The quality is impressive and i don't mind the weight of the camera. It is the only lens I use. If I need additional detail, I can use the available computer software to provide additional zoom. Overall, I am very happy with the camera and lens.
39228
It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to... » Read More It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. « Show Less
79348
I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens. Life always seems to be about choices and trade-offs doesn't it.I hope this was helpful. I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens.... » Read More I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens. Life always seems to be about choices and trade-offs doesn't it.I hope this was helpful. « Show Less
855245
The camera was available in two different versions back when I bought mine. One came with a zoom - I don't know what zoom. Mine came with a 17mm 2.8. I bought it with the 17mm because I wanted the faster lens, as I was planning on buying a better zoom lens. When I purchased the camera, I bought separately an Olympus Zuiko 14 - 150mm 4 -5.6.
1835511
i use both the 105 and the 200 and my 200 is my go to every day lens. both are good but i just prefer the 200. hope this helps. distortion is equal on both lens so no real differences noted.
990745
Congrats on the D5000 (and both great lenses you have). Be sure and get that 35mm down the road, believe me it will probably be the best 200$ you'll ever spend if you do any shooting indoors. I have tons of other lenses (including a 50mm f/1.4) so I held off for a while on getting the 35mm f/1.8, once I did finally get it I was kicking myself for not getting it sooner, it's that good. Happy shooting.
150331
Deepak, I am currently using this lens on a Nikon D300 with 12.3 megapixels. I own several Nikkor lenses, ranging from wide angle to 300mm. This 18-200 is the best of all. Since receiving it, I have not taken it off the D300. I use it exclusively. It is a great lens. The VR feature is also fantastic. Low light shots come out great. I would highly recommend this lens for high megapixel cameras. It works great on my D300. I think you will be very happy once you use it too.
369534
Actually I have the same question... However, based on the reviews I have seen so far, I think I will go for the 18-135mm. Everybody recomends the good range that it provides, and buying it individually it becomes an expensive lens. On the other hand the 18-55mm will force the need for having an extra zoom.
1441507
i have the d80 with the 18-70 dx, the 70-300 ed, and the 50 1.8 d nikkors, plus the tokina 12-24 and the tamron 28-75 f/2.8. what glass you put on your d80 to start with should depend on intended uses and experience level. if all you want is an all-in-one lens, go for the 18-135 kit, unless you can afford the 18-200 vr. the 24-120 VR is another sweet after-market option if you go body-only and just want one lens, but you'd probably be better off, however, with either the 18-55 or the 18-70, plus the 55-200 vr. for the size, weight, and cost, they're very good for plastic consumer lenses. the downside is they're fairly slow for (D)SLR lenses, due to narrow apertures at the long end. if low-light photography or action sports is your bag, skip the nikkors altogether unless you can afford the 17-55 2.8 and/or the 70-200 VR. get the d80 body and grab a sigma or tamron 2.8. if w/a is your thing, i'd get one of the 18s (-55, -70, -135, -200) and pair it with the tokina 12-24 or the sigma 10-20. if you're more of a telephoto person, get the 18-55 or -70 and pair it with the inexpensive 70-300 non-vr g lens. the money you save over the ed or vr versions can go toward a good tripod -- unless you really think you're gonna be doing a lot of handheld shooting at 300mm. for macro and portrait work, consider again going body-only with the d80, getting the $100 50 1.8 prime, and maybe the sigma 30, the nikkor 60, and the tamron 90 to round out your selection, which would give you a nice, sharp range. if all of this seems too complicated, look at a fixed-zoom P&S or the d40/18-55 combo.
1703580
I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache distortion as well as barrel or pin cushion... and that can be very distratcing. I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache... » Read More I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache distortion as well as barrel or pin cushion... and that can be very distratcing. « Show Less