Digital SLR help

Me not being an expert in these matters, or even a keen amateur, but i tried out the 18-105 lens on the nikon d90 recently and i thought it was brill, just need the funds now, life has conspired against me, yet again otherwise i would have bought it there and then, will have to wait a while longer, it has a wider angle too, which is noticable from the cannon.

Originally Posted by Filipe M.

Are you sure you're not thinking about some other lens? The 18-105 is one of the best kit lenses Nikon has ever made, and it's not just me saying it. Quoting Thom Hogan, "the" guy to listen to on all things Nikon (and not just Nikon):

"For its price, this is actually quite a well rounded lens. The most visible fault for most will be the barrel distortion at 18mm and perhaps some softness in the corners at 18mm and f/3.5. Beyond that, it falls into what I'd call the "very good and no noticeable flaws" range on almost everything."

You can read the rest here.

Yes it's a weaker lens at 18 mm than at the rest of the range, maybe weaker than the 18-55 VR, and it does have more distortion throughout - which is expected from an almost 6x zoom that goes from reasonably wide to low-medium telephoto, but it's still a cracking sharp lens, and not very heavy. The plastic mount and lack of true AF override are the main negative points for me.

That said, I replaced both my 18-55 and 18-105 kit lenses with the 16-85, because of those extra 2 mm at the wide end (and the metal mount, VR II, true AF override, and better quality throughout)...

I believe Jambo might have something to say about the Canon 17-85 vs. the 18-55 IS, too...

Ive never used it in all fairness, i just always hear reviews on how poor it is compared with cheaper 18-55vr


"I prefer both the 18-55mm and 18-55mm VR lenses, which are both sharper and a fraction of the price!"
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-105mm.htm

Originally Posted by grimey121uk

Be careful with the 18-105, its one of the worst lenses nikon make in terms of IQ but it does have more range,

I never really understood why canon use a 17-85 and nikon a 18-105 on their "prosumer" range of cameras as both these lenses get beaten hands down by the 18-55 IS from the entry level cameras

Dont take my word for it, check out the reviews

I have plenty of pictures to prove just how good the 18-105 can do. Many on the Nikon dpreview website vouch for the lens.
I would not take anything Ken Rockwell says seriously.....

Originally Posted by grimey121uk

Ive never used it in all fairness, i just always hear reviews on how poor it is compared with cheaper 18-55vr

"I prefer both the 18-55mm and 18-55mm VR lenses, which are both sharper and a fraction of the price!"
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-105mm.htm

Originally Posted by TC3

I have plenty of pictures to prove just how good the 18-105 can do. Many on the Nikon dpreview website vouch for the lens.
I would not take anything Ken Rockwell says seriously.....

Ken Rockwell knows his stuff, but needs to be taken with not just a pinch, but a full pack of salt. He himself admits to being a wind-up merchant most of the times, so I wouldn't recommend his website to people who can't really tell when he's being serious and when he's just trying to stir the pot. That said, he's a good laugh every now and again. He is serious about weight, size and cost considerations though, and in those 3 areas, the both 18-55s are better than the 18-105.

With this, I'm not saying Nikon's 18-55's aren't good (I have both versions, and curiously the one that sees more action nowadays is the non-VR version in Anna's camera, since it's sharper than the VR one and she's annoyingly good at hand-holding the camera at stupid-slow shutters speeds ), it's just that the 18-105 is better at pretty much everything except distortion.
Nikon does have a tradition of coughing out pretty cool cheap kit lenses, where they skimp on the build costs, but keep the quality quite reasonable. Check Anna's avatar, for instance. You can't see it very well in here (I'll try and get her to post up the full pic later), but it was taken with one of Nikon's cheapest kit lenses ever, of which there are millions around: the 28-80G f/3.3-5.6 which doesn't even auto-focus on the D60 with which the picture was taken, and manual focusing with it is like trying to wade your way through a bowl of soup while trying to catch a single pea with a blunt toothpick. I simply chose it because the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro we had on the camera at the time was just too long to get the framing she wanted, the 18-55 was too short, and none of our other lenses will focus as close for the field of view she was trying to get. So yes, it's a £40 lens (I've seen some go for less, or just flogged as lens mount covers in F60 and F80s), but who'd tell?

[anna]

As requested...

Hi all,

Been a while since this post went up. But i have been doing shed loads of research on which camera, and i have made my mind up, but wanted to gather the experience of the org one last time.

I know that there is going to be a lot of personal opinion. and that everyone has preferred manufactures etc. but i what i am after, is if there is any specific reason that i should not go for this camera.

I have decided on the Nikon d3100 - with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX kit lens (plan to get either the Nikon AF-S 55-200mm or Nikon AF-S 55-300mm in the future to go with instead of a 18-105 kit to start)

Reasons for this choice. is mainly down to such high reviews of the d3000, have ready in many independent reviews both pro and armature that the d300 was the best entry level DSLR. and the 3100 only seems to have improved on that.

Value for money seems to be about as good as it gets with this to be honest.

What are your thoughts?

Well it certainly is better than the D3000 it replaces at pretty much everything, so can't see a reason why you shouldn't (except if you have the money to go one step higher to the D5000 ).

Enjoy.

Originally Posted by Filipe M.

Well it certainly is better than the D3000 it replaces at pretty much everything, so can't see a reason why you shouldn't (except if you have the money to go one step higher to the D5000 ).

Enjoy.

I was looking at the 5000, but to be honest i dont have the money, so i could wait and save up, but i am really keen to get snapping now. i couldn't see what real benefit i (as a new amiture) would get out of the extra money. i was thinking that i would start with the slightly cheaper set up and if as and when my skills (and hopfully income from putting shots on microstock sights etc) increases increase to a overall better set up!

again pro's and con's?

Pros:
- Looks like a "real" camera;
- Shoots like a "real" camera;
- It's smaller than a "real" camera, which leads to...
- It's lighter than a "real" camera;
- Very honest quality for the price;
- Very decent kit lenses;

Cons:
- It's smaller than a "real" camera, which leads to...
- Less weather protection than a "real" camera;
- Less controls on the outside of the body than a "real" camera, means having to faff with menus to change common settings;
- Only one control dial, which leads to more button pressing to change settings;
- No built-in motor for non-AF-S lenses.

TBH the only way you'd get most of these features would be by jumping straight to a D90 / D7000 or higher, and most of them might actually not mean anything to you as an amateur.
And of course by "real" camera I mean any of the Pro group, which everybody wants to have but only a few can justify!

fine.....i'm sold then, see how many penny's i get for my bday, and top the rest up and a shiney new d3100 will be on its way to me. and here's to lots of nice photoes that i can start selling for lots and lots of money!! lol

Cheers for all that Filipe, was really helpfull.