Nikon18-105mm VR replacement

James Blonde

James Blonde

Messages
405
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
ARGH!!!!! My new D7100 with my old 18-105 lens on the front just sailed out of my rucksack and smacked onto a tarmac path. I thought I'd gotten away with it - a dented adapter ring, a few scratches and scuffs on the camera body and the battery cover flying off but refitted ok. However on closer inspection, whilst AF still appears to work, the lens is rattling and aperture petals are clearly detached around inside, so I suspect the lens is stuffed.

This was my go-to lens which covered 90% of my shooting needs, and given I'm on holiday for 2 weeks with the primary aim of doing some photography, I need a lens to replace it! I'll look at my travel insurance, but may not be willing or able to wait. Was toying with buying some grad filters, but I think a lens trumps that... :/

It looks like I can get a 1-1 replacement for £170-£200, but I was potentially looking at getting a better general purpose lens at some point in the future. This might force my hand!

What would you go for in my position? Other lenses I've got are Sigma 10-20, Nikon 50mm F1.8 and Nikon 70-300 VRII. I've also got an IR converted D90, so something that would minimise hotspots would be good too!
 
Some suggestions - prices are from MPB photographic for 2nd hand;

Nikon 18-105 VR £144 <-- straight replacement
Nikon 18-200 VR £299 <-- if you leave the 70-300 at home?
Nikon 17-55 VR £599 <-- a bit pricier!
Nikon 18-70 VR £89 <-- no VR, but oten claimed to be one of the best kit lenses Nikon made, and is known to be suitable for IR use.

There's also the Nikon 16-85 VR (MPB don't have one), which is supposed to be nice. But I'd probably got for a 17-55 over the 16-85 to get the constant wide aperture.
 
If you can find one 2ndhand, get the nikon 18-70, an absolute gem for a cheaper lens, very sharp
 
Best mid range zoom I've used when I had my D7000 was the Nikkor 17-55 - an absolute tank of a lens but a joy to use, never ever let me down. I used a couple of the Tamron 17-50's too and thought these were good.

The 16-85 VR is also very nice and if I could only put one lens on the D7000 it would have been this one (nicely wide and decent zoom + VR) - I preferred it to the 18-200's.

Agree about the 18-70, lovely lens and a steal now.
 
If you're stuck between the 18-105 and the 16-85 I'd go for the former - I've had both and,,frankly, apart from the build quality there is no difference between them (apart from a few mms!) - save the difference and enjoy it!
 
Thanks all! :) Lots to think about!

I have to say that, now I've had my D90 converted to IR and i'm having to use my other lenses (making sure I have a lens on each camera), I'm realising what zoom ranges i'm using most, and therefore which lenses are most useful. So again maybe another opportunity in disguise!

The 18-105 wins by a country mile and I was toying with getting another before this incident, or one similar, as I was constantly swapping to use it. It is the lens for the lazy me as I'm awful at not being bothered to change lenses, but it's also the reason I was toying with the 18-300 or 28-300 - just to give me an even lazier lens for "all" occasions and sell off everything else. If I'm taking photography a little bit more seriously though, I guess that would be a compromise too far...! However the 18-105 does hotspot a little on the IR camera.

Since getting the IR body, the Sigma 10-20 has been the default other lens, but I have to admit (and I'm sad to say this given how desperate I was to get it and how highly rated it has always been for landscapes!) I find it's just too wide - most of the landscapes I do don't justify such a wide angle - I can never find a nice foreground to fill the space! Mind you, maybe that says more about me! It also really isn't great on the IR camera either - there seems to be a lack of contrast and more fogging than hotspot, and seems to cause significant flare across a much wider part of the sky Maybe a 16-85 would be enough at the wide end, and I could sell the 10-20 as well...

I've always had a 70-300 of some kind, I'd probably miss it if I didn't have it, but I just don't use it much because I'm lazy and hate changing lenses! It does seem to be ok on the IR camera though! The VRII is a weighty beastie, but I doubt the 18-300 or 28-300 would have weighed much more, hence previously considering that as an all-in-one.

The 50mm again just doesn't get used as I've always had the 18-105 on the camera, and never really had the need for such a wide lens. Landscapes rather than portraits are my thing. It was cheap though!

So on reflection, maybe there is more of an opportunity here than I first thought to replace other, lesser used lenses (which can at least part fund the change), but then maybe the best compromise is actually another 18-105... but then how can I say this is a serious hobby if I buy another identical kit lens when I'd like to think I'm moving on to better things? (and be laughed at and pointed at by those more serious photographers...! :P)
 
James, ultra wides don't suit everyone, it is what works for you that matters. I found having just a bit of additional FoV of the 16-85 was very useful, others may not (persoanlly I'd have wanted a bit more ;) )

Just a quick point about weight, the 18-300 weighs 830 grams according to Nikon, the 70-300 VR 745 and your dead lens 420 ...

I'd also like to comment on this:
James Blonde said:
... but then how can I say this is a serious hobby if I buy another identical kit lens when I'd like to think I'm moving on to better things? (and be laughed at and pointed at by those more serious photographers...! :P)
Click to expand...
Any serious photographer won't care what you are using, if they "judge" you at all it will be on what you produce. They definitely won't laugh at you.

If the kit lens delivered everything you need and was not holding you back in anyway then it seems that it would be the best one to get - just be more careful with the next one ;)
 
i use to own a 18-70 nikon and is one of the best lens i use consider the price. I use tamron 17-50 f2.8 now but thats because i want f2.8. otherwise i would still be using the nikon 18-70
 
The 18-105 is a pretty capable lens for a kit lens - in particular, the fact that the front element doesn't rotate (unlike the 18-55) is very welcome. Most of the people I see using entry-mid range DSLRs are using the 18-55, and I suspect many are on Auto, so you shouldn't be ashamed by your kit! In any case, as others have/will point out - what matters is what you get, not what you get it with.

Re: superzooms: I think the 18-300 goes too far in it's ambition. For a lens intended to be a walk-around travel lens, 828g is pretty darn heavy. The 18-200 is 565g, which is a fair saving if it's your only lens. Depends how much you want/need the 200-300 range - personally, I don't think you need that kind of reach for a holiday lens, but others may disagree with me on that!
I had the 18-105 as the kit lens for my D5000, and loved using it (alongside a 35mm and 70-300mm), but once I got the 18-200, the other two zooms never left home again.
(as you may have guessed, I'm a bit of a 18-200 evangelist. I think it gets an undeserved bad rap).
 
I have to say that my dad has the 18-300mm and it is really heavy, plus it doesn't seem to have much more reach than my 70-200mm in the real world.
I would be tempted by a 17-55mm Nikon f2.8. I really do love mine to bits and although its not cheap the build quality and images it produces are worth it.
 
The 17-55 f2.8 nikon is heavy, similar to my 24-70 f2.8 in some way. If you can handle the weight in exchange for quality then is all good. Otherwise the 18-200 VR is decent.

If i have to pick 1 lens to cover alot of range i would choose the nikon 18-200 VR.
 
Gremlin said:
If you can find one 2ndhand, get the nikon 18-70, an absolute gem for a cheaper lens, very sharp
Click to expand...

Value for money wise this is the lens to get. Better than the 18-105 and cheaper!!

If money is less of an object, I would go for the following in this order:

Nikon 17-55 or 24-70 depending on focal length best for you.
Tamron 17-50 or 28-75
Nikon 16-85 VR
Nikon 18-70
Nikon 18-105
 
Ack, that wasn't a cheap day... Feel a little sick now! :) I ended up going for a Nikon refurbed / returned 18-200VR in the end. One bonus, as hinted, is that it seems to work well on the IR camera - no visible hotspots! but I'll give it a week. I did try out the 28-300, but realised it's the wider end I was more interested in than the zoom, and there didn't really seem to be that much more in the zoom in comparison to the wide end! I also had a shot of a second hand 17-55 in a different shop, but that was still over £650 and I really couldn't justify that.

I think my last week or 2's photography in the Lakes and Borders, and this whole lens unplanned flying lesson episode will result in a review of how I use my lenses and probably mean I sell or trade my 10-20 and 70-300. Might at least offset the cost of the 18-200 and mean that, if I can get anything back on my travel insurance, I might be able to replace the 18-105 if it can't be fixed. I might go for something slightly wider as previously hinted, but again keeping that middle range to make sure both cameras have a useable range and I don't feel like I have to keep constantly swapping lenses.

Thanks for all the advice folks - it has helped massively and will help in sorting out this other lens!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top