Difference btw 18-105 and 18-55 lens
- Thread starter simonth
- Start date
- Status
Is that all? I saw an article saying 55mm is better buy than 105mm.
So though we are paying more for the zoom but the 55mm lens gives better IQ?
Hi there ,
I haven tried those lenses , but generally speaking , the longer the zooms, the lower the IQ due to more elements inside the lens. Hence , for cheap kit lenses , the shorter the zoom , the better it is able to retain sharpness and quality.
There are very expensive zooms that are of high quality , those definitely much much more costlyand tends to be faster lens with aperture 2.8 and lower. So you are right to assume theres an implicit trade off between zoom and IQ , but its not necessary true all the time.
But thats in theory , you can go see the online review of these 2 lenses for the details.
i'd ignore IQ cus, in actual shooting condition, its so subjective. hand shake, subject shake, out of focus, atmosphere... ...
in practical terms, if u own the 18-105, it can be all the focal length u ever need for general photography if u are immune to the BBB virus.
as for the 18-55, u may find yourself needing to buy a 55-200/55-250.
however, i use the 18-55, and this lens accounts for almost all the shots i took. my other lens is the 12-24.
in practical terms, if u own the 18-105, it can be all the focal length u ever need for general photography if u are immune to the BBB virus.
as for the 18-55, u may find yourself needing to buy a 55-200/55-250.
however, i use the 18-55, and this lens accounts for almost all the shots i took. my other lens is the 12-24.
:embrass: I do not understand what you are talking about above. Should I buy D90 then?
The first version of 18-55 didn't have superb optics anyway.
With improving technology, the trade off between image quality and zoom, is rapidly disappearing. 70-200 is a zoom lens with excellent optics. 18-200 has a power 11.1x zoom and it's image quality is good.
The 18-105 has decent optics and to me, image quality isn't a big problem with the lens.
Technically, if you are talking about the 1st version of 18-55 vs 18-105, there are many differences.
1) 18-105 zooms further of an addition 50mm
2) 18-105 has a variable aperture of f3.5-5.6. Although this is the same with 18-55, but on the 18-105, it means at 55mm, the maximum aperture value is not at f5.6. In other words, on the 18-105, the change in maximum aperture is more gradual and slower.
3) 18-105 comes with VR, which means you can shoot at slower shutter speeds without handshake blur.
With improving technology, the trade off between image quality and zoom, is rapidly disappearing. 70-200 is a zoom lens with excellent optics. 18-200 has a power 11.1x zoom and it's image quality is good.
The 18-105 has decent optics and to me, image quality isn't a big problem with the lens.
Technically, if you are talking about the 1st version of 18-55 vs 18-105, there are many differences.
1) 18-105 zooms further of an addition 50mm
2) 18-105 has a variable aperture of f3.5-5.6. Although this is the same with 18-55, but on the 18-105, it means at 55mm, the maximum aperture value is not at f5.6. In other words, on the 18-105, the change in maximum aperture is more gradual and slower.
3) 18-105 comes with VR, which means you can shoot at slower shutter speeds without handshake blur.
i am talking abt 18-55 relative 18-105. not talking abt D90.
i ve no experience w D90, but i am willing to bet that its going to be a very good camera.
Dude... It's really a simple matter of living with it. The 18-105VR may be inferior in some of those tests you've read about, but unless you're zooming in at 200% to view your pictures, looking out for CA, vignetting and other lens-associated issues, let me assure you that either lens is fine for most situations.
A more crucial issue, if you are a novice user, would be the reach (18-105VR can zoom further) and perhaps the price.
A more crucial issue, if you are a novice user, would be the reach (18-105VR can zoom further) and perhaps the price.
i bought my d60 body not too long ago and i did have the same choice of these 2 lens!
in the end i settled for the 18-55mm ED II (non-VR) first because it cheap and i read some reviews online that its probably one of the better kit lenses. i do think that for that price of a 18-105mm u can get a 18-55 and pair it with a 55-200mm VR, of course unless u do not want the inconvenience of changing lenses.
in the end i settled for the 18-55mm ED II (non-VR) first because it cheap and i read some reviews online that its probably one of the better kit lenses. i do think that for that price of a 18-105mm u can get a 18-55 and pair it with a 55-200mm VR, of course unless u do not want the inconvenience of changing lenses.
The 18-105VR is also a plastic mount. Although I believe a number of fellow CSers have already concluded that it's not really that bad... But I suppose it'd be easily to spot the difference between a plastic mount and a metal mount after 20 years of usage.
If you are just starting, the 18-105 would be a better choice to go with. It will provide you with the range that you will most need.
As for the 18-55VR, I think you can forget about it. By saving that $100 difference, you will need to go get another tele-lens for another $200++. In my opinion, the VR for 18-55mm is not necessary, at that range the VR does not help much most of the time.
Image wise, don't worry so much, they are all kits lens so the difference is marginal, especially if you don't intent to print larger than 8R. For your info, the resale market for 18-105mm is better than 18-55VR.
As for the 18-55VR, I think you can forget about it. By saving that $100 difference, you will need to go get another tele-lens for another $200++. In my opinion, the VR for 18-55mm is not necessary, at that range the VR does not help much most of the time.
Image wise, don't worry so much, they are all kits lens so the difference is marginal, especially if you don't intent to print larger than 8R. For your info, the resale market for 18-105mm is better than 18-55VR.
- Status
Similar threads
