Is the Nikon 18-70 an upgrade over 18-55? (focusing)

Zarch

Zarch

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,005
Name
Mick
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a D3100 with the 18-55 VR kit lens. I can see from searching that this question has been done to death really, but would the 18-70 be an upgrade?

Selling my 18-55 and buying 18-70 would only be around a £30 uplift looking at 2nd hand prices.

I've got my 35mm 1.8 for indoors, but looking maybe to the 18-70 as my outdoor carry lens.

The main reason i'm thinking of changing is that i've read that the 18-70 is faster focusing than the 18-55. Is the difference enough for me to notice when trying to chase my 15 month old little girl around?

She doesn't half move quick. :lol:

And where would the 18-105 come into equation for speed of focus as another alternative?

Finally, are they still selling the 18-70 as a kit lens? Would it be possible to find a pretty recent one?
 
Last edited:
I can vouch for the 18-70. It's a decent lens, it focuses fast on a D80, it's a sharp and has given me some really good results. I can't help you with how it compares to the 18-55for focusing speed, but considering the 2nd hand prices I'd say it's a good buy for that little extra reach.

Maybe you can find one in a 2nd hand camera shop just to test and compare against the 18-55.
 
It's an excellent lens. I used to have one, but stupidly sold it to fund a bigger lens.. :(

I now have the 18-55 like you (but the first generation one) and TBH I don't actually notice any improvement in image quality with the 18-70. However, the 18-70 is much nicer to use, focuses faster, has a tad extra zoom, and of course, is brighter! If one came up at the right price, I'd go for it. You won't be disappointed. :thumbs:
 
It is one of the best lenses in terms of value for money.
 
I'd save my pennies if I were you. Image quality wise the VR 18-55 is very good so don'texpect much more from the 18-70, it might be slower to focus but then you are also giving up VR which can prove very useful.

If you need better image quality go for a Tamron 17-50 same if you need bigger aperture, if you need faster AF go for a Sigma 18-50. If you want all of the above get the 17-55 Nikkor though in that case you need a lot of pennies.

If you just want a good all around lens with greater reach get the 18-105 VR.
 
3 for, 1 against...... anyone else have a view?

Also, how much heavier and larger is the 18-70 over the 18-55?
 
How about the nikkor 16-85mm, has great range and VR. I use it as my day to day walkabout.
 
terryt said:
How about the nikkor 16-85mm, has great range and VR. I use it as my day to day walkabout.
Click to expand...

Thanks Terry, will add that into the mix too. :thumbs:

Although at nearly £400 its a more than I want to be spending.
 
Last edited:
I was wondering if the lack of VR on the 18-70 is a worry?

Would the lack of VR be a big miss if I was using video mode on my D3100 (not very often, but it does happen now and then).

I've ruled the 16-85 on cost so that only leaves the 18-70 (non VR) and 18-105 (VR) as potential replacements for the 18-55.

18-105 (VR) v 18-70 (NO VR) v Keep the 18-55 (VR).

Or is there a Tamron/Sigma alternative walkabout lens I should be looking at?

Is keeping the 18-55 such a bad option if theres no "slightly longer" walkabout? (confused)....... or I just save up the pennies and get the 18-200?? (even more confused)
 
Last edited:
VR in such short, light lenses isn't really something I'd be too fussed with. Good handling technique will be just as effective. Long lenses are where you'll see a marked difference between VR and non-VR lenses and ultimately, getting the shot.

Also, something has to give with a kit lens like the 18-55 that also features VR- that's a lot to pack into a cheap lens soi something will be compromised.

Get a 18-70; as good as the excellent Tamron 17-50 in the optical stakes, with more reach but lacking a constant f/2.8 aperture.
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
VR in such short, light lenses isn't really something I'd be too fussed with. Good handling technique will be just as effective. Long lenses are where you'll see a marked difference between VR and non-VR lenses and ultimately, getting the shot.

Also, something has to give with a kit lens like the 18-55 that also features VR- that's a lot to pack into a cheap lens soi something will be compromised.

Get a 18-70; as good as the excellent Tamron 17-50 in the optical stakes, with more reach but lacking a constant f/2.8 aperture.
Click to expand...

Was about to say....but he did it for me! :thumbs:

I still have mine from buying a D70s over 5 yrs ago and it still gets used despite owning much flashier glass. Its light but not 'cheap n tacky' light, a lovely length for general walkabout and balances well on all the smaller bodies.
 
The only reason I parted with my 18-70 was that it was a sweetener as part of a deal when I sold my D200 _ The buyer needed a lens to get him started and the 18-70 was a good start. TBH, I would probably have got shot of it by now anyway - it was the only Dx lens in my bag so not suitable for my current main body (D700)(Yes, I know I can set5 the D700 to Dx mode and 5Mp but since I already have the wide end covered down to 12mm, there's very little point!
 
I can't say I've compared the 18-55mm and the 18-70mm, but I did have the 18-70mm and it was an excellent lens. It has always had a good reputation which I can only agree with. :thumbs:

That said, I upgraded to the 16-85mm for the wider range and to a lesser extent, the VR. The extra 2mm difference at the wide end has to be seen to be believed. :eek: And the extra zoom at the long end means I don't have to change to the 70-300mm lens as often, as there is a nice overlap between the lenses and not the abrupt change from one to the other. :)
 
Thanks everyone, need to see if I can pick one up as cheap as possible then.

I know you are supposed to take Uncle Ken with a pinch of salt, but he doesn't half go on about how good the 18-55 is...... and as a newbie, its easy to take his word for it when he has his own site etc.

Honestly, you'd think the 18-55 was the best lens in the world. Every other lens review he does either says "not as good as" or "not as good value" that you start to believe it........

As good as the 16-85 probably is, I cannot justify the £350 asking price.
 
Zarch said:
I know you are supposed to take Uncle Ken with a pinch of salt, but he doesn't half go on about how good the 18-55 is...... and as a newbie, its easy to take his word for it when he has his own site etc.
Click to expand...

At least you've learnt that. ;) :lol:
 
I used to use the 18-70 in the studio until last year when I upgraded to the Nikon 24-70 f2.8. For the money it is a cracking lens and has earned its keep I don't how many times over, I just can't bear to part with it. I keep it as a backup, it really is a solid performer as I have both FX and DX bodies.
 
Another thumbs up for the 18-70, don't know why but the extra 15mm defo seems noticable..sell the 18-55 and get a few quid back too ;)
 
It's quite a bit heavier than the 18-55 and I'd personally miss VR. A few years ago when I had the D70/18-70 and my friend had the D50/18-55 I'd much prefer using his setup - it was much more fun! Also you lose a lot of the close focus/macro abilities of the lens - the 18-70 isn't that great for close ups.
 
Another vote for the 18-70. Its more solidly built than the 18-55 and will focus faster. There is also a proper manual focus ring too and the mount is metal not plastic. It generally comes with a lens hood!
I dont think you will notice that much difference in sharpness though, the 18-55 is already very good.
So, Its not a big image upgrade, more of a better made version of what you already have, with a little more zoom.

If you want more zoom and VR. look at the 18-105 VR and the 18-135 VR. Both have plastic mounts though.
Allan
 
FWIW, another :thumbs: for the 18-70mm. Mine doesn't get used much these days as my main body is a D700 but it's a cracking little lens and you'd need to spend a lot more to better it. I'm sure you won't regret buying one.
 
Thanks everyone so far.......

More thumbs up for the 18-70, although a downside for macro/close-up action, but that isn't really a concern at the moment for me.

Does anyone of know of any sites that directly compare the 18-55 and the 18-70?

Any further thoughts on either lens?
Or any non-Nikon walkabout? Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 perhaps?
 
Last edited:
I'll chuck a vote in for the Sigma 17-70 OS F2.8-4 as I love it!
Great lens for the money with the bonus of OS (warehouse express had a refurb for £240)

I've previously used the non OS 2.8-4.5 on my canon system and it was the only lens I used for about 5 years, other than for sports (70-200 F4), again I loved this lens and for £120-£160 you can't go wrong!
 
Once again a vote for the 18-70. I also made the move from the 18-55 to the 18-70 and found an improvement with the focus and also I can get really good sharp results from the 18-70. I managed to pick mine up off ebay for about £70 which is good and with the sale of the kit lens only paid about £25 extra for what I consider a good lens.
 
Doh! I just realised I actually have an 18-70, although I am selling it for the following reasons:
The AF is slower than the sigma 17-70
The focal distance is appalling compared to the sigma for ultra close
The sigma is sharper
The sigma has a lower aperture at the short end

HOWEVER, that is of course comparing a £100 with a £250 lens! (used prices)
 
Quick question for 18-70 owners.....

I've managed to pick one up but can you confirm something for me. When zooming in from the bottom 18 and upwards, when I twist the dial it seems to quickly go up the range, but seems a little tricky to precisely choose wide focal lengths. Each slight twist leads to an exaggerated movement on the lens. (if that makes sense??)

But whilst coming back down from 70 it seems much smoother.

Uncle Ken mentions something on his 18-70 Review that seems to back this up:

Uncle Ken said:
My biggest beef with this 18-70 is the weird camming of the zoom. The wide focal lengths are crunched together making it hard to set the composition precisely.
Click to expand...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1870.htm


Is this unusual behaviour normal on the 18-70?
 
normal - but you get used to it.
I made the same change as you and to start with I was a bit underwhelmed at the differences, but I have to say having used it a reasonable amount I am very happy with the differences now. Stick with it and you will get used to it quick enough.
 
Zarch said:
Quick question for 18-70 owners.....

I've managed to pick one up but can you confirm something for me. When zooming in from the bottom 18 and upwards, when I twist the dial it seems to quickly go up the range, but seems a little tricky to precisely choose wide focal lengths. Each slight twist leads to an exaggerated movement on the lens. (if that makes sense??)

But whilst coming back down from 70 it seems much smoother.

Uncle Ken mentions something on his 18-70 Review that seems to back this up:



http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1870.htm


Is this unusual behaviour normal on the 18-70?
Click to expand...


BazEP said:
normal - but you get used to it.
Click to expand...


So i'm not going mad then? Its meant to do that? :)
 
Last edited:
I've had three of these over the years and never really noticed there was an issue.
You get used to it quickly or like me, plain don't notice.
Allan
 
Zarch said:
So i'm not going mad then? Its meant to do that? :)
Click to expand...

I'm not qualified to make that judgement ;-) but the zoom is not as linear as you would expect. You can tell, pretty much, by the spacing between the numbers on the barrel that this is the case. As I said though, you do get used to it in a short while.

interested in those that have moved to the tammy 17-50, 2.8 but are regreting it - why is that? My plan was to move to that in the not too distant future. Is it in IQ issue?
 
BazEP said:
I'm not qualified to make that judgement ;-) but the zoom is not as linear as you would expect. You can tell, pretty much, by the spacing between the numbers on the barrel that this is the case. As I said though, you do get used to it in a short while.

interested in those that have moved to the tammy 17-50, 2.8 but are regreting it - why is that? My plan was to move to that in the not too distant future. Is it in IQ issue?
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris. The more I read, the more it does seem by design. My fears are allayed.

Having taken a few pics with the 18-70, i've got a few queries now over in photo sharing if anyone has a spare moment: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=311874


I'd be interested in the Tamrom question too as the non-Nikon 2.8 lens seem to be the natural stepping stone.
 
As this is a 18-70 thread (in the main), I thought i'd ask an 18-70 question now I have one.

As the lens has no VR, what's the minimum shutter speed you use for general shooting. (yes, "general shooting" could mean anything and your particular camera might also dictate the shutter speed, but I'm curious.)

Reason being, in the thread of mine noted above where i've been having problems, I had the shutter at 1/125 when shooting at 70mm in daylight, yet it wasn't fast enough to sharply capture the plant I was shooting on my D3100.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top