Nikon 18-700mm lens - am I missing out?

Mozziephotography

Mozziephotography

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,850
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Bought an Nikon 18-70mm lens for myself for the princely sum of £80 a couple of years ago. Taken it on holiday with me and use it at home from time to time. I'm really happy with the results. Am I too easily pleased and am I missing out on something that the way more expensive lenses could do for my images? My significant other has one too. Are they available "NEW"?
 
mickledore said:
18-700? That's some lens:eek:
Click to expand...


Unless the laws of physics were demonstrably suspended to
the benefit of Nikon, I would not consider a solution like that! :rolleyes:
 
My old Nikon D70s had that lens as part of the kit. I too found it a very good lens and should never have sold it
 
The 3rd best kit lens I've used, the best being the Fuji 18-55, 2nd the Nikkor 24-120 f/4 then the venerable Nikkor 18-70. Would still have it if I had any Nikon Dx kit.
 
Nod said:
The 3rd best kit lens I've used, the best being the Fuji 18-55, 2nd the Nikkor 24-120 f/4 then the venerable Nikkor 18-70. Would still have it if I had any Nikon Dx kit.
Click to expand...

The best kit lens bar none was the Pentax 16-45mm f4. Samsung also did a version and for £140 they were stupidly sharp even wide open.
The 18-70mm certainly bats way above its price range.
 
It's a nice lens. I used it a lot on DX, where it directly replaced the 28-105 I'd shot on film. It's sharp, focuses quickly and is well constructed, with a proper metal mount and a decent hood. If you want to look for flaws, the distortion at the wide end is significant (much more so than the 28-105 at an equivalent angle of view on FX). Straight lines are not so straight, and it's less than ideal for architecture. I don't know if this is something Nikon have improved with more recent DX lenses - I can imagine designing something that works well at 18mm is pretty challenging.
 
You are lucky if you are happy with budget lenses. I have thousands worth of lenses and never have holidays so who is better off ?
 
mossienet said:
Bought an Nikon 18-70mm lens for myself for the princely sum of £80 a couple of years ago. Taken it on holiday with me and use it at home from time to time. I'm really happy with the results. Am I too easily pleased and am I missing out on something that the way more expensive lenses could do for my images? My significant other has one too. Are they available "NEW"?
Click to expand...

In terms of image quality, the benefits of a more expensive lens would be marginal at best. If you want to expand capability at the wide-angle or telephoto ends of the range, then look at getting an extra lens or two.

One thing you're currently missing through is much control over shallow depth-of-field with low lens f/numbers like f/1.8. Maybe consider a 50mm or 35mm 1.8 as a very affordable way to scratch that itch.
 
Hi @HoppyUK I take the 18-70 on hols to limit weight. I have 35,50and 85mm prime lenses to cover the events I attend. Took the 35mm on a trip to India. It did the trick and was as light to take round.
 
mossienet said:
Hi @HoppyUK I take the 18-70 on hols to limit weight. I have 35,50and 85mm prime lenses to cover the events I attend. Took the 35mm on a trip to India. It did the trick and was as light to take round.
Click to expand...

Then you're pretty well covered :) Apart from maybe macro (Raynox adapter is an affordable way of testing the water there) and how are you fixed for flash? A decent flashgun is one of the most underappreciated ways of dramatically enhancing so many situations while also opening up new opportunities.

Failing that, it's full-frame :eek:
 
Have a 40mm macro - the 105mm macro I had was too heavy for her indoors and we sold it. Regret that. Flash - wanted one for runners in bad light, but speed wise I don't think it will cover it.
 
mossienet said:
Have a 40mm macro - the 105mm macro I had was too heavy for her indoors and we sold it. Regret that. Flash - wanted one for runners in bad light, but speed wise I don't think it will cover it.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand what you mean there, but get a flash anyway, and learn how to use it properly, which often means pointing it anywhere except at the subject ;) Most people never get to use flash to its full potential and don't know what they're missing. I use flash for about 75% of everything, indoors and out.
 
The flash wouldn't cope with a runner when the shutter setting is above 1/250th sec as far as I can work out. Unless I panned?
 
mossienet said:
The flash wouldn't cope with a runner when the shutter setting is above 1/250th sec as far as I can work out. Unless I panned?
Click to expand...

Several ways around that, with high-speed sync being the obvious one, but with normal sync or slow-sync the flash duration itself is very brief and will freeze movement. Balancing flash with daylight is a basic skill and easy to master.
 
Last edited:
Does not compute! I'll have to read up on this but I'm sure I've searched this before. There's a Nikon flash unit for sale at the moment on one of the thread. Nearly bought it.
 
mossienet said:
Does not compute! I'll have to read up on this but I'm sure I've searched this before. There's a Nikon flash unit for sale at the moment on one of the thread. Nearly bought it.
Click to expand...

Yes, do look into it :thumbs: I just put "runners" into google images and in 90% of the shots either flash was used or could and should have been used for best result. The trick is making it look natural and all that takes is a bit of basic knowledge about 'how light works' and practise. Practise, learn, practise, learn, and ask a few questions in the lighting section along the way.

If you want to make your images pop with colour and vibrance, never mind your fancy lenses - get some good light in there :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top