File :-(, x, )
Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 DX Anonymous
Hey /p/eople,

I'm considering one of these, which I've heard good things about. It's pricey ($430 Canadian), but I'd be trading in the crappy 18-135 kit lens I got with the D80.

Do you concur?
>> Anonymous
Nikkor 18-200mm

best lens ever.
>> des
>>57707
des haet superzoom
>>57704
You'll be pleased. My sample is a little flarey without its lens hood, but it is included with the lens, so maybe they all are.
>> Anonymous
>>57704
It's a sharp lens and the full-time manual focusing kicks ass, but IMO it's a little overpriced at Can$430. It was the kit lens for the D70 and is much cheaper second-hand, usually about US$260 from reputable second-hand dealers like KEH.

If you don't mind losing full-time manual focus like one your 18-135 and the 18-70 does, consider a Sigma 18-50/2.8 or Tamron 17-50/2.8. No full-time manual, and slightly shorter zoom range, but both are extremely sharp and are faster than both those Nikkors. They're both about Can$450-$500 brand new.
>> Anonymous
>>57707
I guess that's always an option, although $800+ is kind of a lot..

>>57704
I just found a used one being offered for $300.
And I'm interested in the extra 50-70mm focal range... I've been carrying around a 50mm most of the time, and found it too short sometimes.
>> Anonymous
18-70 is a quality lens, Though its always on the used market, So buy one used for like $250 CAD.

Check nikonians.org for them, as they always show up on there.

Another option is getting something like the Tamron 18-50mm f2.8, you lose a bit on the long end, but its very sharp at f4, And better for low light. Its also not much more than the 18-70.

Its not AF-s though
>> Anonymous
Wait.. WTF? You are considering to sell AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED and get AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED?? I don't know where the fuck did you get an idea like that, but stay the hell away from there!
>> Anonymous
>>57711
Oh, for $300, definitely go for it. It's a sharp, versatile lens.
>> Anonymous
>>57730
Are you the English not speak?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
I'm confused as to why you want to pay some more money to get less zoom range...
>> Anonymous
>>57741
I don't know anything about any of the lenses mentioned, and haven't been following the thread, but I can think of a number of reasons one might do so. In no particular order:

1. Size/weight/concealability.
2. Optical properties: the degree of sharpness, the bokeh, a unique look or at least a look that can't be had with the other lens.
3. Creativity-stimulating constraints.
4. Handling. The zoom and focusing rings might feel much better on one over the other.
5. Various aperture concerns. One lens might be faster, or experience diffraction at a smaller aperture than the other.
6. Build quality. One lens might fall apart if it's dropped and the other might've chanced to have a bullet hit in when a photojournalist was using it and lived.

Need I go on?
>> des
>>57741
People pay thousands for high-end primes which have no zoom range :P
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>57753
>>57752

Right, okay, but is the 18-70 significantly better than the 18-135 in any of these, to the point that it's worth paying extra money for and losing the focal length flexibility of the 18-135?
>> Anonymous
>>57766
No. They are pretty much equal. 18-135mm even has a little bit better resolution.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>57769
Yeah, see, that's what I was thinking.

So, OP, I'm confused as to why you want to pay some more money to get less zoom range...
>> Anonymous
>>57769
Well, unlike the 18-135mm, the lens on the 18-70mm doesn't rotate while zooming thus allowing better use of polarizing and gradient filters.
>> Anonymous
>>57784
http://lnk.nu/nikonimaging.com/ex3/

> The IF design provides a constant lens length and eliminates rotation of the front lens element, facilitating the use of circular polarizing filters

> External front filter attachment frame: Does not rotate

> Circular polarizing filter II: Usable, even with dedicated Lens Hood HB-32
>> Anonymous
Oh, my mistake. Sorry.
>> Anonymous
>>57772
You're right. Fuck this, I'm getting the 18-55 kit lens
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>57784
Also, I was just using my polarizer on my 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 (with rotating filter ring) yesterday. It's really not a big deal to focus and then polarize. Or, if you get the polarizer how you want, hold on to it when you focus so it doesn't move.

Certainly not worth the loss of 65mm of zoom and however much money it's gonna cost...
>> Anonymous
The 18-135 does have some pretty horrible distortion. However, I don't know anything at all about the 18-70, so I can't really say one way or another.
>> Anonymous
Well, you surely aren't getting rid of the distortion with 18-70. I'm using PTLens all the time.
>> Anonymous
I have a 18-70. Very pleased. Unfortunately, my copy won't autofocus at the moment, I have to send it in and hopefully get a new one.
>> Sebastian Murphy
18-70 is nice, I used it for a while but I just upgraded to an 18-200vr so I got rid of it. I'd post some pics but I had the 18-70 when I first started shooting and everything i took was pretty much utter crap. It is a good lens though. Only problems is the fstop range on the lens.
>> street-pirate
What fault did you find with yours? Mine is very sharp and focuses extremely well. It's true that the distortion is pretty bad. It's actually flat-out terrible at the wide end.

I guess you can't expect everything from a 400$ lens, but in which way do you think the 18-70 will surpass it?
>> Anonymous
>>58588

Less distortion, slightly faster aperture at tele end, Sharper, Better contrast and colour rendition, And more accurate Autofocus.
>> Anonymous
>>58597
How about you back up your silly claims with some real tests and not your anecdotal evidence?