18-105VR Replacement

[James Blonde]

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!

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!

 

[Horoscope Fish]

You'd need the Jaws of Life to pry my 18-105mm away from me and my D7100; it's the proverbial "match made in heaven". I can't think of another lens (in it's price range) with as much flexibility. Sure there are other options, but how much *better* are they?

My vote: Get another 18-105mm and get on with life.

 

[James Blonde]

I've got a lot out of my 18-105 over the years, so a straight replacement is definitely top of the list, and they're so well priced too! I guess I'm trying to see if there is an opportunity here, as I was at one point looking at superzooms (18-300, 28-300) as a general purpose lens, but this does force the issue slightly...!

 

[evan447]

i would go for the 16-85 vr or 17-55.

 

[§am]

You can pick up a white box replacement 18-105mm for £159, but a 16-85mm will set you back £439 at least, and the 17-55mm £~1k!

I would personally like the 16-85mm but my budget only stretches to the 18-105mm given my other lens timeline purchase plans

 

[riverside]

I've got a lot out of my 18-105 over the years, so a straight replacement is definitely top of the list, and they're so well priced too! I guess I'm trying to see if there is an opportunity here, as I was at one point looking at superzooms (18-300, 28-300) as a general purpose lens, but this does force the issue slightly...!

Don't forget the Tamron 18-270PZD as a general purpose lens. Weight is 450g, very close to the Nikon 18-105 at 420g. The Nikon 18-300 is double the weight and price of the Tamron.

 

[James Blonde]

I have to say that, now I've had my D90 converted to IR and i'm having to use my other lenses, 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, or one similar, as I was constantly swapping to use it. However it does hotspot on the IR camera.

The Sigma 10-20 is the one fitted to the other body, but I find it's just too wide - most of the landscapes I do dont justify such a wide angle. Maybe that says more about me! It really isnt great on the ir camera either. Maybe a 16-85 would be enough and I could sell the 10-20...

I've always had a 70-300, I'd probably miss it if I didn't have it, but I just dont use it much! It does seem to be ok in ir though! The vr 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. It was cheap though!

So a few interesting considerations and trade offs that may be worth me considering !

 

[James Blonde]

Snippity - duplicate post

 

[James Blonde]

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!