Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bluenoser" data-source="post: 26300" data-attributes="member: 6351">Curt, I would love to have some of what you're smoking! LOL! I have a feeling someone has been reading a bit too much Ken Rockwell for their own good! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />The 18-105 is one of the very best bang for your buck lenses Nikon offers.  It is certainly not over-priced (the 16-85VR is an example of an over priced Nikon lens) and it is a super sharp lens!  Is the 18-105 perfect? No, but very few lenses are - especially kit lenses.  The biggest problem with the 18-105 is a bit of distortion at the wide end and some CA can rear it's head from time to time.  Outperforms the 18-105?? Well if you mean that it can focus closer that the 18-105 then yes it "outperforms" it.  However the 18-105 covers a much larger and more convenient focal range, has a better build and balances very nicely on the body (I like a lens with a bit of heft).  Along with the fact that the  MTF charts are almost identical, here is a head to head comparison using test charts of these lenses (at 24mm, f/5.6) - the 18-105 looks better to my eye but practically speaking there is no real world difference in IQ between the two (scroll over the image to flip between the lenses - note the directional arrow on top) . <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=662&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=665&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2" target="_blank">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=662&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=665&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2</a>I'm not sure if you have any 1st hand experience with the 18-105 (do you?) however I do own the 18-55, 18-105 and 17-55 2.8.  I can say with absolute confidence - from 1st hand experience - that while the 18-55VR is a beauty of a kit lens, I'd take the 18-105VR over it any day of the week and twice on Sunday! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />Actually your math is off on that one Curt.  The 18-55 does not give a 35mm equivalent of 28-105 - it gives one of 26-83mm.  The 18-105 will give an effective range of 26-158 - almost *double* that of the 18-55 on the long end.  A huge advantage!  Minor overlap between lenses is not something to be avoided - it's desirable in many cases.  With the 18-55 and 70-300 you will have a gap in the 55-70 range and you will  likely have to change lenses more often.  Having the 18-105 and 70-300 (which I do) offers a much more complete coverage.  Well 18-105 and 18-55 obviously do WA the same but for portrait, the 18-105 again is the clear winner here.  The ranges that offer the most common and appealing choices are beyond 55mm - 85mm or 105mm (effective) are best in terms of allowing for a flattering perspective for head and shoulder shots (no weird facial distortions).  In terms of macro - well neither lens does macro but since the 18-55 is the closer focusing of the 2 lenses, the nod will go the 18-55 (but it's certainly not a macro lens).This is just a grab shot (poor composition etc.) taken sometime ago with my old D40 but the 18-105 is a sharp lens! <a href="http://nikonites.com/%3Ca%20href=" target="_blank"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5076/5883222066_9eb39877bc_z.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a>We may have to agree to disagree! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite6" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

Verification