Kit lens - How useful it is?

[alfaholic]

I have Nikkor 18-105 VR kit lense, now with my D7000, previously purchased for D3100.
At that time I thought I am smarter than other guyes who bought much cheaper and "worse" 18-55, but now with 35mm f1.8 G which is on my camera almost all of the time, I am beginning to think I made a mistake spending too much on a slow kit lens.

It is nice in theory to have that wide 18mm, and maybe sometimes 105mm for some close-ups, BUT this lens is so slow, so when I need to pull it out of the bag just to use it's 18mm, I will rather go and run 3 times around my block.

What do you think about it? I am thinking to get rid of this 18-105mm, and then buy 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, and close the circle with my 35mm f1.8.
Or maybe someone has a better idea...

 

[§am]

I have the 18-55mm lens and can't say it's a bad lens at all - very good in fact for a 'kit lens'.

I've been keeping an eye on the 18-105mm for a while now, as I used a friend's one and did like the little extra reach it gave over my 18-55mm.
Can't say I noticed it to be any slower though

 

[Eduard]

If you want a steal of a deal on a kit lens check out the Nikkor 18-70. If I wouldn't have been able to get a great deal on a 17-55, I would still be happily shooting that lens. I've passed it on to my brother and it would take a crowbar to get it away from him.

 

[BackdoorArts]

For as long as I have a DX camera I will have the 18-105 kit lens I got with my D7000. It's not a lens that will blow you away with its sharpness and optical performance. But more important than that, in my opinion, it's not a lens that will cause you to ever complain about its sharpness or optical performance. It's like that 15 year pro ballplayer who never makes an all-star game, but who your team could never win without. It's solid, reliable and does the job. For a zoom with its range (~27-157mm on a film equivalency scale) it is surprisingly solid across the entire range. No, it will not give you mind blowing bokeh or razor thin DoF. But it does give you a single lens you can put on the camera and do a lot of walking around without ever thinking about what else you should have brought on your vacation, field trip, and/or walk around town.

So, to answer the question in the title, it's useful as hell. If you have one, there's no need to replace it. If you don't, evaluate you needs and choose accordingly, but you could do a lot worse if you want an easy walk-around zoom that doesn't need a ton of reach.

 

[TedG954]

The 18-55 is considered better than the 18-105. The 18-55, noted as a "kit lens" is greatly under rated by those who believe they need something "better".

 

[BackdoorArts]

Considered "better" how, and by whom? The reason I ask is that the 18-55mm is included with the 3000 and 5000 series, while the 18-105m is what they packaged with the D7000 and D7100. So I would think that it's not necessarily considered "better" by Nikon. Perhaps it's the idea that the 3K and 5K series is more of an entry level camera, and by providing one with a smaller throw they can entice the new consumer to buy more than one lens?

While I would agree with the generalization that a zoom with a smaller overall range should in theory produce sharper/crisper images than one with a longer throw, all other things being equal, I find the use of the phrase without pointing to empiracle evidence supporting the claim not at all useful. I'd love to see images from 18 to 55mm taken by the two showing just how and why one is superior to the other.

I'm not knocking the 18-55mm. I've never used it and have no opinion on it and can only say that I cannot recall anyone complaining about it - but I can say the same thing about the 18-105mm.

 

[BackdoorArts]

To back myself up a bit more, here's a site I use a lot to compare two lenses. I've got it set for the 18-55mm vs. 18-105mm comparison. You can step through apertures and focal lengths, matching up precisely at 18, 24 & 35mm, and then comparing the 45-55mm on the shorter lens to 50mm on the longer. Throughout I find the 18-105 to be as sharp or sharper, particularly at maximum aperture, but with more issues with Chromatic Aberation. For me, CA is more easily dealt with in post-processing (Adobe Camera RAW does a nice job). From this site alone, if there's a "better" lens then for me it's the 18-105mm, but I make no such assertion - it is only an opinion based on this site. I'd need to have both in my possession to make a real comparison.

Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX Nikkor Lens Image Quality

To use, mouse over the image to change from the 18-55mm to the 18-105mm.

 

[alfaholic]

Thank you very much.
According to this compression, 18-105 is sharper at 50mm, and 105mm, but at 18mm it is almost the same.
I think all talks about 18-55 being better than 18-105 is coming from Ken Rockwel's site, some people do not agree with him often, but it is nice to read his reviews sometimes.

I agree, it is nice all round lens, for vacations at day light it can be very good, but when the light is poor it is not so good.
I will keep it, and ad 50mm f1.8 D to my setup.

 

[BackdoorArts]

Again, a couple of subjective opinions discussing a pair of "cheap" kit lenses. My take away from both of these isn't so much that one is "better" as much as the 18-105mm isn't worth spending the extra money for.

I look at the image comparisons in the site I linked and yes, the 18-55mm is sharper in the corners at 18mm, but only at apertures above f8. Below that you're dealing with a softer lens, albeit with less CA, than the 18-105. The 18-55 seems to perform better at 35mm (it should - it's the lens' sweet spot), but falls off again.

"Pop" is not something I can measure. I've had the same lens "Pop" in certain lighting situations and fall flat in others, so without images to back up the words I can take it as informed input to help me make a buying decision, but as nothing that would ever lead me to believe one was "better".

Different horses for different races, and both are more than "good enough" to be first lenses for people. But there's nothing I've ever seen that's led me to believe that the 18-55mm is "better".

 

[AC016]

Keep it or toss it, that is up to you. As i said in a previous post about lenses, i am no "lens-nerd". I have had two of those 18-55s - still have one. To me, it's a great lens for what it is. I have taken the majority of my photos with this lens, except for my airplane pics. Yes, i have read in many places that it is "better" than other lenses in the Nikkor line up. I just read the reviews, i don't make them. I would rather have bamboo shoots put under my nails, than do a lens review. The 18-55 is an all-purpose, little zoom lens. That is it. It does not pretend to be anything else but. Therefore, i don't understand why some people belittle it. Nikon has to put something with their cameras and i understand why they would not put a $1000 lens with a $600 camera! Don't worry, you will not be shamed by using one

 

[jhm82]

I love this lens for what it's worth. I tried to trade it in and was offered $75. So I decided to keep it. It's my lens I pack when I usually go to the city or beach along with my tokina 11-16. Not in the same level as my 24-70 2.8, but that is not a fun lens to walk around with all day.

 

[SkvLTD]

I personally like the 18-70 family for that manual focus override and internal focusing mechanism. Much easier to use hoods and say, linear polarizers than 18-55's twisty front.

From what I'm learning thus far- use kit lenses to figure out what focal length you use the most for what you shoot and then invest into specific, better glass for or around that length/range.

Also sometimes its just fun to explore various types of glass out there just to see how they compare instead of just sticking to select few off the bat.

 

[§am]

I have the 18-55mm 'kit' lens and love it to pieces (not literally mind you!).
It's my current most used lens, but I am looking at maybe upgrading it to the 18-105mm just for that little extra reach for everyday use.

The other option was a 16-85mm lens, but bang for buck, the 18-105mm at it's lower price is my choice at the moment