As I stated in an earlier post, I am considering very seriously on buying a D7000. This will be my first Nikon digital camera. I have a very good selection of both mf/af prime and zoom lenses. (From a 24mm f2.8 prime to a 70-300mm af. Knowing that there is about a 1.5 difference between FX and DX, I am trying to decide on which wide angle zoom to get. I have heard mixed reviews on the 18-55mm kit lens. Is it a good performer for things like landscape, buildings and interior shots? I have read what the critics say, but would love to hear what users of this lens think about it. The main reason I am considering this lens is the price (I'm retired and on a fixed income). Thanks in advance for any advice you can give me.
When I get around to doing more landscape work (something I've set aside for the time being), I'm going to be buying something wider than 18mm for my D7000. Just playing around I can see that it's not wide enough for my style.
With that said, every time I use my 18-55, I find myself surprised - in a good way. For a dirt cheap lens, the IQ is pretty good.
Is it a pro lens? No, not close. But for the price, even if I use it a couple times a year, it's worth it.
I have and frequently use an 18-55, despite having lots of "better" lenses available. It isn't built to last like the pyramids, but with reasonable care it delivers excellent images within its capability.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
The AFS 18-55mm VR lens has excellent image quality and resolution. Nikon made this lens to a price point but did not skimp on the optics. When I bought my D60 this lens came as part of the kit. The photos with it were impressive. I traded in the kit for a D5100 body, no lens. I missed the lens so I bought a new one to go with the D5100. I won't get rid of it again.
I was in a similar bind, but decided on the 16-85 VR, which is an absolutely excellent lens. You wouldn't think the difference between 16 and 18 mm would be material, but is really is. An the image quality of this lens is spectacular.
I still find that I often crave a wider angle, and there are lots of choices there as well, but the 16-85 has definitely become my "walking around" lens.
I just like to add that I was up at my local camera store yesterday, and noticed several of these lenses, used, for sale in the $100 range. All looked to be in excellent condition, perhaps never used as people were convinced that the kit lens was so inferior.
Meanwhile, I was going through my library for entries in a competition. Several of the pics I ended up submitting were taken with the humble 18-55. Again, I was quite pleased with them.
I also noted (and I apologize for straying somewhat off topic) that my beginner zoom (Nikon 55-200 4.5-5.6 VR), which lists for a whopping $250, also produced many pleasing images on the D7000. Again, not a pro lens, but Nikon seems to know how to get good image quality from a lower price point as well as the lofty price points.
Originally I bought a D7000 to use with my legacy list of nikons. More recently I bought the 18-55mm to have an AF lens. Whenever I do not screw something up I am very pleased and surprised by my 'inexpensive' lens clearly a value for little money purchase. I am also retired (since 2002) and price/performance ratio is a consideration for me.
What a coincidence. I have both, the 55-200 and the 18-55 in their boxes never since I have higher end lenses. After reading your comments, I might give them a try and see how they perform. Plan B is sell them. Great eye opening.
I too have owned or used 18-55, 18-105, and now 16-85, first on a D3000, now on a D7000. All these are f3.5-5.6, and that's their real limitation. Other than the focal ranges, images produced by them are quit the same.
Being also tight on money, I have no hesitations with the cheaper zooms, and only got the 16-85 through an indirect deal wich resulted in a straight trade. 16mm are nice, but IQ is almost indistinguishable between these lenses. Plastic mounts are strong enough for walkarounds and normal use, no worries here either.
The 18-55 does have a minor quirk with the front element moving, and no one-touch overriding of the AF, but that may be irrelevant to many users.
The other two lenses I'd put roughly in the same bag, IQ-wise, would be the 18-200 and the 55-200.
All Nikon consumer lens are great value, and image quality is never an issue. Aperture and build may be.
http://egozarolho.blogspot.com 1. Good content, good aesthetics and good tecnique. On that order. 2. Light is more important than glass and pixels. 3. In the digital photography process, software is as important as gear.
I too have underestimated the quality of pictures of this lens and after a few months of ownership took a few shots with it and to my surprise the images are no bad for a low end plastic mount lens, in fact i thought they were good, the same goes for the 55 300mm kit lens.
The primary question is how wide a Field of View do you want? 18mm on a DX body will have the same FoV as a 27mm lens on a film or FX body. Is that wide enough for what you have in mind? If it is, the 18-55mm is optically excellent. More so when you consider the price. It doesn't have the robust build quality of MF or even the mid- level and higher AF lenses but the glass is first rate. Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
Good lens it is. I use it most of the time and I like the price,schapness and the weight. I never had the thought of a better lens, yes only the wider lens opening but the price....... and they are heavier. I am totally satisfied with that little len
I shoot lots of landscapes and recently acquired a used 18-55mm lens, mainly because of its lightness due to its plastic mount. I agree with what's already been said, this lens gives a very good performance for its price band but I would avoid f stop extremes to ensure really sharp results.
My first lens was the 18-200mm which is much heavier but I still use it a lot, especially for landscape work where the longer focal length comes into its own. Walking around for a couple of hours with the 18-200mm on my D7000 while on holiday recently became uncomfortable (I have osteo arthritis) so it was bliss to switch to the much lighter 18-55mm.
Thanks so much for your input, my friends. I ended up getting a D3200 with the DX 18-55mm and a DX 55-200mm. Though both lenses are considered "entry level", I have been pleased with the images. I usually try and use an F8 to F11 range when shooting. This seems to give me the best IQ without defraction problems. I'm still looking to get either a D7000 or D600, so that I can use my better quality lenses. Again, thank you for your input. Good shooting, Lee
I also have the 18-55 and 55-200 and with my D7000, sans any grip, they make a very nice lightweight kit to carry around in my waist pack. My 18-55 is non VR, which I consider a non issue, while the 55-200 is VR.
Wed 07-Nov-12 05:27 PM | edited Wed 07-Nov-12 06:01 PM by William Symonds
I had this lens too band it is now the beloved tool of my brother in law. I really couldn't fault it, and it was very sharp - the VR is terrific too, and means that you can get motion blur against a still background without a tripod. The weight and price are terrific.