geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4338 times:
Nikon 18-105 F/3.5-5.6 VR
How to say this...........it's not one of Nikon's more expensive lenses; it's definitely not one of Nikon's faster lenses
It's a reasonable solution to a particular segment of the market
Look at it this way...........no two people wanting to buy a lens are in the same circumstances; that fact makes it nearly impossible for anyone to make objective comments about a particular lens, to someone whose circumstances you know absolutely nothing about.
Any F/3.5-5.6 lens is not fast (read: high quality, expensive, etc.)
Will it produce "acceptable" photographs ? it all depends; on many things; ( mostly, the guy with the camera )
With lenses, you pretty much get what you pay for; if you pay a lot, usually you can expect a lot; if you pay less, you should probably expect less.
Ask yourself a few questions..........do you normally take mostly photos on bright, sunny days ? if the answer is yes, a 3.5-5.6 lens may be plenty fast enough; if you plan to take photos on cloudy, not so sunny days, you may need a faster lens.
Having said all that........remember this; after all is said and done, the quality of your pictures will always depend a lot more on what you know about photography, than on what lens you are using.
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
trvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1369 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4309 times:
I switched from C to N recently. I used to have a 24-105F4L IS, but moving to Nikon I bought it with the kit 18-105. Way too slow and not very sharp imo. Although my comparison may look unfair, I still believe it is too slow. I have shot once for aviation and then never bothered. My sigma 18-50 F2.8 is much better.
On the bright side , it is a good/acceptable lens for non-action shots.
iamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4162 times:
It's a good upgrade over the 18-55. More consistent performance both in the corners compared to the center, and at differing apertures and focal lengths.
It's certainly not a pro-level lens, but it costs much less. Nor is it long enough to be a primary spotting lens, but sufficient for shooting from closer up positions, and very useful for your general photography interests.