Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by lanthier, Aug 25, 2008.

  1. Apparently on Wednesday Nikon will introduce the 18-105VR. Anyone find this odd on the heels of the well-reviewed and received 16-85VR that is also newish?
  2. ultimind


    May 13, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    18-105VR is "rumored" to be marketed more towards the consumer rather than the prosumer like the 16-85VR is. The 16-85VR is relatively expensive compared to similar glass. The 18-105VR is "rumored" to be more affordable.
  3. Ah, thanks David, that makes some sense... I guess! If the new lens performs like the 16-85, people will have a hard time justifying the price increase for the 16-85. It was my DX/party lens...
  4. cotdt


    Jul 14, 2007
    Bay Area, USA
    It's VRI and has a plastic mount, but I bet the optics will be amazing as usual.
  5. paulskimcb


    Feb 12, 2007
    You left off the 18-55 VR, obviously.

    I think they are trying to address one of the real deficiencies of the 18-135: lack of VR, which made the lens difficult to use hand-held above 85mm or so.

    My guess is the 18-135 will be retured, and I would not be surprised to see a new 18-200 soon, as well.

    And for whatever reason, it seems Nikon feels they must announce a new 18-xx(x) lens with each new body they introduce these days...
  6. Leif


    Feb 12, 2006
    I hate to say it, but these things do make sense. The 18-200mm VR was a killer lens for Nikon, convincing many to go Nikon rather than Canon. The 18-105mm VR is no doubt aimed at the financially challenged. The specs are good i.e. range + VR, and the price is low.
  7. I think they are trying to address one of the real deficiencies of the 18-135

    I'd argue that anyone needing VR in that range has deficiencies in their technique that 10 minutes a day practicing breathing, and stance would address quite happily.

    There are far too many 18-xxx lenses, time to address the primes and some nice constant f/4 lenses.
  8. Paul - Having now examined the MTF's of the new lens vs the 16-85VR and the 18-135, I agree with you completely (see my separate thread nearby). The new lens essentially exceeds both in MTF performance, is closer to the 18-135 in price, and obvioously represents better value than the 16-85, whose tele end is limiting in range and whose extra 2mm at the wide end probably substantially increased its cost.

    I think the 18-135 will go, and probably the 16-85VR as well.
  9. mdruiz


    Feb 18, 2008
    Orlando, FL
    I think in certain situation...when you have the lens zoomed out to 200mm with low light...the VR helps alot. I dont think with all the technique in the world you would get a non blurry shot.
  10. paulskimcb


    Feb 12, 2007
    Low-ish light is low-ish light, and it doesn't take a great imagination to conjure up situations where VR is helpful @ 105mm. In fact, I have VR on my 105mm 2.8, and I think it rocks...

    Not everyone has super-steady hands, and most people would find VR helpful in this range , especially on the long end, at least occasionally.

    Hell, I would find VR helpful on my 50 f/1.8 from time to time, and it would sure come in handy on my 85 f/1.8.

    Besides, I have 5 kids. Who has 10 minutes a day to practice breathing?

  11. Who has 10 minutes a day to practice breathing?

    How long did it take you to reply to this post? I reckon you can find the time :)