More 18-105 tests; comparison with 50/1.8 and now with 18-200VR

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Pa, Sep 24, 2008.

  1. 18-105, 50mm, f/5:

    379656624_5C46b-O.jpg

    50/1.8, f/5:

    379656647_srmua-O.jpg

    18-105, 50mm, f/8:

    379656675_JvNSW-O.jpg

    50/1.8, f/8:

    379656700_KXMdU-O.jpg

    I see no differences that matter to me.

    But of course at 50mm, the 18-105 goes no wider than f/5 :frown:.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2008
  2. Steinar

    Steinar

    Aug 16, 2007
    Denmark
    Jim, I am not sitting at my normal calibrated pc, so......but to me the 50mm f/1.8 is a hair sharper or crisper, if that is the right word, even the other lens does it remarkable good - it is a very fine background and a very fine object you are using to do the comparison.

    Of course you are right - it is a so small difference, that it does not matter.
     
  3. If you look at one of the buttons, e.g REAR LEVEL
    it seems much clearer & easier to read on the 50mm`?
     
  4. Steinar

    Steinar

    Aug 16, 2007
    Denmark
    Agree
     
  5. I agree with you at f/8, but not necessarily at f/5.

    But the main point is that we are picking nits here. I will be very happy with the sharpness of the new lens. Only time will tell if the aperture limitations are a deal-breaker.

    Added in edit:

    "Function" and "System off" are both clearer on the nifty fifty, but that could be due to distortion rather than resolution as the remote control was not exactly orthogonal to the camera line of sight.
     
  6. Pa,

    If you are up to it could you do the same test with the 18-200VR. It would be very interesting to see if the 18-105 is sharper than the superzoom.
     
  7. cotdt

    cotdt

    Jul 14, 2007
    Bay Area, USA
    my main problem with this lens is the plastic mount. they tend to break when you drop the camera.
     
  8. I have been planning on doing this, just haven't gotten to it yet. However the test results at SLRGear.com suggest that the 18-200 won't be comparable.
     
  9. Don't drop it! :biggrin:

    I agree, I'm turned off by the plastic mount, too. However, I'm interested in a light package, so some sacrifices have to be made.
     
  10. Thanks Jim for doing these as I was interested in getting one as a lightweight walk around VR lens...

    To me it looks like its doing a great job for a inexpensive zoom with VR. Lets face it, its not going to be as good or better than a prime, and if it was, I'd be thinking that the prime is defective... But its looks like it's more than capable to produce nice shots and is good value to do a really good job it was designed for...

    As for the plastic mount, well it has its advantages, as mentioned if dropped, it may possible break, but I would rather have a $300 lens break than a $1000 camera body... And as for wear, well I've had my Nikon 28-200G for quite a few years, and there is no signs of wear on the plastic mount. I also checked my brothers 18-55 and that looks the same... These days, there is so much glass impregnated into plastics during manufacture that they are tougher than steel for wear, but not shock.. BTW, I do work in the plastic industry... ;o))

    Have you tried the VR, and if so, how effective is it..???
     
  11. That was the other thing I meant to mention. It has the VR I system rather than VR II used on the 18-200 and 70-300. It doesn't have the "Active" mode; just VR on/off.

    It doesn't seem to be quite as effective as the VR on the 18-200. However, since it only goes to 105 mm, this isn't such a big deal. My 28-105 is one of my favorite lenses, and lack of VR hasn't been much of a problem.

    Of course VR I is better tha VR 0! :biggrin:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2008
  12. nancyr

    nancyr

    Feb 14, 2006
    La Jolla, CA
    Thanks for the tests, Jim!

    I've been keeping an eye on this lens as we're taking a trip next spring to the Oz outback that will be severely weight-limited.

    My 28-200G does show wear on the lens mount, but it seems no less secure mounted. Wonder how rough you'd have to be with it? My boyfriend took a spill with his plastic-mount Tamron 18-200, and his D70 is fine. (Lens wasn't, and was replaced with the significantly better Sigma non-OS.) Actually, the fall did no damage to the mount, so maybe not the best comparison... :rolleyes:
     
  13. I have just taken the photos for this test and have looked at only a few. The comparison is not favorable to the 18-200VR. The 18-105VR is much sharper, so I may not post many actual shots.
     
  14. Uh-oh

    :eek:...Does that mean your 18-200VR will now be on the chopping block.
     
  15. Note: I have two.

    One of them probably will be up for sale at some point. My wife loves hers and doesn't care about sharpness, so we'll keep one.
     
  16. 18-200VR, 18mm, f/3.5:

    380364743_Qudkq-O.jpg

    18-105VR, 18mm, f/3.5:

    380364835_yQoaR-O.jpg

    18-200VR, 105mm, f/5.6:

    380364769_Bky9Q-O.jpg

    18-105, 105mm, f/5.6:

    380364799_7HHRg-O.jpg

    The difference is more evident at 18mm than at 105, and all of these are at maximum aperture. They do converge at f/8 and f/11.
     
  17. nht800

    nht800

    Aug 26, 2008
    Missouri, USA
    Jim,

    Thanks for your great job! In my eye, it's clear that 18-105 sharper than 18-200 . I ever owned 18-200 but sold it for 16-85 now. Do you have 16-85 for one more test?? :))
     
  18. Sorry, I don't have the 16-85 and don't intend to. I held out for the 18-105 and intend to make it my "walk-around" lens for a while.
     
  19. Jim,

    Thanks for posting those shots of the 18-200 vs 18-105. Even with my bad eyes I can see the difference.

    The 18-105 may very well indeed turn out to be a great "lightweight walkaround" with almost enough reach.