# 18-105mm VR vs 18-55mm VR



## EchoingWhisper (Oct 10, 2011)

Ken Rockwell says that the 18-55mm is better optically. Is it true? Which lens would you recommend?
The 18-105mm VR is more expensive so shouldn't it be better optically? Please correct me.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Oct 10, 2011)

Since the 18-105 comes with the D7000, is it worth it to buy the 18-55 without discount just because of its slightly better sharpness, better macro abilities and lighter weight?


----------



## MTVision (Oct 10, 2011)

Ken Rockwell isn't the best person to take advice from. 

I do a quick search and everybody has a different opinion. It all depends on what YOU are going to shoot! When are you getting your camera?

BTW - this is what the other person was talking about - posting multiple threads about lenses.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Oct 10, 2011)

About different lenses. Not the same lenses at all.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Oct 10, 2011)

I don't think I'll make use of the range 55-105mm quite often but the $100 discount when you buy it with the body seems worth it.


----------



## Infinite_Day (Oct 10, 2011)

I have used both and feel that the 18-55mm is sharper. You trade the greater reach of the 18-105mm for the slightly softer images it produces. It's still decent for a kit lens. It really boils down to what you're shooting. Asking people on this forum to tell you what to buy without providing details about what you intend to shoot with the lens, etc. will not get many responses, FYI.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Oct 10, 2011)

Since I'm still a beginner I wouldn't know much about my shooting. I guess I'll choose the 18-105mm, I don't think the slight less sharpness would cause a big impact, and for the discounted price, it is really worth it.


----------



## jaomul (Oct 10, 2011)

The problem with trying to get a comparison here is as they both are supplied as kit lenses not to many users will have experience in both. As a quick shot at Google will show you both are worth the respective monies required to buy. Physics will allow the smaller mag lens perform better. You could always buy both and the next time the question is asked you could make an experienced comparison.


----------



## flatflip (Oct 10, 2011)

If you're thinking of buying the D7000 with the 18-105 kit lens, do it, especially if this is your first DSLR. It is a great starter lens. I had it with my D7000 but sold it and replaced with a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens. I also had a couple 18-55's and they are sharper. Yes, cheaper but you pay for the extra reach of the 18-105.

The 18-105 is a lot bigger physically. I think it just looks great on the D7000 and balances well.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Oct 10, 2011)

The reason I chose 18-105mm over 24mm is because of the extra 6mm, which is really a big difference. If I were to buy a 28-75mm then I would rather have a 24mm prime.


----------



## flatflip (Oct 10, 2011)

I was not suggesting the 28-75. I was just saying that the 18-105 was a great starter / kit lens for my D7000. I didn't want you to think that I was so satisfied to keep it and not upgrade to a sharper & faster lens. Hence the confession of a different lens purchase.

Have fun and I hope I can be of some help.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 10, 2011)

I could care less which is minutely sharper--the 18-105 has MUCH more versatility due to the focal length flexibility. The 18-55 lenses just seem, so, so, well, so limited in what they can do. Sharpness is overrated much of the time. Both lenses are going to be amply sharp if you are hand-holding the camera and shooting "normally".


----------



## rgregory1965 (Oct 10, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I could care less which is minutely sharper--the 18-105 has MUCH more versatility due to the focal length flexibility. The 18-55 lenses just seem, so, so, well, so limited in what they can do. Sharpness is overrated much of the time. Both lenses are going to be amply sharp if you are hand-holding the camera and shooting "normally".




I agree...I love my 18-105 for travel and walking around


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Oct 10, 2011)

One thing I do need to ask is 18mm vs 24mm, is that 6mm so important (because I would opt for the 24mm f/2.8 prime if the difference is not too big)?


----------



## jaomul (Oct 10, 2011)

Have you any lenses at the moment?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Oct 10, 2011)

Nope, not even a DSLR.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Oct 10, 2011)

Just a visualization here, ignore the 12mm part.

http://edwinsetiawan.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/img_8679-copy.jpg

 Is the 6mm so useful?


----------



## jaomul (Oct 10, 2011)

If you have no gear then I think you should relax about background checking every single option. Pick a camera you like and gets good reviews (I would go for a good second hand unit, I did not do this when I started out but looking back etc). Pick up the kit lens with the most range and try out actually taking photos and not worrying about numbers. In real terms a kit lens is a relatively small investment and some of the lenses you ask are bigger investments. A kit lens will always be handy to have and with this lens you can find out what you like in terms of focal lengths and its limitations. If you end up liking taking pictures of stationary objects at daylight it may end up being all the lens you will ever need. Focal lengths, aperture sizes and all that really can only be explained when you have a visual example to compare with. Too much research will kill the fun. Buy some kit and take some shots


----------



## flatflip (Oct 10, 2011)

I didn't click your link but I can attest 24mm not being very wide. My 28-75 is my only lens and I dearly miss the 18mm end of my previous lens.

I'm not sure why you're concerned about a 24mm prime lens. It is a wider than "normal" lens. Not to discourage you from owning and using a prime lens, but why don't you get a nice zoom kit lens to learn with.


----------

