A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Nikon > Nikon Lenses and Optics > Nikon D90 kit lens

Nikon D90 kit lens

jim leicafan , Sep 12, 2009; 01:58 a.m.

As I mentioned on a recent thread, I have purchased a nearly new Nikon D90. It was from my trusted repairman, but I didn't buy the kit 18-105 mm VR kit lens, since i was still in shock from buying a camera completely out of the blue. I had done some homework on D90 vs D300, but I was anticipating an action in the future.
I put the 18-70 mm kit lens from my D70 on the D90 and it is performing very nicely. I am considering buying the 18-105 lens from my repairman, but he didn't have a price in mind.
Two questions: Is it a good addition considering I already have the 18-70 mm lens that came with my D70, and second, what would be a reasonable price for such a lens in LN condition.


Ramon V (California) , Sep 12, 2009; 02:17 a.m.

if you are happy with the 18-70mm on the D90, why not just get the 70-300mm VR to complement it? or even the cheaper but very good performer 55-200mm VR.

the only two advantages that i see of the 18-105mm VR over the 18-70mm is oviously the VR which is useful on the long end when and where needed, and the additional 35mm stretch. the latter will give you the less chance of changing lenses for reach.

on the other side of the story, the 18-70mm beats the 18-105mm (in its 18-70mm range) in speed and i can say (this is just me) image quality. the 18-105mm has less distortion than the 18-70mm at 18mm.

you can check KEH for reasonable prices of the 18-105mm.

gogu , Sep 12, 2009; 06:38 a.m.

The 18-105mm is a good lens for the money but I don't like the plastic mount.
So when I bought my D90 I opted for the 16-85mm and since I wanted the extra mm in the wide end, I have to say I am quite impressed! I never thought that 2 extra mm would make such a difference on DX!
The lens is optically excellent, the VR is very helpful and works fine.
Of course I'd prefer a 16-105mm but...;-)


Charles Becker , Sep 12, 2009; 08:02 a.m.

I kept my 18-70 when I switched from the D70 to the D90 and used it for about 10 months then replaced it with the 16-85 and ,just like gogu, have been very happy with it; you might want to consider this lens. cb :-)

Daniel Drake , Sep 12, 2009; 08:31 a.m.

I agree with the others, the VR is very nice on the 18-105. I use that lens on my D90 and my D300 for walk around shots. The 55-200VR would also be good for the money if you need tighter shots. Also, if you think you may want to do some low(er) light portraits or want to control depth of field better you can consider the Tamron SP 28-75 f2.8: a very nice lens for the dollar but it does not have VR.

Raden Munim , Sep 12, 2009; 11:56 a.m.

I bought the kit which included the 18-105. Could not fault it optically. I found it sharper than 50mm f/1.8. But the plastic mount broke. Anyway, Nikon replaced the mount and internal assembly for free. Now I'm using 16-85. I'm happier although I still couldn't sell the 18-105 for the price I want. At times I feel I should've opted for Tamron 17-50. Just as well because the new Tamron 17-50 with stabilizer is coming soon.

Mark Drutz , Sep 12, 2009; 02:17 p.m.

I'm with those who say that if you like the 18-70 put your money into another lens like a 55-200 VR, 70-300 VR, or ultrawide zoom. I think that you'd gain more from one of them than from an 18-105 VR. If you're not happy with the 18-70 then the 18-105 VR is a good choice. The 16-85 VR is an excellent lens but it costs over $600 new. As said above, check the used prices on keh.com.

Joe A , Sep 13, 2009; 04:55 a.m.

Jim.... Since you are self-admitedly still in shock, why not stick with the 18-70 and add a used non-VR 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED lens for about $150. The "D" lens is the only Nikon 70-300 with an aperture ring (that should help you keep them straight). Optics virtually identical to the $540 VR lens. But avoid the non-VR, non-ED plain G; it's crap.

Wouter Willemse , Sep 14, 2009; 07:02 a.m.

The 18-105VR is not a bad lens by any means, and price/performance wise one of the nicest 18-xx zooms that Nikon has. But to me, it only beats the 18-70 at 18mm, other than that it's not a better lens. In addition, it does not add much to what you already have (VR - not an extreme necessity at these focal lengths, and 70-105mm is one step forward).
I sold my 18-70 with my D80, and only because it made selling the D80 easier. The 18-70 is a mighty fine "workhorse" lens, and all too often underrated. But after the "forced" upgrade to the 16-85VR, I have to say, the 16-85 beats it. In every way. Then again, the 16-85 is quite pricey.

So, another vote for the 70-300VR. Or a Tokina 12-24. Or the 35 f/1.8 DX. Or any other lens. But having 2 different 18-xx zooms is a bit a waste.

Joe A., the 70-300G is not as crap as you suggest. Remember the price of this lens, and keep that in perspective. This lens was dirt cheap at $120. But with good light, at f/8-f/11, under 250mm. it can deliver some really nice photos. And to set some facts straight, the 70-300G is optically identical to the 70-300ED, except one ED element. The 70-300VR is a completely new design.

Mark Drutz , Sep 14, 2009; 10:47 a.m.

A lens that I forgot to mention above and that I think is the best buy in 70-300's is the Sigma 70-300 APO. At $209 it's a steal if you don't mind giving up the VR. Sigma just announced a 70-300 OS that may be worth waiting for if you want a stabilized lens that should be less expensive than the Nikon 70-300 VR.

Back to top

Notify me of Responses