p.1 #1 · Nikon 18-55mm vs. 18-55mm II vs. 18-55 VR
Just bought a Nikon DSLR, but one of the lens I ordered is back ordered. I'm not yet ready to invest in any fancy lens :-). I just need something cheap and decent (quality) to test the camera out.. and still be able to use it for general purposes.. at least for a while. I'm trying to decide which one of these cheap lens to buy.
Would someone please clarify the differences between these 3 lens in question?
Is there any difference between Nikon 18-55mm vs 18-55mm II?
Is the VR any better since it's about $50 more than the 18-55mm and 18-55mm II?
Which one would work better with filters on. I heard that one of these rotates when you're trying to focus, so having the filter on is quite a bit of a nuisance. It may be the VR one. I'm not so sure.
Would you recommend the 18-55mm or 18-55mm II?
Between the 18-55mm (version I and II) and 18-55 vr, which one would you recommend? Many thanks!!!
p.1 #2 · Nikon 18-55mm vs. 18-55mm II vs. 18-55 VR
i've a 18-55 II, used it way more than i expected dispite its weakness. I've only very limited experience /w the earliest version. Never tried the VR one.
seems all three would rotate the fillter during focusing. But it does not comes with a hood, nor really strongly need one so i think rotating filter thread is not a big deal.
while never tried the VR one, I would still recommand it. Camera shake cause way more negative effects on everyday photos than slight different in optical quality. for a slow lens, every stop counts in less-than-ideal light. I'd be happy even if its VR only helps to gain 1-2 stops shutter speed advantage.
p.1 #4 · Nikon 18-55mm vs. 18-55mm II vs. 18-55 VR
I think what you have to keep in mind is this... this series of lenses isn't meant to be a professional item, so you're going to have some sacrifices in some ways to get a lens at this price that still takes pretty decent images regardless.
Personally, and it's just a personal thing, but I wouldn't worry about adding any UV or haze filters to an entry-level lens. It just doesn't make sense to me putting a $100 filter on a $100 lens. Get the lens and use it I say. And again it's a personal thing, but especially if you don't intend on keeping the lens for a very long time (you're hinting on upgrading eventually), VR isn't essential to me on an 18-55 lens. It's a short enough focal range that you'll likely not encounter a whole lot of situations where VR is going to save a shot, and if it's only a stop-gap lens, I'd probably lean towards saving the coin.
The 18-55 is a low-cost lens, but can still get some decent images...
p.1 #5 · Nikon 18-55mm vs. 18-55mm II vs. 18-55 VR
Yes, I'm planning to buy the 24-70mm f/2.8 or 17-55mm f/2.8 in the future, but not this minute. I'm new to the Nikon equipments so I don't want to start investing in anything big.
I just needed a lens that works well enough and it's cheap enough to buy for whatever purpose. If it gets ruin, who cares :-). It's cheap enough to replace.
I was just wondering if there were any major differences between the 18-55mm version I versus version II. The version I is being sold for $82 while version II is being sold for $100, and VR is being sold for $145. I guess, I'm going to buy the updated model (version II) since all are made of plastic. An updated model may be slightly better? Thanks to all of you who have responded! Your time is appreciated!
p.1 #6 · Nikon 18-55mm vs. 18-55mm II vs. 18-55 VR
Autumn wrote:
Yes, I'm planning to buy the 24-70mm f/2.8 or 17-55mm f/2.8 in the future, but not this minute. I'm new to the Nikon equipments so I don't want to start investing in anything big.
I just needed a lens that works well enough and it's cheap enough to buy for whatever purpose. If it gets ruin, who cares :-). It's cheap enough to replace.
I was just wondering if there were any major differences between the 18-55mm version I versus version II. The version I is being sold for $82 while version II is being sold for $100, and VR is being sold for $145. I guess, I'm going to buy the updated model (version II) since all are made of plastic. An updated model may be slightly better? Thanks to all of you who have responded! Your time is appreciated! ...Show more →
I would urge you to spend the extra on the VR version. It's worth it. The 18-55 VR would be an amazing lens even at double the price .... and that's something I never thought I'd find myself saying. I shoot very high quality gear, including a Nikon D2x and Canon 5D. My biggest investment in lenses has been for the 5D, since that's the camera I use professionally. My Canon lenses are mostly "L" quality, and that is my reference standard.
So when I initially purchased my used D2x from a fellow FMer a few months ago, like yourself, all I wanted was a decent, moderately priced lens to test the camera with and perhaps use until I could afford better. I chose a refurbished 18-55 VR from B&H.
Well, that lens is in my D2x kit all the time and is used quite frequently. I am literally blown away by the quality and overall sharpness. I wish had images already prepared for upload so I could show you, but I don't. The only Nikon lens I own that's sharper than the 18-55 VR is an older 35-70 f/2.8 that cost me almost $500.
Read the review of the 18-55 VR at www.photozone.de. Nikon guru Thom Hogan also has good things to say about it. www.bythom.com.
Really ... it's an amazing lens, and better than the non-VR versions. Worth the extra.
p.1 #7 · Nikon 18-55mm vs. 18-55mm II vs. 18-55 VR
VR is always worth the extra money if you can afford it. That's about the long and short of it. There are situations where it won't do you any good, but there are many many where it will do you a great deal of good.
p.1 #8 · Nikon 18-55mm vs. 18-55mm II vs. 18-55 VR
Here are two images I shot with the 18-55 VR when I was testing it on my Nikon D2x.
Although shot RAW, they are very much out-of-camera for the most part. I did apply a little brightening and color adjusting in Capture NX, but they did look very much like this when I first opened the files.
Keep in mind that the D2x is merciless when it comes to exposing the flaws in any lens. I have a couple of much more expensive lenses that in some respects do not do quite as well as this little 18-55 gem. Also, the shots above are typical of what this lens can do, whether shooting people, landscapes, animals or automobiles ... indoors or out.
p.1 #9 · Nikon 18-55mm vs. 18-55mm II vs. 18-55 VR
veroman wrote:
Read the review of the 18-55 VR at www.photozone.de. Nikon guru Thom Hogan also has good things to say about it. www.bythom.com.
- Steve
The only "official" review I know of is by dpreview. photozone and Thom have only reviewed the non-VR versions so far...
I got version II together with the D40, and I recently upgraded to the VR version. From what I understand, I and II have the same optical formulas. The VR has a new and more complex optical formula and it improves a little upon version II in almost every aspect (except cost ), but it is not visible in a significant way on the D40. It may be more visible on 10+ mp bodies. Between I and II I'd recommend II. If you plan to keep & use it, get the VR.
), but it is not visible in a significant way on the D40. It may be more visible on 10+ mp bodies. Between I and II I'd recommend II. If you plan to keep & use it, get the VR.