Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Technical Details
- Brand Name: Nikon
- Model: 2179
- Lens Type: zoom
- Mounting Type: Nikon F-Bayonet
- Minimum focal length: 18 millimeters
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Product Description
This 5.8x zoom, designed exclusively for use with Nikon's DX-format, features Nikon's VR image stabilization and is perfect for portraits and action. The wide-ratio 5.8x zoomCompact, versatile and ideal for a broad range of shooting situations, ranging from interiors and landscapes to beautiful portraits--a perfect everyday zoom. Vibration Reduction is engineered specifically for each VR NIKKOR lens and enables handheld shooting at up to 3 shutter speeds slower than would otherwise be possible, assuring dramatically sharper images.
Available Warranties for This Item
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
215 of 221 people found the following review helpful
By Cheap-n-Easy
I got this lens with my D90 kit. I am also a fan of Ken Rockwell, his reviews and deep expert knowledge about cameras, film and digital. Especially his expertise with Nikon over the past 30 or so years helped me a lot to be smarter about equipment and take better pictures. Ken is not the biggest fan of this AF-S 18-105 VR lens and that would naturally lead many people to caution. I have done my own comparison and truly believe he is too negative about this lens.
What I have:
Nikon D90 (SOLD - great cam but I needed a better/faster autofocus system to capture fast moving kids therefore I got the:)
Nikon D300s (SOLD - D my new D7000 eclipses it in every aspect)
Nikon D7000 (Simply fantastic!!!)
Nikon D40 (Sold my old trusty D40. After the D7000 came on board it was just not neccessary to hold onto it any longer0
AF-S 35mm f/1.8 prime (you MUST get this one)
AF-S 18-105 VR (This review)
AF-S 18-200 VR II
AF-S 18-55 VR D40 kit lens (sold with D40 body)
AF-S 55-200 VR (For Sale)
AF-S 70-300 VR (Tripod wildlife shots and similar; unfortunately rarely used)
AF-S 10-24 (The best and widest non-fisheye lens for DX cams. Expensive, but will hold its value. This lens is FANTASTIC and a must for any serious photographer. Save buying an expensive body, go with a D40 or a D5000 and get this lens!)
What is good about the AF-S 18-105 VR:
- Very versatile! Great zoom range for most of your photography needs.
- Better AF "hit rate" than the AF-S 18-200 VR
- Sharp, well exposed pictures with really great colors all the time.
- Still "relatively" portable for the zoom range it provides.
- Probably the best bang for the buck AF-S DX VR lens!
What could be better:
- The plastic lens mount is my biggest complaint and the only reason I gave it 4 stars. Nikon has to cut somewhere, I get that ... but the lens mount? C'mon ... this is a real goof by Nikon and in my book inexcusable.
- The lens has a good bit of barrel distortion at 18mm, but then again all super zooms have this issue. Correct in Photoshop is easy if you must. Pincushion distortion is there but much less noticeable.
- No distance range scale/window on lens. Not a must but would really be nice.
- For my liking this lens already on the heavy side of the range, while probably still considered "light" for these now so popular "all around" wide range zooms. Weight is the enemy when it comes to photography. It really changes the dynamics of handling the camera and your entire photography when you have one of these fat primadonnas mounted (they actually handle better on heavy bodies like the D300s than lighter bodies like the D40 since the lighter cams get very "front heavy"). I can only imagine how it might affect your photography when you put the even much heavier AF-s 18-200 VR on you D body. This is also a reason I prefer the D90 over the D300s. I however will need the D300s for its better autofocus capabilities since I you shoot fast moving objects (= kids!). Now if you don't shoot fast moving objects ... by all means get the D90! It does really everything the D300s does IF speed (AF and FPS) is not the issue. So as you can see that personally I am not a big fan of heavy super zooms and, when needing a zoom, prefer to shoot as much as I can with the super light AF-S 18-55 VR which has also a better optical and image quality than both the AF-s 18-200 VR and this AF-s 18-105 VR. If more zoom is needed I take out the AF-s 55-200 VR which is an excellent lens while still very light. When travelling I take my D40 body (super light!) with the AF-s 18-55 VR and the AF-s 55-200 VR most of the time (these two lenses together weigh less or no more than a single AF-s 18-200 VR!). When indoors I try to use the 35mm prime because it is much, much faster than the zooms and has excellent image quality.
- Front lens cap is a bit fiddly to put on as others have noted here, but that's not a biggie.
Bottom line: For those of you thinking about dropping three times as much or more on the (in my opinion) overhyped and very heavy AF-S 18-200 VR ... THINK HARD ABOUT IT and try the AF-s 18-105 out first if you need a super zoom.
I would not pay the huge premium for the AF-S 18-200 VR for several reasons:
- When I compared, and contrary to Ken Rockwell's comments, I find the image quality with the AF-s 18-200 VR poorer than the AF-s 18-105 VR and all other lenses I have (above). Other technical online reviews such as dpreview also support this observation. The AF-s 18-200 has a fuzzier image and more distortion which (contrary to the AF-s 18-105 VR) is also present across a wider zoom range.
- In addition ... think of it this way: With a little shopping you can get the AF-S 18-105 VR, the AF-S 70-300 VR and the must-have AF-s 35mm f/1.8 for the same or just a little more money than a single AF-S 18-200 VR lens. Even better! If you substitute the excellent but a bit pricey AF-s 70-300 VR with the fantastic and ultra cheap AF-s 55-200 VR you'll pay actually less for this entire kit than you will for a for a single AF-s 18-200 VR lens. Almost a full DX system for the price less than one AF-s 18-200 VR lens to which I would only add a super wide angle such as the new, fantastic (but pricey) Nikon AF-S 10-24mm
Unfortunately the AF-S 18-105 VR is often underrated and therefore cheap on the used market as people flock to the rather expensive AF-S 18-200 VR. I cannot duplicate the concerns around softness in the corners or fuzziness Ken Rockwell is noticing on this lens. This is an excellent budget lens for a do-it-all if you need that and a real bargain. The only real drawback being the plastic mount. Give it a try before you disregard it or get my budget Nikkor DX "system suggestion" above which is still better than either of these (AF-s 18-55 VR plus a AF-s 55-200VR). I think you'll agree with the other lens owners here!
What I have:
Nikon D90 (SOLD - great cam but I needed a better/faster autofocus system to capture fast moving kids therefore I got the:)
Nikon D300s (SOLD - D my new D7000 eclipses it in every aspect)
Nikon D7000 (Simply fantastic!!!)
Nikon D40 (Sold my old trusty D40. After the D7000 came on board it was just not neccessary to hold onto it any longer0
AF-S 35mm f/1.8 prime (you MUST get this one)
AF-S 18-105 VR (This review)
AF-S 18-200 VR II
AF-S 18-55 VR D40 kit lens (sold with D40 body)
AF-S 55-200 VR (For Sale)
AF-S 70-300 VR (Tripod wildlife shots and similar; unfortunately rarely used)
AF-S 10-24 (The best and widest non-fisheye lens for DX cams. Expensive, but will hold its value. This lens is FANTASTIC and a must for any serious photographer. Save buying an expensive body, go with a D40 or a D5000 and get this lens!)
What is good about the AF-S 18-105 VR:
- Very versatile! Great zoom range for most of your photography needs.
- Better AF "hit rate" than the AF-S 18-200 VR
- Sharp, well exposed pictures with really great colors all the time.
- Still "relatively" portable for the zoom range it provides.
- Probably the best bang for the buck AF-S DX VR lens!
What could be better:
- The plastic lens mount is my biggest complaint and the only reason I gave it 4 stars. Nikon has to cut somewhere, I get that ... but the lens mount? C'mon ... this is a real goof by Nikon and in my book inexcusable.
- The lens has a good bit of barrel distortion at 18mm, but then again all super zooms have this issue. Correct in Photoshop is easy if you must. Pincushion distortion is there but much less noticeable.
- No distance range scale/window on lens. Not a must but would really be nice.
- For my liking this lens already on the heavy side of the range, while probably still considered "light" for these now so popular "all around" wide range zooms. Weight is the enemy when it comes to photography. It really changes the dynamics of handling the camera and your entire photography when you have one of these fat primadonnas mounted (they actually handle better on heavy bodies like the D300s than lighter bodies like the D40 since the lighter cams get very "front heavy"). I can only imagine how it might affect your photography when you put the even much heavier AF-s 18-200 VR on you D body. This is also a reason I prefer the D90 over the D300s. I however will need the D300s for its better autofocus capabilities since I you shoot fast moving objects (= kids!). Now if you don't shoot fast moving objects ... by all means get the D90! It does really everything the D300s does IF speed (AF and FPS) is not the issue. So as you can see that personally I am not a big fan of heavy super zooms and, when needing a zoom, prefer to shoot as much as I can with the super light AF-S 18-55 VR which has also a better optical and image quality than both the AF-s 18-200 VR and this AF-s 18-105 VR. If more zoom is needed I take out the AF-s 55-200 VR which is an excellent lens while still very light. When travelling I take my D40 body (super light!) with the AF-s 18-55 VR and the AF-s 55-200 VR most of the time (these two lenses together weigh less or no more than a single AF-s 18-200 VR!). When indoors I try to use the 35mm prime because it is much, much faster than the zooms and has excellent image quality.
- Front lens cap is a bit fiddly to put on as others have noted here, but that's not a biggie.
Bottom line: For those of you thinking about dropping three times as much or more on the (in my opinion) overhyped and very heavy AF-S 18-200 VR ... THINK HARD ABOUT IT and try the AF-s 18-105 out first if you need a super zoom.
I would not pay the huge premium for the AF-S 18-200 VR for several reasons:
- When I compared, and contrary to Ken Rockwell's comments, I find the image quality with the AF-s 18-200 VR poorer than the AF-s 18-105 VR and all other lenses I have (above). Other technical online reviews such as dpreview also support this observation. The AF-s 18-200 has a fuzzier image and more distortion which (contrary to the AF-s 18-105 VR) is also present across a wider zoom range.
- In addition ... think of it this way: With a little shopping you can get the AF-S 18-105 VR, the AF-S 70-300 VR and the must-have AF-s 35mm f/1.8 for the same or just a little more money than a single AF-S 18-200 VR lens. Even better! If you substitute the excellent but a bit pricey AF-s 70-300 VR with the fantastic and ultra cheap AF-s 55-200 VR you'll pay actually less for this entire kit than you will for a for a single AF-s 18-200 VR lens. Almost a full DX system for the price less than one AF-s 18-200 VR lens to which I would only add a super wide angle such as the new, fantastic (but pricey) Nikon AF-S 10-24mm
Unfortunately the AF-S 18-105 VR is often underrated and therefore cheap on the used market as people flock to the rather expensive AF-S 18-200 VR. I cannot duplicate the concerns around softness in the corners or fuzziness Ken Rockwell is noticing on this lens. This is an excellent budget lens for a do-it-all if you need that and a real bargain. The only real drawback being the plastic mount. Give it a try before you disregard it or get my budget Nikkor DX "system suggestion" above which is still better than either of these (AF-s 18-55 VR plus a AF-s 55-200VR). I think you'll agree with the other lens owners here!
200 of 208 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Probably the ideal affordable compromise between range and quality
November 15, 2008
If you take photographs for fun then this is a great lens. I am using it on the ultimate fun camera, a Nikon D40 and the lens completes it very well. I usually don't analyse things to death like photographing text from a Newspaper or grid patterns to measure sharpness or distortion. I just use it to take pictures and observe the results like a normal person would. Having said that I am quite critical and have had really good cameras with excellent optics.
Overall this lens feels like it is a really good product and feels very robust and well made. It is well finished and shows good attention to detail and quality control. The two rings (zoom and focus) feel and glide very well. albeit with a very slight plastic sliding sound. The switches feel fairly OK and generally everything seems like it will last a very very long time. Of course it cannot match a mid 80's Nikon prime lens but it is hard to make such a comparison. Firstly they are built differently with different numbers of components and secondly they are used differently.
Personally I don't understand the difference that a steel camera mount would make over the plastic one this lens has. I suppose if you remove and replace the camera lots of times then it could make a difference. Although having said that a plastic surface on the lens would be kinder the steel mount on the camera. Plastic being self lubricating would prevent both from being scratched. I don't sleep less well at night because of it.
Visually the lens looks a bit plain and lacks the silver ring that the 18-55 came with. It also lacks an writing on the forward business end of the camera. There are also no markings for focal length.
One thing about this lens that I do find very annoying is the extremely fiddly lens cap. Because of the way they moulded the cap the two surfaces you press together to unclip it from the lens front are very short and smooth and have an angle on them that makes the fingers slip off. As a consequence the lens cap has fallen out my hand onto the floor a few times. That is something to remember if you are standing on a grate, a dirty floor or on a clifftop. This is a common problem with the 18-135 and 18-200 lenses.
Now to the lens' performance. It focuses extremely fast and very silently. It has a very useful reach. I have found you can overcome the smaller minimum aperture with a higher zoom and this gives really good bokeh for portraits. The VR works a treat as well. In combination with the camera's really good performance at high ISO it makes it very capable at photographing the insides of restaurants and houses without the need for flash to ruin the colour balance.
The lens is very sharp. The photographs I took came out very well. I have no issues with them whatsoever and anything that went wrong in taking those images I would put down to my relative inexperience.
The lens did not have any negative effects on the colour, I didn't notice any purple fringing or anything other than really pleasant results. Overall I am actually very happy with the sharpness and detail this lens captures.
I am wondering whether to use a UV filter and am not sure about using the petal design hood. There are all sorts of views about the advisability or otherwise of these items.
Other products I compared this to are the 18-55 lens my D40 came with. In its own right it is an excellent lens and seems sharp. It does feel a bit on the lightweight side compared to the 18-105. The 18-135 I tried felt a little bit crude in how the zoom ring moved. It didn't feel as well finished compared to the 18-105 and made plastic sliding sounds when operating the zoom ring. That lens was very sharp too but holding it steady at 135mm was a bit difficult.
I used a 50mm 1.4 manual focus lens from the 80s that had awesome bokeh but was otherwise a pain to use. The other lens I tried was the 18-200mm which was an awesome lens. It had a focus that seemed even faster than the one on the 18-105 but it was a little too big and made the camera feel very front heavy. Because of that it lost a bit of the fun factor. Along with the fact that it was almost 3 times more expensive I am glad I bought the 18-105.
I paid A$385 at Ted's in Highpoint. $385 would equate to US$246 in November 2008. An 18-200 sells for A$1045. Even the 18-135 often sells for more so I feel I got something of a bargain. The people at Ted's are fantastic for customer service and I'm sorry I didn't buy my D40 from them.
Anyway I hope this review helps someone.
Overall this lens feels like it is a really good product and feels very robust and well made. It is well finished and shows good attention to detail and quality control. The two rings (zoom and focus) feel and glide very well. albeit with a very slight plastic sliding sound. The switches feel fairly OK and generally everything seems like it will last a very very long time. Of course it cannot match a mid 80's Nikon prime lens but it is hard to make such a comparison. Firstly they are built differently with different numbers of components and secondly they are used differently.
Personally I don't understand the difference that a steel camera mount would make over the plastic one this lens has. I suppose if you remove and replace the camera lots of times then it could make a difference. Although having said that a plastic surface on the lens would be kinder the steel mount on the camera. Plastic being self lubricating would prevent both from being scratched. I don't sleep less well at night because of it.
Visually the lens looks a bit plain and lacks the silver ring that the 18-55 came with. It also lacks an writing on the forward business end of the camera. There are also no markings for focal length.
One thing about this lens that I do find very annoying is the extremely fiddly lens cap. Because of the way they moulded the cap the two surfaces you press together to unclip it from the lens front are very short and smooth and have an angle on them that makes the fingers slip off. As a consequence the lens cap has fallen out my hand onto the floor a few times. That is something to remember if you are standing on a grate, a dirty floor or on a clifftop. This is a common problem with the 18-135 and 18-200 lenses.
Now to the lens' performance. It focuses extremely fast and very silently. It has a very useful reach. I have found you can overcome the smaller minimum aperture with a higher zoom and this gives really good bokeh for portraits. The VR works a treat as well. In combination with the camera's really good performance at high ISO it makes it very capable at photographing the insides of restaurants and houses without the need for flash to ruin the colour balance.
The lens is very sharp. The photographs I took came out very well. I have no issues with them whatsoever and anything that went wrong in taking those images I would put down to my relative inexperience.
The lens did not have any negative effects on the colour, I didn't notice any purple fringing or anything other than really pleasant results. Overall I am actually very happy with the sharpness and detail this lens captures.
I am wondering whether to use a UV filter and am not sure about using the petal design hood. There are all sorts of views about the advisability or otherwise of these items.
Other products I compared this to are the 18-55 lens my D40 came with. In its own right it is an excellent lens and seems sharp. It does feel a bit on the lightweight side compared to the 18-105. The 18-135 I tried felt a little bit crude in how the zoom ring moved. It didn't feel as well finished compared to the 18-105 and made plastic sliding sounds when operating the zoom ring. That lens was very sharp too but holding it steady at 135mm was a bit difficult.
I used a 50mm 1.4 manual focus lens from the 80s that had awesome bokeh but was otherwise a pain to use. The other lens I tried was the 18-200mm which was an awesome lens. It had a focus that seemed even faster than the one on the 18-105 but it was a little too big and made the camera feel very front heavy. Because of that it lost a bit of the fun factor. Along with the fact that it was almost 3 times more expensive I am glad I bought the 18-105.
I paid A$385 at Ted's in Highpoint. $385 would equate to US$246 in November 2008. An 18-200 sells for A$1045. Even the 18-135 often sells for more so I feel I got something of a bargain. The people at Ted's are fantastic for customer service and I'm sorry I didn't buy my D40 from them.
Anyway I hope this review helps someone.
188 of 196 people found the following review helpful
I was torn between the 18-105mm and 18-200mm. After a week of shooting with both on a D40x a few things became clear:
- the 105 seems to be more reliable - it can focus correctly more often (less hunt) and the VR, though less powerful than the VRII, reduces blur more often (for me) than the VRII on the 200mm
- the 105 is much more comfortable on the D40/D60 body. It feels almost perfect. Not too heavy; not too light. Just right.
- the color saturation is better on the 18-200mm
- the sharpness is very similar on both (at the center at least).
My recommendation is that if money is tight and the weight of the camera is important to you (since this is a walk around lens), the 18-105mm is a very nice upgrade to the 18-55mm or the 18-55mm & 55-200mm combo. You can use the extra $ for a nice flash and the 35mm prime. If money is not and issue and you find yourself shooting a lot of images at 200mm - then go for the 18-200mm. Image quality will not be a deciding factor.
Perhaps order the 18-200mm, shoot for a week with it and look at how often you use the range 105-200mm. If you are not using it often - trade it in for the 105mm. Otherwise, remember that cropping on an image taken at 105mm is not a replacement for 200mm optical zoom for more reasons than pixel count - focus, exposure, and depth of field are also different under real zoom and I find this important for portraits.
In the end I sent my 18-200mm back and kept the 18-105mm.
- the 105 seems to be more reliable - it can focus correctly more often (less hunt) and the VR, though less powerful than the VRII, reduces blur more often (for me) than the VRII on the 200mm
- the 105 is much more comfortable on the D40/D60 body. It feels almost perfect. Not too heavy; not too light. Just right.
- the color saturation is better on the 18-200mm
- the sharpness is very similar on both (at the center at least).
My recommendation is that if money is tight and the weight of the camera is important to you (since this is a walk around lens), the 18-105mm is a very nice upgrade to the 18-55mm or the 18-55mm & 55-200mm combo. You can use the extra $ for a nice flash and the 35mm prime. If money is not and issue and you find yourself shooting a lot of images at 200mm - then go for the 18-200mm. Image quality will not be a deciding factor.
Perhaps order the 18-200mm, shoot for a week with it and look at how often you use the range 105-200mm. If you are not using it often - trade it in for the 105mm. Otherwise, remember that cropping on an image taken at 105mm is not a replacement for 200mm optical zoom for more reasons than pixel count - focus, exposure, and depth of field are also different under real zoom and I find this important for portraits.
In the end I sent my 18-200mm back and kept the 18-105mm.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great for vacation
Really great if one wants to use just a single lens, as on vacation. Fine range of focal lengths. Found excellent resolution at all focal lengths. Recommended.
Published 11 days ago by Michael F. Rein MD
5.0 out of 5 stars
The 18 105mm vs 35mm f1.8
So if you are well into DSLR photography and you are looking to get the best pictures everybody will say buy the best lenses you can afford. I agree to an extent but at what cost. Read more
Published 1 month ago by Killer
4.0 out of 5 stars
Great ravel lens, very clear pictures.
this is my favorite lens to travel with, clear pictures under many different conditions. Get it you'll be happy with it. Well worth the price.
Published 2 months ago by Alan in AZ
1.0 out of 5 stars
Lens unusable as received
I received the lens with a faulty rear bayonet ring. The lens will not mount on a camera. I now have to get the lens repaired.
It was rated as very good condition. Not true. Read more
It was rated as very good condition. Not true. Read more
Published 2 months ago by Bill Cannon
4.0 out of 5 stars
new lens
good lens sharp wish it had a lower f stop if you use it indoors with a flash don't zoom past 85 mm with the ttl flash things get fuzzy
other than that great lens just like... Read more
other than that great lens just like... Read more
Published 2 months ago by john c stoebling
5.0 out of 5 stars
Perfect
Apart from the high quality one would expect from Nikon lens, it is the most versatile lens I have in my collection.
Published 2 months ago by Chris Gorman
5.0 out of 5 stars
WOW!
This was a refurb, but nothing less than new! It came on time, packaged right, and not one single scratch or indication that this was not new. Read more
Published 2 months ago by Weekend Warrior
5.0 out of 5 stars
Un zoom mediano de alto rendimeinto y comodidad
Este lente Nikon 18.105 lo adquirí con la D 7000 resolviendo el problema del angular, para hacer retratos y hasta para tomar pajaros a media distancia con buen rendimiento,... Read more
Published 2 months ago by Pedro
5.0 out of 5 stars
Works as specified
This is a great lens and I am very happy with it although it isn't a top of the line lens.
Published 2 months ago by Bradley Vincent Ou
5.0 out of 5 stars
Brilliant
Gives me some of the best pictures I have ever taken. I own a D80 and was looking to upgrade to the D7000 with this lens in kit form, but was balking at the $2000 price tag. Read more
Published 3 months ago by kevin ryan
