Customer Reviews

Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR ED Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

5 star:		(34)
4 star:		(22)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

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.

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!

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.

Of the dozen or so Nikon lenses I've owned, this is the first I've been unhappy with. Features vs. price isn't a problem, but quality of materials has turned out to be a huge issue. To save money or weight (or both) Nikon has used thin, cheap plastic instead of metal for the bayonet mount. I didn't notice just how thin and fragile this plastic was until shooting in 28 degree weather last month, when the lens literally fell off the camera body as I was zoomed in on a subject.

Inside the body I found a tiny shard of black plastic that turned out to be all that ever held the lens on the body. Comparing the shard to the remainder that had NOT broken off the lens, I was shocked to see just how thin this very important of plastic had been on the day the lens left the factory -- what I mean is, I wasn't looking at a mount worn thin by repeated use: this was original material and workmanship with no signs of abuse or wear in the 10 months since I'd purchased it new.

The lens is on its way to Nikon repair now but the only thing I fear more than them NOT fixing it for free is that they'll replace it with another poorly-made lens that's going to fall apart on me in the middle of an important shoot. I don't "baby" my equipment but I do take care of it and I expect it to last for years as a result. This used to be what Nikon stood for and I'm still using Nikon lenses purchased over 20 year ago. Corners were obviously cut to produce this lens cheaply and in looking at how it's made, I'm not surprised it fell off the camera body and into a snow bank during normal use. This lens does NOT represent a commitment to quality. Unless you plan on never removing it from the camera body, I would look elsewhere...

I recently traded the 18-55mm VR lens from my D60 kit for this lens. I wanted something with more range than the 18-55 offered, and with VR, so it was a choice between the 18-200mm VR and this lens. Between the price of the latter, and the reports of worse distortion, zoom creep, and poor feel of the zoom & focus rings of the 18-200, I decided this was the best choice. The fact that this lens is a tad shorter and a good bit lighter (420g vs. 560g) make it an even better choice for a walkaround (or even only) lens for normal use.

The fit & finish is much better than that of the kit lens, and while it is a bit heavier than the 18-55, it's not appreciably longer, if any. I'm not a good enough photographer to tell you how it compares on distortion to either the 18-55 or the 18-200, so I won't even try. But it produced a number of wonderful images for me today, under low light and handheld, without noticeable distortion, and they were very clear except if I was shaking badly (this is with shutter speeds of 1/40-1/10). I purchased it for $300 new, about half of the price of the 18-200mm VR. In all, I am quite satisfied with this lens as an all-around, do-everything lens.

Update: Well, this lens lasted me about a year. No, it didn't break, I just upgraded to the 16-85mm VR and passed it on to a family member just getting into digital SLRs.

So for an extra ~$450, the 16-85mm VR adds:
-VRII instead of original VR, and the Active-Normal switch that comes with this. Nikon claims 4 stops for VRII, instead of 3 stops. I didn't test them side by side, but I do notice both the new lens and my 70-300mm VR (which also has VRII) are less prone to shake than the 18-105mm was. Not sure if I'd claim a full stop better, but there is some improvement.
-An extra 2mm on the wide end, and better image quality, at the cost of 20mm on the telephoto end. I honestly don't miss the 30mm on the long end, and I can switch to the telephoto lens easily enough. Honestly though, I don't find myself racked out at 85mm and wanting just a little more focal length much at all. The 2mm on the wide end is kind of a toss-up. It's nice to have, and actually noticeable compared to 18mm. But it won't replace a dedicated wide-angle if you like wide-angle shots, just add 2mm more overlap than you already get. Kind of makes you feel goofy buying a $1k wide-angle for only 4-6mm less focal length.
-A metal mount, a distance scale, and overall better construction. The metal lens mount and distance scale are no-brainers, even though I hardly NEED the distance scale. But both that and the metal mount could've easily been added to the 18-105mm for negligible cost, especially considering the $400+ MSRP. It's kind of disappointing that Nikon skimped on a little plastic window and a little chunk of metal, even for a kit lens, to save maybe $10. The zoom and focus ring action of the 16-85mm VR is much more fluid-feeling than the plasticy feel of the 18-105mm VR, but it also weighs a good bit more. Not heavy in a bad way however, it just feels more solid.

Honestly, while I don't regret buying the 16-85mm VR, I'm not sure if it's really worth the extra cost (compared to the normal ~$300 cost of an 18-105mm VR, not retail, which would be silly for a common kit lens). I upgraded for the image quality, and because it felt weird to have the most-used lens in my kit be the lowest quality (image and construction). If you can live with the plastic mount, slight distortion and softness, and cheaper feel, the 18-105mm is still a great value for the money. This lens and the 70-300mm VR still match or best the 18-200mm VR lens, at about the same overall cost, with more versatility.

I bought a D5000 that came with the 18-55 but I thought it was way too wide even at 55mm. A month after buying the camera I realized I was never using the 18-55 so I sold it and bought the 18-105. The 18-105 not only has a serious reach advantage over the 18-55, but also allows you to manually focus without flipping the focus switch to manual. It's also just a more convenient and sturdy lens. The 18-55 is sharp and all, and if you're certain you don't need the extra reach then it might be the way for you to go. But for nature and many other kinds of shooting, I want the most reach I can get. This lens + my 70-300 VR is all I need for my nature shooting. You can generally get both of these lenses for about the same price as the 18-200, but with the two lenses you get 50% more reach and sharper images. The convenience of one lens is nowhere near enough of a reason (at least for me) to sacrifice reach and sharpness.

So even though review sites are more critical of this lens than they are the 18-55 and 55-200, I think it's one of the best in Nikon's DX lineup. I just wish I would have bought this from the get-go with the D5000 body-only instead of getting the 18-55 kit lens. Oh well, I'm good now!

I originally got a 18-55mm lens with my Nikon camera and decided to buy the 55-200 as my second lens but found that changing out the lenses was a hassle. When I decided to take a short vacation that was about 2000 miles away, I didn't want to deal with carrying the different lenses around so I bought the 18-105mm. It was one of the best things I ever did. I almost feel like it is the only lens needed for general photography. I chose this particular one because the customer reviews were so good. All my photos with this lens are wonderful. They look professional and that is the point when you buy a good lens from Nikon.

I use this lens on my Nikon D60. I originally bought the kit with two VR lenses: the 18-55 and the 55-200. After using these two lenses during a few major vacations, I noticed that I was changing lenses frequently during the day, and the weight of an extra gadget bag was causing a pain in my back. When the D90 kit lens came along, it seemed that a lot of buyers were jettisoning it for the heavier and softer 18-200 VR. Bucking the trend, I was able to buy the new 18-105 kit lens for just under $300. It solved my vacation problems at a reasonable cost. I found its image quality to be functionally equivalent to the two lenses it replaced, and more than adequate for my purposes. I have not missed the loss of long zoom, given that I vacation in cities or villages, where the long end accounted for a small percentage of my pictures. Later, I bought a 70-300mm VRII on the niggling fear that I was missing something in my photography. I made the mistake of taking it on vacation once. Although I found the longer range useful for picking up architectural details, and in daylight stadium sports events for picking up action on the field, it was nevertheless too bulky and heavy to justify these specialized advantages. The real revelation came when I purchased a Sigma f3.5 10-20. It opened up a whole new world of street photography to me. Now these are the only two lenses that I take on vacation. I've noticed that I favor the short lens increasingly as I move on with my photography.

This lens is not for the specialist. Unless you have specialized hobby needs, don't bother spending your money to get a long zoom that will break your back and your bank, even though everyone else seems to be doing it. This lens is more than adequate for most vacation scenarios. With the money you've saved, and two-hundred bucks more, you can buy a quality short lens that will entirely change you perspective on photography. You won't look back.

I really didn't care much for the 18-55mm lens that came with the Nikon D60 I was using before I upgraded to the new D90. My friends who owned Nikon's 18-200mm told me that lens wasn't very sharp at many focal lengths. So, when I got my D90 I made sure I purchased this lens, which is a great compromise. It provides a useful zoom ratio, isn't heavy, and performs well at all its focal lengths. The VR is great. I've taken pictures as slow as 1/8 second at 105mm, and gotten very sharp results.

This lens has had some tough reviews... but I don't know why?

Affordable - I bought mine refurbished for 220 (looks and works like new).
Great Quality Images - Better zoom range and sharper than the 18-55vr (another great affordable lens)
Built in manual zoom ring - This is a must have if you are shooting DSLR videos as there is no auto focus on the D90 Video.

This is obviously not a "pro" lens, but it takes great photos and is priced reasonably. I highly recommend it.