In the reviews you can see different ratings, from delight to disappointment. I think the reason is not in the spread of characteristics in different instances, but in a different assessment of the results and a look at the photo in general, i. E. in the target audience. For those who "do not bother", beginners, who do not want to spend a lot of money on something that is not even a hobby, if the result suits themselves, it is quite a good lens. I say without irony, I went through it myself…

Despite the fact that I wrote a lot of advantages (well-deserved), this lens has both Ha and focus misses (rarely). But the worst thing is soap, if you suddenly have 50mm 1.8, or 1.4, or some kind of fast fix in general, and are thinking about buying a staffer "for every day", then it's better to pass by. Look at fast aperture tamrons and sigmas, there you can choose the best quality for almost the same money. I bought a D90 camera that included this 18-105, honestly I was just furious…

I have used this lens for 6-7 years. Overall, it's sharper than the 18-55, comfortable to use, and has good stub. Of the shortcomings - at the ends of the focal ranges - soap, it is better to use medium focal lengths - 22-70mm, like aperture from 5.6 for sharpness. Good entry level lens. But if I were buying now, I wouldn’t take it, it’s better to have Sigma 17-50 2.8 or Sigma 18-250 3.5-6.3 macro, or 16-85 Nikkor for kranjak. Structurally, 18-105 is light and flimsy with a poastic mount. Would

I have been using this lens for over a year, delivered like a whale. On the back - the front was not checked. The first shots brought disappointment - no better than the first two soap dishes in terms of quality and sharpness. But . more than a year has passed and my opinion about this glass has changed dramatically - as a result - for the year 2 million views and more than 20 Popular photos on photos! Whoever goes there knows that people earn even a million views over the years, while using…

I took it from the D7000 like a whale. Changed with a surcharge of 130 USD on Tamron 17-50 after a day of use (there were no other budget options for Nikon). The Tamron that I came across does not work with autofocus very well on the D7000, in 3D metering mode it only focuses 100% normally, but the difference is like heaven and earth - the picture is sharp throughout the frame, the colors are expressive. I compared my Tamron to 50mm, it shoots no worse than a 50mm fix from Nikon 1.8. Nikkor…

Be sure to pay attention when buying in a kit with an entry-level DSLR, this lens may be the first and last for many amateurs. I myself, like many a few years ago, bought a d5000 DSLR from 18-55, bought an additional 55-200 and an sb 900 flash. I can’t say anything bad for the price of about 18-55, but as soon as the option turned up it was profitable to part with it, I didn’t think for a second - I sold it. 18-105 is more convenient, more versatile and therefore more in demand by me than…

I compare with the whale Sony 18-55. He stood for 4 years on the Sony A100 (paired with a successful copy of the Sigma 70-300 APO). So, the kit from Sonya is a level higher in image quality than this kit from Nikon. If you have already shot with a DSLR, do not take this lens. Suitable for beginners: large range of focal lengths, low price. SC issued a verdict "everything is as it should be", although, subjectively, the quality has improved slightly.

Pretty decent lens! With proper selection of the aperture, it produces a fairly sharp picture. (less than 5.6 I generally advise you not to use it on it, because the sharpness will be MUCH less) Pretty good bokeh. It is convenient with a wide range of fr, so it is perfect for traveling and for moments when there is no way to carry additional optics with you. In my opinion, the best option as a staff member in the absence of money for prof. optics. (17-55 2.8 for example.)

In general, the lens is not bad for its money, but the indicated breakdown left an extremely unpleasant aftertaste. The problem was solved by ordering the appropriate spare parts from China through "aliexpress". Pleased with their price - about 1 dollar. BUT what to do if it "crumbles" on a trip, and how many such replacements will survive everything else? And the replacement is not the easiest operation . Why does Nikon put a metal bayonet on a fix for 5 tyr and weighing 100 g, and I don’t…

Quality lens. It was not for nothing that he went as a whale to the D90 carcass, and now he is being delivered as a whale to the D7000. If you already have an 18-55mm kit and you're thinking of getting a 55-200mm or 70-300mm, don't do it. This will be a mistake. Better sell your whale and add money. Nikkor 18-105mm is exactly the lens that should replace 18-55, you will notice changes in image quality right away. You will use it as glass for every day, you don’t even remember about the 18-55mm…

The lens takes getting used to and learning what can and cannot be done with it. After the first landscape photos, I was disappointed, because when comparing pixel-by-pixel, the quality turned out to be worse than from my old Samsung NX11: the frames were less sharp both at the wide end and at the telephoto end. But it was enough to reduce the photos to the size of the NX11 frame to make sure that 18-105 was at least as good. For some time, sharp pictures were not obtained at 105mm - the…

Good lens for a beginner. But I already regret that I didn’t initially take fifty kopecks to my D90, I fell for the zoom and for “universality”. The price of versatility is the complete absence of a beautiful picture. This glass can completely discourage the person who bought the first DSLR from hunting and shooting it. The disappointment is huge (I had, at least). Then I quickly threw it off, bought an old 35-70, then a brand new 16-85, then a fifty kopeck 1.4, and life got better))) Yes, and

It's been over 4 years since I got it. Whoever is lucky, but if the lens is correctly matched to the carcass and successful, then the sharpness can be quite good. Maybe. And someone might like the lens. May be. However, I was not lucky: my sharpness was mediocre at all focal lengths. I have never had a worse whale. Neither on the D3100 nor on the D7000 is it sharp anywhere. Inferior to all the lenses I have. It was replaced by Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f / 2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical Nikon F and…

See what they are criticizing for. Most often, dissatisfaction with the lens is a consequence of the fact that the photographer does not know how to use it. 1. Pillow barrels - removed during processing with one click. Shoot in NEF, paste the lens profile into Camera RAW, click the "Lens correction" button. 2. Soap dispensed unpredictably. It seems that the aperture is clamped, and the shutter speed excludes movement. The culprit turned out to be a protective filter, which was screwed on at…

Excellent budget travel - zoom. For beginners and for those who shoot in auto mode, this is a great lens. If you decide to take a SLR, it's better to go broke on it than on 18-55. Practice, shoot, understand "what's what", and then - as you like, if you go further, then you will outgrow it, and if not, it will be an excellent all-rounder "For the home, for the family."

This is my second lens, before that I had a Nikkor 18-55, and I compare it with it. Autofocus is faster, more accurate and quieter. The stabilizer works better, if the Nikkor 18-55 gave blur at shutter speeds longer than 1/20, then on the Nikkor 18-105 I manage to get a sharp image at shutter speeds up to 1/10. The Nikkor 18-55 often lacked a range of focal lengths, with the Nikkor 18-105 it became easier to take pictures. The front element of the lens does not rotate when focusing - very…

Pretty good lens. Photos come out sharp. About light vignetting and a barrel-cushion at extreme focal lengths - true. Although I can not say that it personally upsets me a lot. Regarding the marriage - personally, on the 3rd week of use, the zoom ring jammed. At that time I was in another country and it was possible to repair it only upon my return. Very unpleasant. The service did everything in a week. Noticed another interesting feature. On my D5100, with a sharp decrease in FR, a breeze…

It’s quite a good whale glass, it works out for its money, there is also Sigma, but here you have to come to the store and choose, Sigma has a guessing game from copy to copy, but here everything is somehow stable and averaged. For everyday life or for beginners, that's it. It was not in vain that I wrote the stabilizer in both the advantages and disadvantages, sometimes it behaves strangely. Then everything is fine and suddenly it does not work out or lathers where there was no shaking.

I took this lens as a whale lens along with the Nikon D5000. After a couple of months of use, I realized that I expected much more from him. But I understood in which direction I should move in the future and which lens I would get after that. If you don't mind spending 10,000 to determine your preferences, then this is your choice. The most frustrating thing was the sharpness - he had "no" =(

So play around and be disappointed in the potential of the DSLR. Changing to 18-55 is a stupid idea, given the difference in price more than twice. The smaller brother has at least a macro. A good zoom soap box will be more convenient and not much different in quality. A good lens costs good money if there is no money, and hunting for good shots manual fixes to help. Slowly but surely, and much more interesting!