The lens quality not as good as 1870.. If u wanna cheap lens u better go for 50mm 1.8 .. The focusing grip not as good as 1870 ... Color not gud enuf .. Low light even worse .. And 1 more y u need VR on 1855 .. R ur hand shaking .. Damn weird

Pointless argue with you. You just don't get it.

Wow the 18-55 non VR is the crappiest piece of shizit... [being sarcastic of course]

one of the picture with 18-55 non VR on a d40 not as good as the tamron but yeah... not that bad i think



Camera Nikon D40
Exposure 0.003 sec (1/400)
Aperture f/11.0
Focal Length 18 mm
ISO Speed 1600
Exposure Bias +7/3 EV
Flash No Flash

pardon for the crazy iso setting... was my first ever dslr using manual

I'd like to point out that the colours not good part is a very good one haha. Last I checked, all my nikkors for the past 20 years or so have been giving me the same colours across all types of film and digital bodies. And also... low light not good enough cos its what, 2/3 of a stop slower than the 18-70.

Might want to ask nikon why they put VR on the 16-35 also. Hands shaking? hahaha

Makes for good lazy saturday afternoon humor, no?

hardest challenge in buying cameras.. choosing the right lens ><

What's so great about 17-50mm? why so expensive?

---

Added on November 20, 2010, 5:24 pmand im not saying with the tone saying 17-50mm isnt good

This post has been edited by BenSow: Nov 20 2010, 05:24 PM

if its tammy that you are referring to... then it got something to do with VC and f2.8

owh u wanna compare picture .


but ur picture with the BEST lens is better rite .
anymore picture to show with that kit lens. still i say 1870 is better. but if u wanna learn go for 50mm . the best cheapest lens ever made.

what i can't see your [insert image] here is another 18-55 non vr



Camera Nikon D40
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/2000)
Aperture f/11.0
Focal Length 18 mm
ISO Speed 200
Exposure Bias +7/3 EV
Flash No Flash

This post has been edited by ComradeZ: Nov 20 2010, 05:34 PM

Its expensive because Tamron can get away with it. And Tamron can get away with it because its 1/2 the price of a Nikon 17-55. And Tamron can sell it for less than 1/2 the price because they cut corners. They cut corners like lower build quality (plastic internals and externals), cut some performance that usually people don't see like some vignetting, poor sides when fully open, T-stops that are 1EV lower than F-stops, skip the AF-S (no full time manual override), aluminium mount (vs. chromed brass on Nikon) and other stuff.

Bottom line you get what you pay for.

And Tamron still sells well because everyone who wants to upgrade their lens looks for that magical holy grail of f/2.8. Which is, actually, not as magical as being there at the right place, at the right time with your camera, and having the right lighting conditions, either natural, a tripod, or a flashgun.

I think the 18-55VR is a damn good bargain for its price. Sadly, nobody appreciates that. I'd keep that RM2k and go for a holiday instead.

Lol, why argue about kit lens lah

Kit lens is a primary lens that helps you to learn DSLR, until after you know how to operate the DSLR already, then only go for pro lens and start making money with your photos.

Pro lens can give you sharpness, dof or range you can't achieve with kit lens, but neither 1 lens, they still capture pictures for you. Capture of the moment is still the most important, no?

VR on 18-55 is common, why not? Even pro lens like 16-35 f/4 has VR2, shorter than 18-55 what? Why don't argue on that?

I don't see any problem with people buying 18-55. It's a very convenient lens for normal casual use. Cheap if buy second hand also.

There's no crap lens in this world, lomo lens, jelly lens yada-yada. As long as the lens can focus the object and help you take photo, it's good.

ops another 1 just slipped 18-55 non VR



Camera Nikon D40
Exposure 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture f/5.6
Focal Length 55 mm
ISO Speed 200
Exposure Bias +7/3 EV
Flash No Flash

This post has been edited by ComradeZ: Nov 20 2010, 05:38 PM

lol all spamming pics now. I spam too.


Nikon D40, 18-55 non VR, F11, 1/320, ISO200

This post has been edited by zellleonhart: Nov 20 2010, 05:50 PM

There is no use of comparing lens.. Just try to get the best from the gear that u currently have... Composition, capturing the moments and settings for the particular frame is more important, gears come second... This is wat i get from experience...

So far what I've been seeing in this forum is nothing else than just equipment talk.... very few talking about technique.. its like 80% equipment and less than 20% techniques and skills....


haihz~ why not instead of looking for a expensive lenses and just go with cheap lenses ~.~ not to say that I can't afford but I lost sense of people learning about how to improve themselves rather than gloating about gears ~.~

even Ansel Adams was using a piece of card to vision his pictures back in those ol' days and for me I find it that his pictures were very good very well composed even comparing to modern day technology

This post has been edited by ComradeZ: Nov 20 2010, 05:52 PM

Nikonians here are more gear headed... (not all). See canon thread, you'll be surprised.

same though they are bit by bit talking about techniques thanks to fruitie and goldie

No offense, but i see that most of the new people who just into photography are so worried about gears more than their skill.. Even pros with normal camera can take good picture... So advice is get a grip on ur skill and think about gear later on....

I laughed till I fell from my chair...

this is gear oriented forum, grouped by brands (canon, nikon, sony etc) so it cannot be avoided... But too much talking in forum but without real practicing and skills is useless.

Agree

I prefer newbies to worry how to use the equipment and learn to overcome the limitations rather than whether or not the equipment performs. Every lens have their own characteristics, and it's not about whether or not it's quality is good or not.