Lens review: Nikkor 18-105VR vs Nikkor 18-200VR
This article is the first in a “versus” series. Since I for the moment have two cameras with almost identical image quality, the D90 and the D300 (if you are not convinced, see the first part of my D90 review), it is relatively easy for me to do comparision tests with different lenses. The first contenders - the new Nikkor 18-105VR on a D90 compared to the Nikkor 18-200VR superzoom on the D300.
The 18-105VR is Nikons newest addition to the ever expanding 18-xxx line. I thought it might be interesting to compare it too the 18-200VR (which I have reviewed before, see here). I want to point out that this is not about the cameras (they are reviewed here and here), but I decided to keep the same lens/body combinations during the test if someone does chooses between these two particular sets.
So lets weigh in the contenders. The D90/18-105VR combo weighs 1,152 g.
Oops. The D300/18-200VR combo weighs a more hefty 1,547 g. It is a difference you can feel on your shoulder.
The lenses:
So it is easy to do the math. If we switch lenses a D90/18-200VR weighs 1,324 g and a D300/18-105VR weighs 1,375 g.
And as a special service to those thinking of using an 18-200VR or 18-105VR on a Nikon D40/60 sized body:
The difference in size between the lenses is not as big as one would expect, given the weight difference. However the 18-200VR is more front heavy, giving it a slightly less optimal balance, at least on the small D90. In the photo below we see one of the signs that the 18-200VR is a more expensive lens - the steel bajonet. How much durability suffers with the plastic mount on the 18-105, I cant really tell. But surely a metal mount inspires more confidence.
But, the plastic mount aside, the build of the 18-105 feels rather good. The mechanics are smooth, especially the zoom action. The autofocus is the more advanced version with full time manual override, in contrast to the cheaper micro AF-S found on lenses like the 18-55 and the 55-200.
VR and AF
The 18-105VR has the simpler kind of stabilization, VR I, while the 18-200VR has a more advanced version, VR II. In practical use I could not find any consistent difference, the VR seems equally effective on both lenses. It is possible that the softer shutter/mirror action of the D90 cancelled out the VR II advantage of the D300/18-200 combo.
These samples are shot at 1/15 s, 105 mm, ISO 1600. D90/18-105 on top, D300/18-200 bottom.
Full size image here.
I have not made any special tests of the autofocus speed or accuracy. The impression is that they are about the same. I have made light action shots with both - see the D90 review (the dog shots) and the 18-200VR review, but they should not be a match for a lens like the 70-200VR 2.8.
Image quality
OK - over to images. First one thing I would like to mention. All images were shot as RAW+jpeg medium. Once opened up in RAW with CS3/ACR one thing was clear. Nikons in-camera processing in both the D90 and the D300 is removing CA in jpegs and quite succesfully. There has been some debate over if the D90 really has the CA-removing function - now that is settled.
Here is sample that shows how CA is automatically removed in jpegs (D90/18-105VR, 18 mm).
Full image:
100 percent crops, RAW file on top, jpeg below:
I imagine that the same processing is carried over in Nikon Capture NX, but for different reasons I prefer to work in ACR/Photoshop. Since many of the test shots were made in low winter sun in contrasty light, I prefer to take advantage of the CA-removing function, and the images shown in the article are jpegs. (It was also very hard to see any sharpness advantages of the RAW-files, so it should not influence the test much.) Sharpening is the same on all compared images, USM 100/0.5/0 in Photoshop. Picture style normal (default), ADL off. Exposure varies slightly on some images because of the difference in metering between the cameras. I realize that that can have some influence on the results, but what I write is based on more images than these shown here.
Wide
Sample 1, 18 mm, 1/250s, F8, ISO 200. Top images/crops are from D90/18-105, D300/18-200 below (same goes for the other comparisons):
100 percent crops:
Sample 2, 18 mm, 1/200 s, F7.1, ISO 200:
(D90/18-105 on top, as before)
100 percent crops:
I have of course made more images at full wide angle besides these. My opinion is that the two lenses are very close in sharpness at 18 mm. So lets move a little further, to around 50 mm.
D90 18-105VR top image, D300 18-200VR below:
There is a difference in exposure, 1/250s, F 8 on the D90/18-105VR image, 1/200s F 7.1 on the D300/18-200VR (both at ISO 200). However, it is hard too see any difference in sharpness.
The 18-105VR has more resistance to CA and straylight, which plays out in high contrast images like the one below (also at 50 mm, D90/18-105VR top):
At the longer end the 18-105VR pulls ahead with a slight sharpness advantage that is consistent in all test images. D90/18-105VR top, D300/18-200VR below:
For a comparison of the NEF/RAW-files at 105 mm in larger size, go here. (D300/18-200 left, D90/18-105VR right.)
And this is how far you reach with the 18-200VR. A little softer than at 105 mm.
Colors, contrast, tonality
You can not judge resolution on images in 980 pixels size, but I think they have a value in judging more subjective image quality factors as colors, contrast and tonality. I have made a small test gallery with five images in 980×651 pixels size where you easily can switch between the renderings from the 18-105VR and the 18-200VR. See the gallery here. I think you will agree that the lenses are hard to tell apart in these regards.
Conclusion
To summarize my views - the 18-200 helds up well in sharpness in the wide and medium range, but is more prone to CA. At the long end the 18-105VR is sharper. The 18-200 loses a bit more at 200 mm, but this is after all a 11x zoom. In terms of colors and contrast/tonality the lenses are hard to tell apart. The 18-200 is better built (mostly manifested in the metal bajonet), weighs more and is more front heavy which makes it a little less well balanced. On the other hand the 11x zoom range is a big advantage for trying out different compositions and angles. The 5.8x zoom of the 18-105VR is versatile, but does not give you quite the same powerful feeling as the 18-200VR.
The 18-105VR must be considered a bargain at the price you can get it as a kit lens. A well corrected, sharp flexible lens, a good compromise in terms of versatility and portability. Which one should you choose? Well, personally I have long thought about the 18-200VR, but the deal on the 18-105VR was too good to pass up.
TekSavvy | Jan 11, 2009 | Reply
Thanks, very informative!
Ton Eppenhof | Jan 16, 2009 | Reply
Thank you very good info indeed. I feel a lot happier now going for the 18-105VR.
staneC | Jan 18, 2009 | Reply
Nice work. 18-105 is bargain indeed. And very nice lens.
jackz | Jan 18, 2009 | Reply
Many thanks for this interesting comparison, especially regarding VR I vs. VR II. You mention that a possible advantage of the 18-200 on the D300 may have been cancelled out by the D90’s softer shutter mechanism. Did you happen to test the effectiveness of the two lenses’ vibration reduction on the same body (either D90 or D300)? I think this should be very interesting for everybody who’s considering both lenses for the same body.
PL | Jan 19, 2009 | Reply
To jackz,
No, sorry, I did not test the VR on the same body. I did not expect any differences. For the moment I dont have access to the 18-200VR (it is a borrowed lens), but I might do a test with some of my other VR lenses to see if there is any difference between the D300 and D90.
jackz | Jan 19, 2009 | Reply
Ok, thanks anyway. If you ever happen to borrow the 18-200 again, this would be very interesting I think. I’d love to know whether the 18-200 does any better VR wise on the D90.
PL | Jan 19, 2009 | Reply
To jackz.
I will surely be able to try the 18-200VR (it is my brothers lens) again. Then I surely will check the VR on the D90 compared to 18-105VR. For the moment I have some other things I probably will finish first. Right now I am comparing a 25 years old Nikkor 85 2.0 AI versus the 85 1.8AF. I also plan to try the Canon G10 and some more interesting stuff.
jackz | Jan 19, 2009 | Reply
That sounds excellent, thanks. I’ll be checking back for updated results.
Mas Gaptek | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
So 18-105mm is sharp even at tele-end? Good news.
I wonder which is the sharpest at 200mm : 55-200mm or 18-200mm
I actually only have 55-200mm with D40 kit, and I satisfy enough with the sharpness at 200mm of my lens. Lot better than Sigma APO 70-300mm at 300mm.
PL | Jan 25, 2009 | Reply
The 55-200VR (I have not tried the non-VR version) is sharper at 200 mm than the 18-200VR. There is a comparision in my first 18-200VR review.
andy | Jan 25, 2009 | Reply
I see the 18-200mm has an edge but that could be the D300. The 18-200mm pics are all brighter (slightly). D90 has great CA correction in jpeg mode and the guitar seems over-exposed. Would be best if you can test the lens with the same camera…
nickrbine | Jan 25, 2009 | Reply
Thank you for doing this/ I’ve been looking for a comparison for these two in a loooooong time.
PL | Jan 25, 2009 | Reply
To andy
I dont think the 18-200 has an edge, however it does well considering the range. At the long end the 18-105VR performs better in my experience. I have added a link to a NEF/RAW comparision at 105 mm in larger size (http://www.pbase.com/interactive/image/108515419/original).
D300/18-200 left, D90/18-105 right.
I can see why there could be some concern that I used different cameras. I am personally convinced that it wont tilt the results (as I mentioned in the begining of my text). It is a huge convinience factor when you take 100+ comparision images and you dont have to switch lenses for every shot…
PL | Jan 25, 2009 | Reply
To nickrbine
You are welcome. I guess many people are interested in these two lenses. Both natural choices for DX cameras as general walk around lenses. I am also interested in the 16-85VR, but if I get the possibility to try one remains to be seen.
Maina | Feb 16, 2009 | Reply
Very nice article. But I have a question on a comment you made about the D90 vs D300 mirror action. Are you saying that the D90 has a softer,i.e. quieter mirror than the D90, also, if you have any experience with the D80, would you say the D90 is quieter, or perhaps noticably quieter than the D80?
PL | Feb 17, 2009 | Reply
To Maina
Yes, the D90 has a more quiet and soft mirror/shutter than the D300 (I guess that was what you meant). Sorry, no I have not directly compared the D90 to the D80. But I was pleasantly surprised with the D90 in this regard. The D40 is even more quiet, while the D200 is louder, about the same as the D300.
Maina | Feb 17, 2009 | Reply
Thanks for the reply PL about the mirror slap. For some reason, I find the sound annoying at quiet gatherings like kids band concerts or weddings. Actually, as a side note, would Live View work hand held at a band concert or a wedding when the bride and groom are standing at the alter? I would think it would because there aren’t moving objects. I enjoy using the 18-200 and find I really like the VR on it. Can’t compare it to others though. I do find it somewhat soft on the long end similar to your findings, but it just has so much convenience going for it.
PL | Feb 18, 2009 | Reply
To Maina
The shutter/mirror sound can definitly be disturbing sometimes, I agree. I dont think Live View helps much with the sound either, even if it is split in two parts (mirror up -shutter release/mirror down). Fully agree about the 18-200VR lens also. The convinience factor is huge.
Sam | Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
Excellent analysis. Very useful for me since I have all three lenses (18-105, 18-200, and 55-200 all VR) and I want to keep only one of them. Your fine article makes it easy to decide. Thanks for sharing your findings.
Sam
PL | Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
Thanks Sam!
Jeffrey | Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
Hi PL,
Another good review from you !
After see comparison between D90+18-105 and D300+18-200, it’s no brainer to choose the first one as the winner. But both camera setting and lens influence the output. Hard to see which one influence more in the pictures, body or lens ?
PL | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
To Jeffrey,
Glad you liked the review:)
About the different cameras used and how that might influence the results, se my reply to andy above.
amateur | Mar 7, 2009 | Reply
i’m a novice at this. but i want to know , if you wantto take pictures of children performing on stage, what is the best lens (range) to buy?
PL | Mar 7, 2009 | Reply
amateur,
It depends much on the light and how close you can get to the action. An 85 1.8 AF is a good bet, but the autofocus does not work on a D40/60 which requires AF-S lenses for autofocus. Some other options that does work on the D40/60 is the new 50 1.4 AF-S (may be to short), the 105 2.8 AF-S VR Micro, the Sigma 50-150 2.8 HSM or the 70-200 VR 2.8 (expensive).
Chris | Mar 20, 2009 | Reply
Looks to me that the 18-200 is the much better lens overall. I still can’t get over the cheap plastic mounting bracket of the 18-105. What a joke. I wouldn’t buy it for that reason alone.
The pics of the 18-200 looked superior also. Nikon should be ashamed of the horrible build “quality” of the 18-105. It is a joke.
Scientist | Mar 20, 2009 | Reply
What the hack!
Different body with different lenses!
Comparison should be done on one body with different lenses attached.
You can’t say this lens is better than with this comparison.
Not all people have two bodies but most people have more than one lenses.
If you don’t want to switch the lenses in every test, use them on two D90 or D300.
Pic sharp is not depend only on the lens but also depend on the body and combination.
PL | Mar 20, 2009 | Reply
Scientist,
take a look at the images under the headline “Take the D90 vs D300 test” in my D90 review page here: http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/?p=371
See If you can see any differences and pick out the right camera/image combinations. I personally find that very hard. Shot in RAW and converted in ACR the files are virtually identical.
Adrian | Mar 23, 2009 | Reply
For Chris:
Who told you that steel is more expensive than this special engineered “plastic”?
This is a high grade TYPE of plastic specially engineered to serve the purpose it was meant for + considers the weight.
In addition the 18-105 is a newer product and this for it also gives better results in its range.
I agree generally that cheap stuff is worth than pricy stuff, but the test show so there is no question about these two lenses.
When you print your photos you only can print the shot, the steel parts in your lens won’t appear!!!
If the picks look better with the plastic lens, that is a good reason to buy it!
Good luck with your 200 VR!
bigbossman | May 11, 2009 | Reply
I have both, the 18-105 and 18-200, on my D300. After appr. 100 test shots from a tripod, I found the 18-105 to be noticeably sharper than the 18-200 across the whole range.
Handheld, quite some surprise: The VRI on the 18-105 is less effective. Once the 18-200 has focused, there is a silent “click” and even at 200mm, the image is stable. Not so on the 18-105 which exhibits small image movement at the long end.
So, in a nutshell, no clear winner to me:
Pro 18-200: 200mm, better VR, better built quality. Avoiding the weak aperture/focal length spots greatly helps to improve image quality.
Pro 18-105: Sharper, esp. in the corners. Shorter tele range, so less flexible. Less efficient VR which shoulbe be no issue for shooters with a steady hand.
So, there ain’t no free lunch as the saying goes. I keep both lenses.
Christine | Jul 10, 2009 | Reply
Thanks - this was exactly the report I wanted to read. Now off to do a google search to see if there’s been reported issues with plastic mounts ..
Anonymous | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply
I enjoyed the review, but I agree with comments about testing on two different bodies. The color and range look consistently different to me across some of the upper and lower shots, and this leaves us to wonder about the contribution of the lens vs. the camera. Nevertheless, real-world comparisons between comparable lenses are quite informative.
Ateeq | Aug 28, 2009 | Reply
A very useful review.
I am about to buy my first DSLR, i was opting for a D90+ 18 200 VR lens, now after reading this review, i am thinking 0f staying with the kit lens…. 18 105 VR lens
Thanks for the info
Maxx65 | Oct 13, 2009 | Reply
Unless, of course, you know different. ,
Coder99 | Oct 22, 2009 | Reply
Because the legislature and executive keep a tab on one another, as the American founding fathers intended. ,
Arnold42 | Oct 23, 2009 | Reply
The same is true of editors. ,
competitive intelligence | Nov 23, 2009 | Reply
Hello,
i registered because i think this is the right place for me.
bye
competitive intelligence
Ateeq | Nov 27, 2009 | Reply
I dont understnd posts by
Maxx65 | Oct 13, 2009
Arnold42 | Oct 23, 2009
ckar | Dec 5, 2009 | Reply
thanks for the review. I am interested in doing mainly family photos (kids). Do you think the two lens kit 18-55 , 55-200 is a good choice?
It would be nice to not have to change lenses.
PL | Dec 6, 2009 | Reply
Hi ckar
I think the two lens combo is good, but if you dont want to switch lenses the 18-105 or the 18-200 are also good. But if you want to shot family photos inside without flash, I think the 35 1.8 is the best choice.
Vi | Dec 16, 2009 | Reply
Hi,i’m a really happy owner of a 18-105 on a d60,i love the lens and i think that was a true bargain for 200 euros..the only thing i’m a bit concerned of is this infamous plastic mount.i mean,i usually don’t switch lenses so much and for now,there’s nothing to be concerned of,the mount seems solid enough..but i heard of brokne plastic mounts and you see,since i’m a student and almost always in “dire straits” a broken 18-105 would be a catastrophe…what do you think about the mount?
PL | Dec 16, 2009 | Reply
Hi VI
I dont know, I would prefer a metal mount myself, but I have never had any trouble with any of the plastic mount lenses I have used or owned.
Rafal | Dec 20, 2009 | Reply
Thanks for the great review, and above comments were also handy. I purchased my D300s today with 18-105 VR lens. Who cares about steel bayonet unless you change 100 times a month, for casual shooter it’s good enough and picture quality is excellent. If this plastic breaks, so what, the lens have 5 years warranty here.
dirk | Dec 28, 2009 | Reply
i was lookiong for a review like this one , glad to see i choose the best lens the 18-105 since it is sharper , cheaper too i do not mind the plastic mount ..
Alex | Jan 6, 2010 | Reply
I have the D90 + 18-105. I dropped the camera (in a case) from about 1.5ft onto snow covered concrete. The plastic mount cracked off.
I shall certainly NEVER be buying a plastic mount lens again! (and will be investing in a heavily padded case!)
aaa | Feb 3, 2010 | Reply
asdasd
Eddie | Feb 26, 2010 | Reply
I have D90 + 18-105.
I was looking for 18-200 to replace my 18-105. Should I do that? Any thoughts?
Or should I rather compliment my 18-105 with something else? Advises welcome.
gwen | Mar 22, 2010 | Reply
hello, i am planning to buy my first dslr. i am looking into the d5000 and a 18-105mmVR lens. what do you think?
Saikat | Apr 2, 2010 | Reply
It is a good review no doubt.
But i heard form another review that the 18-105mm is soft in the corners at 18mm if you are looking closely. Is it true?
Susan K | Apr 8, 2010 | Reply
I’m glad I did a search for this subject - thanks for the valuable info (and comments). I have been salivating over the D90 for quite awhile. I’ve gotten very good shots with my 18x zoom FujiFilm camera, but find that the slow shutter speed makes me miss too many shots. I’m nervous, however, that the small zoom on the 18-105 (even on the 18-200) will frustrate me. However, since it will undoubtedly be a better lens, will that make the quality of the picture after cropping so it won’t make that much difference? Sorry, I’m new in DSLR. I disliked my film DSLR because I didn’t like changing lenses - I’m looking for one lens that will work well for everything!
PL | Apr 8, 2010 | Reply
Eddie,
hard to answer, depends on your priorities.
PL | Apr 8, 2010 | Reply
Saikat,
Allmost all of the wide zooms are a little soft in corners at the widest setting, the 18-105 is not bad compared to most others.
PL | Apr 8, 2010 | Reply
Susan K,
I not sure you can crop out all the difference, but overall the advantage in IQ and handling is huge. The last is of course subjective, but that is my view based on recent use of a superzoom.
Susan K | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Thanks - I’ll continue to save for the P90!
andy | Jun 17, 2010 | Reply
excellent review, thanks. d300 images just seem to be generally brighter, don’t they?
MC | Jul 1, 2010 | Reply
Thanks for the useful review
Bruce | Jul 8, 2010 | Reply
PL-
Awesome review. THANKS! This is the only vs review of these two lenses on the net.
I am new to photography and would rather get a variety of lenses to learn the trade.
The price difference of these two lenses is so large that I can’t rap my head around buying the 18-200VR.
I think the 18-105VR as an everyday lens and the 70-300 for the extra zoom for wildlife photography would make better use of the money.
behzad | Jul 14, 2010 | Reply
Thanks alot for review. I recently bought a D5000 with 18-55 but it’s focus speed really low and in some situation it could not focus. The money is an issue for me then did u offer me to move 18-105 or not.
My filed is Kid photo and Ceremony.
Thank you again.
anand prasanna | Jul 30, 2010 | Reply
sir,
thanks. the review of these two lens helped me to go for d90 plus 18-105 kid lens.
prasanna,bangalore,karnatak,india
anand prasanna | Jul 30, 2010 | Reply
sir,
thanks.very informative review. i got d90body with kit lens 18-105 lens. satified with the results.
thank you once again sir.
anand prasanna
Mohammad Javad | Aug 28, 2010 | Reply
Dear Mate;
thank you very much for the in detail information.