Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm 1: 3.5-4.5G ED DX SWM IF Aspherical - great small versatile lens for cropped cameras Nikon DX. It was the first zoom lens for Nikon DX cameras, introduced back in 2004 with a camera Nikon D70... I can assume Nikon did their best to make their first crop wagon good. Anyway, Nikon 18-70 / 3.5-4.5G is one of the oldest lenses in Nikon DX format. To replace it was later released Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED SWM Aspherical, which turned out to be worse in general than 18-70mm.
Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70mm f / 3.5-4.5G ED-IF
Main technical characteristics of Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm 1: 3.5-4.5G ED DX SWM IF Aspherical:
| Review Instance Name | Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm 1: 3.5-4.5G ED DX SWM IF Aspherical Ø67 Made in Thailand US3540898 |
| Basic properties |
|
| Front Filter Diameter | 67 mm, plastic thread for filters |
| Focal length | 18-70 mm EGF for Nikon DX cameras is 27-105 mm |
| Zoom ratio | 3.89 X (usually rounded to 4) |
| Designed by | for digital cameras Nikon DX |
| Number of aperture blades | 7 rounded petals |
| Tags | focal lengths for 18, 24, 35, 50, 70, mm, bayonet mount mark and hood mounts. Window with focus distance scale in meters and feet. |
| Diaphragm | 18 mm from F / 3.5 to F / 22. 70 mm from F / 4.5 to F / 29. The lens is deprived of the aperture control ring, control is via the camera menu (G - lens type) |
| MDF (Minimum Focus Distance) | 0.38 m over the entire range of focal lengths, maximum magnification ratio 1: 6.3 |
| The weight | 390 g |
| Lens hood | Nikon HB-32, bayonet type, plastic, the following lenses use the same lens hood: |
| Transportation | With a soft cover CL-0915 |
| Manufacturer country | Thailand, inscription on the lens: “MADE IN THAILAND” |
| Period | Since January 2004, the time to stop production is unknown. |
| Instructions | View–> |
| Price |
Nikon 18-105mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED Nikkor VR AF-S SWM DX IF Aspherical and Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70mm f / 3.5-4.5G ED-IF
Nikon 18-70 / 3.5-4.5G is a good all-rounder, its EGF is 27-105 mm. This range of focal lengths is very often used on cropped cameras. Lens fit for any simple photo tasks.
Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70mm f / 3.5-4.5G ED-IF
The lens has internal focusing - When zooming and focusing, the front lens does not rotate. Lens autofocus is surprisingly fast... The lens even has a focusing distance scale, which is often a luxury for a budget lens. Also, the lens has a 'M / A - M' focus mode switch. In the 'M / A' mode, automatic focusing with manual focus priority is available - this means that manual focusing is always possible without having to move the lens to the 'M' position.
Unlike many lenses of the Nikon DX series, such as 18-55, 18-105, 18-135, 18-200, etc. Nikon 18-70mm f / 3.5-4.5G uses a large and powerful focus motor ring type.
Funny but even more advanced zoom lenses by type Nikon 18-105mm f / 3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX Nikkor и Nikon 18-135mm f / 3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor do not have 'M / A' focus mode.
Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70mm f / 3.5-4.5G ED-IF
In manual focus mode, the focus ring rotates approximately 120 degrees, as for a whale lens, manual focus is surprisingly convenient. The zoom ring is rubberized, but the focus ring is not. The minimum focusing distance is 38 centimeters, which allows you to shoot macro with an increase of 1: 6,3.
Bokeh lens. The rounded aperture blades make almost even circles in the blur zone.
My copy has come a long way in life, after which the zoom system got a little loose. The lens itself is made quite high quality, it even has a metal mount. By the way, Nikon 18-70 / 3.5-4.5G will automatically focus on all Nikon camerassince the lens has a built-in focusing motor SWM. I used NIkon 18-70 mm on cameras without any problems Nikon D40, D40x и Nikon D80.
Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70mm f / 3.5-4.5G ED-IF on a Nikon D40x camera
Comes with a lens Hood HB-32. The lens hood can be installed back-to-front, while it will be difficult to use the lens, as access to the zoom ring will be lost.
Optical design of Nikon 18-70nn AF-S
The lens consists of already 15 elements in 13 groups, moreover, one element is aspherical, and three elements are made of special ED low-dispersion glass. I believe that for a whale lens, the presence of such a number of special elements that can improve image quality is a very serious indicator. You can read more about all the optical circuits of Nikon DX lenses. here.
Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70mm f / 3.5-4.5G ED-IF
If you choose a relatively cheap universal zoom, perhaps the following plate will be useful in this:
Tablet comparing budget zooms
NIkon 18-70mm AF-S stands out for its aperture F / 4.5 at maximum zoom position. Aperture at F / 4.5, 1,55 times more than F5.6. 2/3 stops of aperture gain are not so much important for faster shutter speeds as for comfortable sighting and autofocus. You can read more about focusing at different maximum values of the F number. here, but you can read how to take pictures without hand blur here.
Dimensions of some lenses: Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1: 3.5-5.6GII ED SWM Aspherical and Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm 1: 3.5-4.5G ED DX SWM IF Aspherical and Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-135mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED SWM IF Aspherical и Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED SWM VR IF Aspherical
Sample Photos
All photos in the first two galleries without treatment. Only reduced size to 3 megapixels and imprinted data from EXIF. The image from the lens suffers from severe distortion and vignetting at 18mm. Sharpness is not the best, but quite normal for such a lens; sharpness at the corners of the frame drops noticeably. But the lens perfectly holds back light. Due to the 7-petal diaphragm with rounded petals, it is difficult to achieve star effect with strong light sources.
Nikon 18-105mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED Nikkor VR AF-S SWM DX IF Aspherical and Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm 1: 3.5-4.5G ED DX SWM IF Aspherical
My thoughts are:
Nikon 18-70 / 3.5-4.5G is much better than Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED SWM Aspherical и Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1: 3.5-5.6GII ED SWM Aspherical... Used cost Nikon 18-70 / 3.5-4.5G is mere pennies. For example, at one time I bought myself a Nikon 18-70 / 3.5-4.5G for only 130 USD, it became a universal lens for home use on my cropped cameras. I've changed Tamron AF 17-50mm f / 2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon on NIkon 18-70, because Tamron in 2 years just crumbled into pieces, and I have no regrets about it. True, my copy of the NIkon 18-70 was not as sharp as expected. When choosing such a lens, be careful, as there are lenses with different image quality. Nikon DX Lens Considerations here, and a list of all Nikon DX lenses can be viewed here.
The masters who repair the lens claim that the Nikon 18-70 / 3.5-4.5G built-in focus motor is noticeably better than the Nikon 18-55 (all models), Nikon 18-105, Nikon 18-135.
Thank you the store www.fotika.com.ua behind provided by Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm 1: 3.5-4.5G ED DX SWM IF Aspherical lens, which I took to create photos with its appearance.
Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70mm f / 3.5-4.5G ED-IF
Lens prices in popular stores can look at this link.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
An accurate list of all Nikon DX Nikkor lenses
- 10.5 mm/ 2.8G AF Fisheye [gold ring]
- 35 mm/1.8G AF-S
- 40 mm/2.8G AF-S Microphone
- 85 mm/3.5G AF-S VR Microphone
- 10-20 mm/4.5-5.6G AF-P VR
- 10-24 mm/3.5-4.5G AF-S
- 12-24 mm/4G AF-S [gold ring]
- 16-80 mm/ 2.8-4IN AF S VR [gold ring]
- 16-85 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR
- 17-55 mm/2.8G AF-S [gold ring]
- 18-55 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-S [black / silver]
- 18-55 mm/3.5-5.6GII AF-S [black / silver]
- 18-55 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR
- 18-55 mm/3.5-5.6GII AF-S VR
- 18-55 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-P
- 18-55 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-P VR
- 18-70 mm/3.5-4.5G AF-S
- 18-105 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR [Thailand / China]
- 18-135 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-S
- 18-140 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR [Thailand / China]
- 18-200 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR [Japan / China]
- 18-200 mm/3.5-5.6GII AF-S VR
- 18-300 mm/3.5-5.6G VR
- 18-300 mm/3.5-6.3G VR
- 55-200 mm/4-5.6G AF-S [black / silver, Japan / China]
- 55-200 mm/4-5.6G AF-S VR
- 55-200 mm/4-5.6GII ED VR
- 55-300 mm/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR
- 70-300 mm/4.5-6.3G AF-P
- 70-300 mm/4.5-6.3G AF-P VR
Results
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm 1: 3.5-4.5G ED DX SWM IF Aspherical is a good all-round lens for Nikon DX cameras. The lens has a good price / performance ratio and fast internal autofocus. Many amateur photographers bypass this old man, but as practice has shown, the Nikon 18-70mm is a really good lens.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
but why use 55-300? thanks for the tips!) I’ll look at 18-140, just this 18-70 is inexpensive, but I have a crisis now :)))))
I think I’m not mistaken if I say that 55-300 is the most sold by ads.
photographed planes at an air show, model aircraft. 55mm did not like taking pictures of people on the street, the whale is more convenient and the colors are better. Well, you have to go far. it is subjective
I tried to photograph the performance from the last row, everything is fine, the more the scene is well illuminated
in our city I don’t sell lenses at all)) I didn’t even see the 55-300))) although I really need this lens)
please tell me, what lens cap does it need in diameter ??? 52 mm is suitable?
And read the characteristics poorly?
Good day.
A problem with the budget. I read it both ways.
Nikon D7000
I would like a direct comparison of the lenses
Nikon 18-105 and Tamron 18-200
as I understand it, both the plastic mount is there and there,
the reliability is the same, the first wins VR,
and 18-70 mount metal, but old.
in a trip.
Not a demanding user.
Just ask no one.
Thank you.
Arkady, thank you very much for your blog, and in particular for this review too. This review helped me choose a more or less normal and budget universal lens. I bought this one (in England) for about £ 70 and was very pleased with the quality of the lens and photography. The only nuance is the fixation of the hood. When it is fixed on the lens by clicking on the marker points, it is by no means very difficult to remove it. I'm sure that trying to do this, I almost broke the lens. I had to hold by the trunk and shoot, but I didn't think of it and held the camera. (It's good that the D300s camera is made of some kind of alloy, otherwise it would have broken everything!) So, after that I swore to wear it and not touch it. It's very hard to shoot! Oksana
Arkady, give advice: there is Sigma 28-70 2.8 (there is not enough corner in the room, the carcass is D300s), is it worth changing, say by 18-70 or 18-105, well, or something universal in general? Thank you !!!
If 2.8 you do not need, then it is quite possible to replace. For your sigma is far from super, unfortunately, and there is not enough sharpness and contrast, and most importantly, it is a full frame. I would not change for 18-70 or 18-105 - it would be a pity for the lost aperture ratio. Can replace 17-50 2.8os with sigma? It is sharp, stubble and wide angle. Well, light, works fine at 2.8. I would take it better. Well, or cheaply 16-85, if you find and do not need aperture ratio. Still a native lens. I've been shooting them quite often lately, because the quality is good, and there is already enough light on the street.
You can say that 18-105 is noticeably inferior in the picture in something 16-85?
Yes, it is absolutely inferior, albeit not much. In the corners, a drop in sharpness is noticeable in 18-105 much stronger. Plus, at the extreme positions of the zoom, sharpness decreases and distortions increase. HA is also somewhat larger, although not critical. Still purely subjective, the color rendition is a little different at 16-85, but maybe it's just my assumptions.
Plus, for me, extra 2mm at the wide end is more important than 20mm at the long end. It is always possible to sprinkle, but to expand it in any way :) In addition to the picture itself and the focal ones, 16-85 has a better assembly, the lens is more reliable. It is better assembled than 18-55, and than 18-105, and even better than 18-70, which recently acquired.
However, given the price of the new 16-85, all these advantages fade, as it seems to me. It is new more than twice as expensive as 18-105. Well, if there is forty on the lens, I would take something more serious, or sigma 17-50 2.8os, or maybe some glass from ff, like 24-70 2.8.
In general, the quality of 16-85 is higher than that of 18-105, but not as much as the price.
Understood thanks.
18-105 in general, a piece of G for me is some kind.
I got the impression that the early 18-70s are sharper than the later ones. Compared 2006, 2008, 2009.
I am a amateur photographer. I will share my thoughts. I own a Nikon D7000, it has a 35mm fix and a full-frame 28-105. Both lenses are excellent, although the 28-105 is a little soapy when wide and open (I think those who need it, will understand me))), and 35 when open suffers from legendary "aberrations". So, the question of a wide angle has long been ripe, but all the finances did not dispose me to buy. But, in the end, I decided and, after reading the reviews, I began to look for the price-quality ratio I needed in the secondary market))) Based on the above, my choice fell on 18-70, because it is both “high-quality” and inexpensive. I met a seller from my city, looked at the lens: weighty, solid, well assembled, without defects. Everything is as in the reviews. I shot a series of test shots and went home to study them on a large monitor. I look at the corners of the multi-colored porridge, although the center of the frame is pretty good. Further, on covered, things get better, although the angles bounce back closer to f9. The purchase did not work out. Found a second copy. Inexpensive, visual inspection: excellent condition, picture quality: "gauno" (although the center of the frame is not bad). At first I thought that I was simply spoiled by the quality of my glasses, which I have, so I am overly biased towards the usual inexpensive staff, from which you should not expect a ringing picture. But. And so, in the context of all these events, having arrived in Kiev, a plastic cap called Nikon AF-S 18-55mm f / 3.5-5.6G VR II DX happened to be in my hands. And I received my sight. The resolution for my 16 MP is simply gorgeous. Stabilization system - no words, it's just beyond praise. On the same day, I went to the store and bought myself one. Practically no choice, at random. Winter, with my HANDS numb with cold, I was amazed and enthusiastic about shooting the evening Khreschatyk at exposures of 1 / 10-1 / 8s, and when I later looked at the footage on a large monitor, I could not believe my eyes: well, this plastic product cannot give such a picture, I thought, however, she was before my eyes. Oto they are also attached. No processing, only conversion and resize. Love ...
…more:
…and further:
...
... and even this:
... and you say 18-70!
Rejoice, but you have not tried the ED GII version yet!
(this is without a stub).
and still I tactilely dislike the version of VRII after VR first :)
I compared the picture (at home with a flash to the ceiling) on different apertures VR and VRII, I did not notice the difference
... sorry, I didn’t indicate, this is the second version. They know how to do it. I am satisfied.
Good evening, Denis. Is the ED GII version really better than vr II? She's older….
It seemed to me better, in sharpness, contrast, after vrI true.
Hello Vladislav
I tested the old GII only in the apartment, it seemed to me better than VR. but when autofocusing, he wedged in half the cases - returned to the seller
VRII compared one copy in an apartment with VR - did not notice the difference
then a year later another VRII instance was compared in sharpness in an apartment with 16-85, VRII showed the best result until it removed the filter from 16-85 (Marumi DHG SUPER LENS PROTECT)
but when I went outside, I was disappointed - there was no sharpness, and it didn’t look like focusing misses. probably such an instance
Well, GII has ED glass, and in later versions only the inscription was left
all that I wrote is my opinion, which may be erroneous
and would like to hear the opinions of other users
Regarding your delight - there are paintings made by talented artists and there are those made by ordinary artists. Only professionals and experts (in everything) can appreciate the beauty. As for your photos, now smartphones will do no worse. Who will be the judge? It seems to me that only Arkady will have his say in this regard.
This is the answer to delight - Oleksandr
Objective focus point at zoom? And at what kind of foci do you have and how can you? Zokrem to a distinct focal trim f3,5, f4?
Aperture when zooming changes evenly, without jerking. So your question is incorrect. And what does it write after shooting in EXIF - yes, do not care, in general.
Good day. What do you recommend from lenses for nikon d3000 from inexpensive lenses?
Hello. Advise if it is worth changing 18-70 to Sigma 17-50 F2.8?
In no way.
These are glasses from different universes. The Sigma 17-50 / 2.8 is the best crop head.
nikon 18-70 is even incorrect to compare with it
Arkady, tell me, please, how much faster does it focus than 18-55 vr? And is the focusing speed comparable to that of 16-85 vr?
Focuses faster than the 18-55 kit.
Lenses 18-70, 16-85, 17-55 (possibly 16-80) - have the fastest autofocusing among all cropped station wagons, they use large ring focusing motors, unlike the small ones in other lenses.
Is in 16-85 is not the same motor as in 18-55?
No, in 18-55 the usual micromotor.
https://radojuva.com/2016/07/nikon-swm-af-s-ring-vs-micro/
this is normal for canon. and Nikon SWM, though not ring
Not far gone. Almost the same
when it was released, it was not a budget lens, it cost almost $ 900, and even then Nikon put normal motors in the lenses, and there is a very fast full-fledged ring motor, so it is one of the fastest cropped zooms from Nikon's family. Everything else can be forgiven for him ... And the luminosity is quite normal for a crop ...
It cost almost 1000 :)
Hello Arkady!
Please tell me which lens to choose:
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm 1: 3.5-4.5G
SIGMA 18-200mm 1: 3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM MACRO
Sigma 17-70 DC 2.8-4.5 Macro (no stub)
read your reviews, very useful and informative
Help with the choice, I will use the Nikon 7000 as a universal lens
I bought a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm 1: 3.5-4.5G ED for ridiculous money. The front lens has slight scratches. There is a lot of rubbish inside. I have a Nikon 7100 camera. There was a conviction that it would not “pull” 24mp. But the result exceeded all my expectations, only after I made the AF fine-tuning in the camera, since there is one in this camera. I am enclosing a photo with an enlarged fragment. Although a very old lens, but wonderful.
of course pulls. I bought it twice on ebay, both have back focus. sharp, but apart from a wide angle. I have a D7100 and a D40. the second camera has no correction, the first -8 solved the problem. focusing is not highty, fidgeting back and forth, possibly due to the fact that it is fast (this is despite the correction), it doesn’t focus on wallpaper in the apartment (it doesn’t even cling to the backlight), unlike my other lenses
sold both at a discount. for portraits, a good lens and in general, but it is probably difficult to find a good one. choosing between 18-55 and 18-70, I would choose 18-70
Here is such a lens, with scratches, with debris, the front lens (this is) the lens block wobbles, without a hood. Tenacious, instant focus. It was just luck!
The trunk is very easily pulled: the gum of the zoom is removed (I pulled it with a toothpick), 1 screw is screwed out under it, the outer part is shifted, and access to the 3 screws is opened. There is video on the Internet
In good magnification https://svs100.jimdo.com/nikon-af-s-nikkor-18-70mm-1-3-5-4-5g-ed/
“Used cost Nikon 18-70 / 3.5-4.5G is mere pennies. ”
Strange, for a price of such a lens we can buy a pair of used 18-105 or used 18-140 and still remain. Is he really that good?)))
Usually at flea markets it is very cheap.
18-70 is generally a class higher than 18-105 and 18-140. He's not so good these days, but pretty interesting.
I think we need to carefully check it before buying, which a beginner can’t do
in general, recently released glass without any signs of use will be better and without any back focuses
A beginner will not buy it, since it is not for sale new. Beginners usually take in a whale from 18-55, 18-105, 18-140, 18-200.
I think that they catch on a metal bayonet with an elastic band and the MA mode. Who in their right mind would take a dark zoom without a stub these days?
In fact, 18-70 at one time cost $ 1000. I repeat, this is a lens with a class higher than 18-105 and 18-140. Of course he is older, somewhat worse, etc. By the way, a distinctive feature of this lens is a ring ultrasonic motor, in contrast to micromotors in 18-105 and 18-140, which also affects the focusing speed, etc. Yes 4.5 versus 5.6 mean a lot of things.
Of course, I do not argue, the choice between 18-70 and 18-140 is obvious :)
Well, in fact, 4.5 versus 5.3 - such an aperture of 70 mm in the 18-105. The difference is about a third of a stop. Against 2-3 stops of the stabilizer. And 18-105 also allows you to “tweak” the focus, although not all the time. I think the main reason for pricing is the praise on the forums.
Yes, the point is not to “tweak the focus”, but in the speed I mentioned above.
Vitaly, you make a conclusion about the quality of the lens based on the comparison of characteristics. For example, the aperture is 4,5 versus 5,3. It's not at all that it is dark or light. The point is its quality - from optics to the case, from the image to work, at the price for which it can be taken (this is often 5-7 thousand rubles, you can not take more expensive). The quality of a lens is rarely expressed in formal performance characteristics, you need to hold it in your hands, shoot, work in different conditions. I tell you with full responsibility that the 18-70 is a good lens both in terms of workmanship and workmanship, as well as picture quality. On its open apertures, it gives a pleasant picture, which, for example, is not available for the 18-55 whale (there was also a G, and a GII is still on the shelf), even if it was equipped with the best stabilizer in the world. At one time, I replaced the whale with this particular zoom lens for street photography, which I do not regret at all. Specifically, according to my copy, I can say that it is especially good work at 70 mm, quite good at 18-24 mm, somewhat worse than the previous ones by 35-50 mm (but still better than the whale 18-55). I have a very positive impression of working 18-70 at 70 mm, which I did not experience at all when trying 18-105 at the same focal point. If you get the opportunity to shoot with it, be sure to try it.
Thanks for the advice. Compared the diaphragm Arkady, I just corrected it.
For example, I do not need a stub, if it's not a telephoto
I wrote here, took 18-70 twice from the Japanese, and both times back focus. and at a wide angle, the picture is not sharp enough (despite the excellent data in dxomark)
but at least I myself now know what kind of glass it is - good, but it is difficult to find a good copy
A purely personal opinion. We pay a lot of attention to technology. Pleasing sharp images. It is clear that they are not needed everywhere. But here the question of color is next. I would say color, not color rendering. Even not very sharp photos with competent color adjustment can look very good. And in some cases, excessive sharpness can interfere with them.
He shot a lot of 18-105 and there was somehow nothing good left, though it was Nikon 3100. Now Nikon7100 from 18-70 is a completely different matter. https://svs100.jimdo.com/nikon-af-s-nikkor-18-70mm-1-3-5-4-5g-ed/ Whether modeling is different, maybe the camera is better. I would like to try a full frame. True, there it will take a little less than 0,5 frames, pixels are smaller, but they are fatter. Who has such experience, write?
Taking a full frame to shoot this 18-70 in DX mode doesn't make sense. Firstly, because a full frame is good for a full frame, and using a full frame in DX mode is not the norm, but an exceptional situation (something like emulating a crop, when you suddenly needed it - but you could sprinkle it on a computer later) ... And secondly, although 18-70 is better than some whales, but still he is average and no more (this is the same whale, just one of the first, when it was still necessary to conquer the market and before the manufacturer began to cut costs for the whale -the lens, saving on everything that is possible). There are lenses for the full frame, and they are better, but, of course, more expensive. So leave 18-70 for the crop. And the important thing is not how “fat” the pixel is, but the quality of the matrix itself. The fat pixels on the crop for the D40 / 50/70 / 70s are not about fat, of course. The D800 has the least fat pixels in the full frame, but it bypasses one of the fattest D700s in the picture.
Hello Valentine and everyone who reads real reviews. Thank you very much for your reply, I would say a knowledgeable person. Perhaps it makes sense to contact you directly, but on the other hand, these questions and answers are read by others, and perhaps it is also interesting for them.
The situation is this: the 7100 camera and three lenses: 18-70, 50 / 1,8D, AF NIKKOR 28-85 1 / 3.5-4.5, the last two were purchased on the assumption that they are full-frame. 50 / 1,8D showed itself perfectly on my crop. It gives a more transparent image with high detail, less blurry, against 18-70 (I recall the development of films, it looks like a developer with glycine) I write the word blurred, maybe I need to write less contrast, but on the other hand they are comparable in contrast, it looks like a small veil and it is viewed in bright areas of the image at 100% magnification. This seems to indicate the quality of the optics. And of course, what to compare the fix and zoom! AF NIKKOR 28-85 1 / 3.5-4.5 some call it plastic (gag) On my crop it is just (as it seems to me) less sharp, but for portraits where crazy sharpness is not needed it is good. And for the full frame, his sharpness should be enough, of course not super sharpness.
I once met an amateur photographer on the street with a D700 and a 0,5 meter long lens, which lens I forgot. You can see a serious amateur, not a amateur, but a pro, although the pros are also often “advanced people” with our hobby. Says 7100 perfectly, and the full frame is just for cropping, well, for posters. There is no point in going over. But here I am collecting a collection of images from different lenses and cameras. And for the most part, still at full frame, the image quality (even at low magnification) is smoother, it enhances the presence effect, which is very captivating. Perhaps this effect is provided by the best matrix (as you wrote). On my site there is a photo from a smartphone. https://svs100.jimdo.com/huawei-gr5/ Crop matrix 1/7. And I really like these pictures, of course the conditions were ideal for shooting. After all this, you’ll think about whether you need a full frame. If there were grandmas, I would take the sea and check it myself.
50mm 1.8D at F4.5 will give a better picture than 18-70 at 50mm - that's it.
Zoom 28-85 on the crop is not so universal, I would really miss the wide angle, so I would not take it for the crop. And in this sense, 18-70 is more convenient.
The D700 will be able to please you with the best picture in some cases, but I would not change the D7100 to the D700 without good reason. You just can get extra expenses without the desired result.
About the lack of sharpness, the failure of contrast, etc. Capture a series in raw and batch (at least native Capture NX-D free) to strengthen the necessary parameters (several methods), upload to jpeg with the desired resolution and compression. For me, the mentioned glasses have sharpness and contrast are normal for their level of manufacture and price.
Hello Valentine!
Thank you for responding. I basically foresaw your answers. Just waiting for confirmation of my thoughts, what would be the right thing to do. I hope that this open correspondence will benefit other amateur photographers. Thank.
Hello Arkady! I bought an 18-70 lens in the secondary market, it illuminates and reddens the picture with terrible force, what is the reason?
Most likely, this question should be asked to the previous owner of the lens.
Thanks for the review! Tell me, does it make sense to change your AF-S DX NIKKOR 18–55mm f / 3.5–5.6G VR II to this one from the review?
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm 1: 3.5-4.5G ED DX SWM IF Aspherical is more interesting focal, three elements ED, M / A mode. But confused by the lack of VR.
Or maybe there are other suggestions? Thank.
If you change, then for something more aperture or longer telephoto.
I recommend looking for used Sigma advanced level with good aperture:
Sigma DC 17-70mm 1: 2.8-4.5
Sigma DC 17-70mm 1: 2.8-4.5 Macro HSM (great balanced option for Nikon)
Sigma DC 17-70mm 1: 2.8-4 OS MACRO HSM
Sigma DC 17-70mm 1: 2.8-4 C (Contemporary) OS HSM MACRO
Sigma DC 18-50mm 1: 2.8-4.5 HSM OS
Or something longer telephoto, there are many options. Starting with Nikon 18-135, 18-105, 18-140, 18-200 and ending with Sigma 18-200.
If only the picture is important, then the shabby and cheap Tamron 17-50 / 2.8 will be optically and aesthetically better than the whale 18-55 in the picture.
Although the native 18-70 is also a decent lens.
Nikon, the lack of VR is absolutely no problem
the problem is to find glass in good condition, which has not been produced for many years ...
I had 18-70. Then I bought 16-85. Now about 18-70 and I do not remember.
I agree with Arkady about the Nikon 18-70mm 3.5-4.5. At one time I had experience of using it, I have good memories, especially pleased at 70 mm when shooting half-length and "larger" portraits. Proved to be sharp, with really fast focusing. I used it on Nikon d3100, there were no conflicts with the camera. If there were a 2.8 aperture over the entire range, it would not be worth the price)
I have an old Nikon 200. I used the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-70, discussed in this discussion for a long time, was very pleased with its work. I am not a great expert in technology, I want to replace this lens with a similar or better quality, because my old one broke in the fall.
Which is better to buy?
Lyudmila, usually in such cases they recommend a 17-50 / 2,8 sigma tamron with or without VR (tamron). So the development of 18-70 is Nikon 16-85, though it is bigger, heavier and very expensive. 18-105 a good full-time zoom without special claims, also the largest and heavier than 18-70.
I bought this lens in good condition until I figured out what it is. The first thing that seemed strange was that in exife (when opened in native View NX-i) it is called 24-85 / 3,5-4,5G, indicating FR 85mm instead of 70mm and 24mm instead of 18. Why is that? Flashing?
In my copy, it is displayed correctly, in the lens line “18-70mm f3.5-4.5G”.