I see these lenses on ebay going for 200+ and have good ratings, i dont understand however why it is so much more than the 18-55, which doesnt seem to be that much of a sacrifice.

yep and according to rockwell (ok hes biased but these are both nikkors), the 18-55 is better....

weird huh

If you already have the 18-55, it's not worth getting it. If you're planning on getting the D50, I'd get the D50 with its 18-55 kit lens.

But if you're planning on getting the D70s, I'd get the D70s with this 18-70 mm kit lens, it's usually an additional $190 more than the D70s body. If you don't like it, you can easily sell it for $200+ use that to buy the 18-55, and keep the difference.

I regularly read Rockwell's site, but you also have to understand that he does more landscape than anything else, and he admits he rarely use both the 18-55 or the 18-70. I agree with him, and I wouldn't buy the 18-70mm by itself, instead I'd go with the 18-55 and the 70-300mm for the same price.

The build quality and optics are also slightly better with the 18-70. Most people do find the limited tele length a little short, so if you were only buying one lens with the d50, the 18-70 would be a better choice. However for the same price you could get both the 18-55 and the 55-200 two lens kit.

rjseeney on what evidence are you basing the fact the build and optics are better on the 18-70? at least rockwell clearly documents why he feels the 18-55 is better

ive been watching a few ebay auctions, the 18-55 55-200 kit lens is actually CHEAPER than the 18-70, by up to a 100, and these are the good sellers (after looking at their feedback and theirs sites on resellers). yeah i think its just hype if its that bad, as much as id prefer one lens , i should get two, and there prolly will be a place where i wish i had more tele!

Mr. Underwater, I went thru the 18-55 or 18-70 dilemna, finally choosing a used 18-70. The biggest dilemna for me is being able to settle in my mind on the quality versus dollars choice in lenses. Is the difference worth it? Build quality? True AF-S? Slightly wider aperture? Sharper? Less distortion? Manual focus without flipping a switch? Maybe. Maybe not. Can you tell, or better can I tell the difference in the final output? Probably not. But I do have piece of mind and that is well worth the extra $$$ difference to me.

audioedge wrote: Rockwell is not the end all source for Nikon info:-). He is an interesting read, but he's a bit over the top for me. For example, he provides reviews for lenses that he doesn't own or use. Most reputable sources favor the 18-70 both optically and in build quality, especially at extremes. However, the average user would be hard pressed to tell the difference at normal print size. I do own both lenses so i do feel qualified to discuss the differences between the 2:G, and the 18-55 is a bit too light and more plasticky feeling than the 18-70. I rarely use the 18-55, mainly because the I find the range a bit limiting.

I don't dislike the lens, and have recommended it many times. If you're buying the D50, i see no reason not to get it. For the same price of the 18-70 bought seperately, you could get the two lens kit, the 18-55 and the 55-200. I see no reason to choose the 18-70 over the 2 lens kit.

I personally sold my 18-55 in favour of getting the 18-70 for the Internal focussing that the 18-70 provides. The front element on the 18-55 rotates while focussing and it was a bit of a pain when using polarizer, ND grad filters.

As a prospective D50 buyer, I'm weighing up 18-55 vs 18-70. Never used either but have the following comments following various sample images & reviews other than the obvioius coverage/aperture/build/weight/price:

18-55 benefits:
Appears to have less distortion at wide end and less vignetting.
Takes smaller / more affordable filters.
Focuses closer.
18-70 benefits:
Appears to have less chromatic aberration.
Non-rotating front for filters
Has a proper manual focus ring.
Indication of focus distance.

Cost (£100 more for 18-70 as part of kit) is real issue to me but it's this last that has me stumped. Could I put up with a lens where it's impossible to set the hyperfocal distance for big DOF. But then, maybe I can put up with the 18-55 until I can afford a lens that's better than either and getting rid of it won't have lost me so many £s. But then again, the 18-70 is a more verasatile one-lens solution (I'm definitely not interested in the 2-lens kit). As you can see, I'm still wavering.

PS I was a bit confused by Ken Rockwell's review - it didn't really say why he thought the 18-55 was better. Any help would be appreciated re my reaching a decison.

David