Lens Question

[jeytee]

Hi,

I was just wondering if a 2 lens setup with the 18-55mm + 55-200mm or the 18-140mm (although it doesn't cover up to the 200mm range) by itself is better.

This is discounting the value of not needing to switch the lens as often. Or is there an even better option to either of these (keeping in mind costs; nothing over $1000)?

Thanks.

 

[jeytee]

Anyone?

 

[jcdeboever]

Depends on what your using for. Maybe add what your intended use for more of a response.Welcome to TPF.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[astroNikon]

Keep in mind if you need any focal range of 141 to 200, the 18-140 won't be able to do that. So you'll have to crop your image more.

I think the 18-140 is a higher quality lens than the 18-55 & 55-200 combo.
But by no means it is a top quality lens.

What is your camera body, and your intended purpose.
1 lens is a lot easier when traveling than 2 lenses, although those 2 kit lenses are compact.

 

[jeytee]

Oh sorry. I would mostly use it for portraits and cityscape/landscape photos.

Depends on what your using for. Maybe add what your intended use for more of a response.Welcome to TPF.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[jeytee]

I have the Nikon D7100. Sorry for not including that. Is there another recommendation for a general purpose lens you have? (possibly under $1000)

Keep in mind if you need any focal range of 141 to 200, the 18-140 won't be able to do that. So you'll have to crop your image more.

I think the 18-140 is a higher quality lens than the 18-55 & 55-200 combo.
But by no means it is a top quality lens.

What is your camera body, and your intended purpose.
1 lens is a lot easier when traveling than 2 lenses, although those 2 kit lenses are compact.

 

[jaomul]

1000 probably gives better options. All the lenses you mention are nice, but cheaper lenses.

How about the sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS and a 55-300mm Nikon. More range and a faster standard zoom

 

[SquarePeg]

I had both the 18-55 and the 55-200. The 18-55 is decent. The 55-200 is acceptable in good light but even then it leaves a lot to be desired. I've never had the 18-140 but I think I'd take it for the versatility and ease of a single lens over the 18-55/55-200 combo.

I like the Sigma 17-70 and Tamron 70-300 combo that I currently have. The Sigma is a great walk around zoom. The Tamron is new to me but so far I really like having that extra reach.

 

[Derrel]

I've used an 18-55 and an 18-105 VR and the 55-200VR on the Nikon D40...these basic types of lenses have been around for a long time: the 18-55 kit, the 18-1xx with VR, and the low-cost and light 55-200VR lens. All of them have strengths. I think I would pick the 16-140 out of all three of the basic "types". The 55-200 VR is so low-cost, it can easily be picked up without a lot of financial strain. As a ONE-lens, walkaround, or weekend lens, the 18-140 is the current best affordable kit zoom Nikon's come up with. It's not a flawless lens: the corners of the frame never really get to the point where they are equal to the center of the image on high-MP cameras...that's the biggest flaw I could see in the reviews I read on the 18-140...it is not a high-grade, high-performance lens, so if you are expecting ultra high-grade, edge-to-edge crisp cityscapes, I would use another lens for those. Not up on prices....if the 18-105VR is available cheap, maybe look at that too.

 

[nerwin]

What I like about the 18-140 is the fact it has a metal lens mount versus plastic ones of the 18-55 and 55-200.

If you wanted to cover all range, then I'd recommend you taking a look at Nikon's 18-200 VR II. I'm not a fan of super zoom lenses, but it does have decent image quality for what it is.

Other option is the Sigma's Contemporary 17-70 2.8-f/4 OS HSM. They also make a 17-50 2.8 as well, but it's not one of their "newer" lenses.

Its old, but you can get the 18-70 3.5-4.5 lens from Nikon. It doesn't have VR. But it does have nice optics and its a faster lens than the 18-55, 18-105 & 18-140. With the money saved, you could easily pick up a used 70-300 VR and a 35 1.8G and you'll have a decent kit.

 

[jeytee]

1000 probably gives better options. All the lenses you mention are nice, but cheaper lenses.

How about the sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS and a 55-300mm Nikon. More range and a faster standard zoom

Yeah I will definitely check those out! Thanks.

I had both the 18-55 and the 55-200. The 18-55 is decent. The 55-200 is acceptable in good light but even then it leaves a lot to be desired. I've never had the 18-140 but I think I'd take it for the versatility and ease of a single lens over the 18-55/55-200 combo.

I like the Sigma 17-70 and Tamron 70-300 combo that I currently have. The Sigma is a great walk around zoom. The Tamron is new to me but so far I really like having that extra reach.

Thanks for the advice. So you like the 3rd party lenses alot more the Nikkor ones?

I've used an 18-55 and an 18-105 VR and the 55-200VR on the Nikon D40...these basic types of lenses have been around for a long time: the 18-55 kit, the 18-1xx with VR, and the low-cost and light 55-200VR lens. All of them have strengths. I think I would pick the 16-140 out of all three of the basic "types". The 55-200 VR is so low-cost, it can easily be picked up without a lot of financial strain. As a ONE-lens, walkaround, or weekend lens, the 18-140 is the current best affordable kit zoom Nikon's come up with. It's not a flawless lens: the corners of the frame never really get to the point where they are equal to the center of the image on high-MP cameras...that's the biggest flaw I could see in the reviews I read on the 18-140...it is not a high-grade, high-performance lens, so if you are expecting ultra high-grade, edge-to-edge crisp cityscapes, I would use another lens for those. Not up on prices....if the 18-105VR is available cheap, maybe look at that too.

Oh okay. I see what you're saying. So if I were to get a more expensive, less affordable lens, what would be the go to high performance lens that covers the 18-80ish range?

What I like about the 18-140 is the fact it has a metal lens mount versus plastic ones of the 18-55 and 55-200.

If you wanted to cover all range, then I'd recommend you taking a look at Nikon's 18-200 VR II. I'm not a fan of super zoom lenses, but it does have decent image quality for what it is.

Other option is the Sigma's Contemporary 17-70 2.8-f/4 OS HSM. They also make a 17-50 2.8 as well, but it's not one of their "newer" lenses.

Its old, but you can get the 18-70 3.5-4.5 lens from Nikon. It doesn't have VR. But it does have nice optics and its a faster lens than the 18-55, 18-105 & 18-140. With the money saved, you could easily pick up a used 70-300 VR and a 35 1.8G and you'll have a decent kit.

Yeah I'm definitely looking to pick up the 35mm 1.8. I've heard great things about it. Thanks for the suggestions!
I've heard older lens are noticeably worse on newer bodies though.

 

[nerwin]

I've heard older lens are noticeably worse on newer bodies though.

Not at all, my cousin uses the 18-70 on her D3300 and loves it. Its still a modern lens, has AF-S and internal focusing. Its a DX lens too.

I've used older glass before and I don't find a HUGE noticeable difference compared to lenses made today besides the fact (some, not all) older lenses are built far better. But then again, I don't pixel peep.

 

[SquarePeg]

Thanks for the advice. So you like the 3rd party lenses alot more the Nikkor ones?

They're both upgrades from the kit level lenses and I like the prices better than comparable Nikon lenses.

 

[Derrel]

The older 18-70 was a nicely-sized lens. I borrowed one for a very short time. Really a wonderful size and weight. I think it might have been siphoning off sales from higher-priced lenses. For whatever reason, Nikon discontinued it.

I've become less and less inclined to give my opinion on Nikon or other DX lenses over the past couple of years, since I've quite shooting DX cameras, and the new sensors have put more and more demands on the older DX lenses I was familiar with from personal or friend experience. I'll just say this: in zoom lenses, Nikon prices its lenses mostly,not totally, on performance. If you want a better-performing lens, be prepared to shell out $600 or more. If you want higher performance, think closer to $1000. Figure out a focal length range you want, and look there, in Nikon or in another brand. 18-55mm to me was always lacking in top end--I found the 18-55mm focal length range SEVERELY lacking in one thing: lens speed. A 45mm f/5.6 lens? A 55mm f/5.6 lens? Just....no.

I "see" much more telephoto than wide...I always favor more top-end length than I do wider-end wideness, and so to me the 18-55 on DX was just a PITA. That's why I bought the last Nikon DX camera with an 18-105mm VR and a 55-200 VR, in addition to the kit 18-55 that the body was paired with. The 18-55 makes a GREAT body cap.

 

[jcdeboever]

Oh sorry. I would mostly use it for portraits and cityscape/landscape photos.

Depends on what your using for. Maybe add what your intended use for more of a response.Welcome to TPF.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I recommend the 35mm 1.8G. Very sharp. Just don't get to close to face with it.