Nikkor lower end zooms?

mikoh4792 · Dec 24, 2014

Is the 18-140 on par in terms of image quality with the 16-85 and 24-85?

goodguy · Dec 24, 2014

mikoh4792 said:
Is the 18-140 on par in terms of image quality with the 16-85 and 24-85?

18-140mm VR is a pretty new lens so I didnt get to see a lot of info on it.
Kay from DigitalRev TV likes it but its a good kit lens, I dont think you will see a huge difference between it the 18-105mm VR or 16-85mm VR
These are all very capable lens, even the 18-55mm can produce good images but these lenses are very limiting for good lighting condition, if most your photography is done in good light then there is no problem using any of these lenses.
I made a little test with my buddy, we were on a trip both using our D7100.
I had my Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G and he had the kit lens 18-105mm VR and we used the lenses and swapped them.
When I got home I honestly couldnt tell if the pictures I saw were made with the 18-105mm or the 24-70mm.
But there was plenty of light and most shots had fast shutter speed and 100ISO

tirediron · Dec 25, 2014

goodguy said:
...I made a little test with my buddy, we were on a trip both using our D7100. I had my Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G and he had the kit lens 18-105mm VR and we used the lenses and swapped them.
When I got home I honestly couldnt tell if the pictures I saw were made with the 18-105mm or the 24-70mm.
But there was plenty of light and most shots had fast shutter speed and 100ISO

^^This^^ Under good conditions, it will be almost impossible to tell whether it was a top-end or consumer-grade lens. What one is paying for when one pays $1500 - 2500 for a zoom lens is a large, constant aperture (f2.8 from one end to the other not, f4.5 - 6.3) better coatings so that you have less CA and ghosting, and more attractive flare. Remember that even the lowliest of lenses, the 18-55 has millions of dollars of R&D behind it, and is, in the proper circumstances, a very capable piece of glass!

goodguy · Dec 25, 2014

tirediron said:
goodguy said:

...I made a little test with my buddy, we were on a trip both using our D7100. I had my Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G and he had the kit lens 18-105mm VR and we used the lenses and swapped them.
When I got home I honestly couldnt tell if the pictures I saw were made with the 18-105mm or the 24-70mm.
But there was plenty of light and most shots had fast shutter speed and 100ISO

Click to expand...

^^This^^ Under good conditions, it will be almost impossible to tell whether it was a top-end or consumer-grade lens. What one is paying for when one pays $1500 - 2500 for a zoom lens is a large, constant aperture (f2.8 from one end to the other not, f4.5 - 6.3) better coatings so that you have less CA and ghosting, and more attractive flare. Remember that even the lowliest of lenses, the 18-55 has millions of dollars of R&D behind it, and is, in the proper circumstances, a very capable piece of glass!

Absolutly, for me the true magic of the fast zoom lenses is their flexibility and not so much their IQ.
I love the fact I can use 2 lenses (24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8) in almost any lighting condiditon.
It just helps a lot but in good lighting condition and even not perfect lighting condition its going to be a serious work of pixel peeping to find the difference between basic zoom lens to a pro lens.

As I mentioned in other posts I also own a Nikon D60 and on it I have the 18-55mm VR lens.
I try my best not to use any other lens on this old lady.
And the results I am getting in good lighting condition are so good I bet most people will not know the different pictures between it and the D750 with the 24-70mm mount on it.

greybeard · Dec 25, 2014

Nikon may make some cheap plastic mount lenses that rattle and feel very so so, but their image quality is still first rate. With Nikon, the more you pay, the better the build and low light performance.