Rivals that beat Nikkor 18-140

[PropilotBW]

I'm Looking for a replacement for my 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses. I am looking for a one-lens replacement that will be a good walk-around lens.
I'm leaning towards the 18-140 based on reviews.

For a similar price point ($350) what else competes with it's performance?

 

[goodguy]

Well you are looking for a one lens to do it all kind of thing then the 18-140mm is actually a pretty good choice.
Other lenses you can consider it 18-105mm or 18-200mm but from these 3 I would probably go with the 18-140mm if you want to give up your 55-200mm

 

[KmH]

I recommend a faster, used Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

This lens also has a switchable 1:2 Macro capability (close focus) from 35 mm to 85 mm.

Never mind. Your D5100 doesn't have an AF motor in it.

 

[PropilotBW]

Well you are looking for a one lens to do it all kind of thing then the 18-140mm is actually a pretty good choice.
Other lenses you can consider it 18-105mm or 18-200mm but from these 3 I would probably go with the 18-140mm if you want to give up your 55-200mm

Yea, I'm not overly concerned with losing the longer end of the 200mm. I eventually plan buying a 70-300 or similar.
Ive read poor reviews of vignetting and and chromatic aberration on the 18-200, so I'm not trying to overextend the reach.

 

[Vince.1551]

I've tried the 18-105 it's pretty decent. Not sure about the 18-140 my bet is it shouldn't be far or maybe even better.

18-200 - forget it.

 

[JohnS.]

I personally have the 18-105 and love it. It's plenty for me. I'd like to get a 70-300 eventually but that's way later.

I'm also not really a big "enthusiastic" photographer and don't mind vignetting and all that jazz so my opinion may not be that great . I just enjoy taking pictures.

 

[PaulWog]

Well you are looking for a one lens to do it all kind of thing then the 18-140mm is actually a pretty good choice.
Other lenses you can consider it 18-105mm or 18-200mm but from these 3 I would probably go with the 18-140mm if you want to give up your 55-200mm

Yea, I'm not overly concerned with losing the longer end of the 200mm. I eventually plan buying a 70-300 or similar.
Ive read poor reviews of vignetting and and chromatic aberration on the 18-200, so I'm not trying to overextend the reach.

I would pay attention to the focus breathing on the superzoom lenses as well. I know the 18-200 is bad with that, I haven't looked into the 18-140. You end up getting robbed pretty hard on the actual resulting focal length.

 

[Derrel]

I recommend a faster, used Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

This lens also has a switchable 1:2 Macro capability (close focus) from 35 mm to 85 mm.

Never mind. Your D5100 doesn't have an AF motor in it.

The old 2000-era 24-85 AF-D will not work right with most of the d-slrs Nikon has been selling for the past eight full years...

The NEWER 24-85mm AF-S G lens (discontinued, about $300 used) from the mid-2000's era is a better performer than the 2.8~4 AF-D model. The current and the newest NEWEST 24-85 VR-G is optically the BEST of the three AF models, and is available affordably on the used market, since it was the "kit" lens bundled with tens of thousands of D600 and D610 bodies, and was basically given away for literally, almost FREE to jump-start the sales of the last of the D600's sold in the USA, for several months.

But....again...24-85 has always been designed for FX or 135 format film; virtually all Nikon lenses designed for APS-C digital begin at 18mm or 16mm or 17mm focal lengths...the old 2000-era 24-85 f/2.8~4 AF-D is like $670 new, and is a 15 year old design....with only fair optics...we are now up to 24 and 36 Megapixel sensors....that's why there is a BRAND-NEW, modern 24-85 AF-S G with VR, and it's designed for the 24 and 36 MP FX sensors we have today.

Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF Nikkor Test Review © 2004 KenRockwell.com

I would consider the 16-85mm AF-S DX, which is actually a ****useful lens** on ALL of the low-,mid- and highest-end APS-C Nikon bodies, AND which has good optics, and uses a modern filter size

16-85mm AF-S DX Lens Review by Thom Hogan

"Many Nikon DX users had already picked the 18-200mm VR as their walkaround lens, partly because they were seduced by numbers. Quick question, which gives you more range: the 18-200mm or the 16-85mm? The answer might surprise you a bit. The 16-85mm has a horizontal angle of view range of 16 to 73 degrees, the 18-200mm has an angle of view range of 7 to 66 degrees. However, because the 18-200mm changes focal length so much at the long end when focused close, for many situations its angle of view is only 10 to 66 degrees, which is not looking a lot better than the 16-85mm. I personally value those extra 7 degrees at the wide end much more than the extra 6 to 9 degrees at the telephoto end--they make a more dramatic impact on my photography.Bottom line: this new lens has a very useful focal length range, one I like better than and believe is more useful than any of the other consumer DX zooms. That's a pretty positive statement, so the question is whether the other attributes of the lens and its performance hold up to that same "better" level."

and "Performance
A very good performer overall. The 16-85mm doesn't set any performance records, but it also doesn't have any glaring weaknesses.
Autofocus: This lens has the type of AF-S performance we expect. Unlike the least expensive AF-S lenses (the 18-55mm comes to mind), the wave motor in this lens is responsive.
Sharpness: Center sharpness on this lens is pretty darned good at all focal lengths. I don't really measure any differences between the center performance at 16mm and 85mm: it's high and impressive, and it's pretty much that way at maximum aperture. Technically, some of the focal lengths perform slightly better in the central area one stop down, but frankly, it's not enough for me to get excited about"

The way I see it for any DX Nikon owner, buy the USEFUL 16-85mm DX for $629, and NOT the outdated 24-85 AF-D for $699.

 

[PropilotBW]

I recommend a faster, used Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

This lens also has a switchable 1:2 Macro capability (close focus) from 35 mm to 85 mm.

Never mind. Your D5100 doesn't have an AF motor in it.

The old 2000-era 24-85 AF-D will not work right with most of the d-slrs Nikon has been selling for the past eight full years...

The NEWER 24-85mm AF-S G lens (discontinued, about $300 used) from the mid-2000's era is a better performer than the 2.8~4 AF-D model. The current and the newest NEWEST 24-85 VR-G is optically the BEST of the three AF models, and is available affordably on the used market, since it was the "kit" lens bundled with tens of thousands of D600 and D610 bodies, and was basically given away for literally, almost FREE to jump-start the sales of the last of the D600's sold in the USA, for several months.

But....again...24-85 has always been designed for FX or 135 format film; virtually all Nikon lenses designed for APS-C digital begin at 18mm or 16mm or 17mm focal lengths...the old 2000-era 24-85 f/2.8~4 AF-D is like $670 new, and is a 15 year old design....with only fair optics...we are now up to 24 and 36 Megapixel sensors....that's why there is a BRAND-NEW, modern 24-85 AF-S G with VR, and it's designed for the 24 and 36 MP FX sensors we have today.

Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF Nikkor Test Review © 2004 KenRockwell.com

I would consider the 16-85mm AF-S DX, which is actually a ****useful lens** on ALL of the low-,mid- and highest-end APS-C Nikon bodies, AND which has good optics, and uses a modern filter size

16-85mm AF-S DX Lens Review by Thom Hogan

"Many Nikon DX users had already picked the 18-200mm VR as their walkaround lens, partly because they were seduced by numbers. Quick question, which gives you more range: the 18-200mm or the 16-85mm? The answer might surprise you a bit. The 16-85mm has a horizontal angle of view range of 16 to 73 degrees, the 18-200mm has an angle of view range of 7 to 66 degrees. However, because the 18-200mm changes focal length so much at the long end when focused close, for many situations its angle of view is only 10 to 66 degrees, which is not looking a lot better than the 16-85mm. I personally value those extra 7 degrees at the wide end much more than the extra 6 to 9 degrees at the telephoto end--they make a more dramatic impact on my photography.Bottom line: this new lens has a very useful focal length range, one I like better than and believe is more useful than any of the other consumer DX zooms. That's a pretty positive statement, so the question is whether the other attributes of the lens and its performance hold up to that same "better" level."

and "Performance
A very good performer overall. The 16-85mm doesn't set any performance records, but it also doesn't have any glaring weaknesses.
Autofocus: This lens has the type of AF-S performance we expect. Unlike the least expensive AF-S lenses (the 18-55mm comes to mind), the wave motor in this lens is responsive.
Sharpness: Center sharpness on this lens is pretty darned good at all focal lengths. I don't really measure any differences between the center performance at 16mm and 85mm: it's high and impressive, and it's pretty much that way at maximum aperture. Technically, some of the focal lengths perform slightly better in the central area one stop down, but frankly, it's not enough for me to get excited about"

The way I see it for any DX Nikon owner, buy the USEFUL 16-85mm DX for $629, and NOT the outdated 24-85 AF-D for $699.

I didn't even consider that lens. I appreciate that review and suggestion. That might give me something to think about. If I would go that route, I'd definitely sacrifice some significant zoom as a walk-around (in comparison to the 18-140) carrying just that one lens. And getting rid of my 55-200 would probably force me to get a 70-300 sooner than I planned.
If that 16-85 is a sharper lens than the 18-140, then I'd rather spend the money on the optically better choice.

 

[greybeard]

I have the 16-85 and it is a very usable range. It replaced the 18-105 kit lens that came with my D7000. The 18-105 comes with a plastic mount which I just didn't like. The 16-85 has a metal mount with a rubber gasket and a very solid feel. The IQ is as good as I've ever seen from a DX zoom. I personally have not missed the lost mm at the long end and I really enjoy the wide short end of it. One of the best qualities of the 18-85 is its' size, barely bigger than the 18-55 you have now and balances very nicely on the camera. That may not seem like much but it makes a difference when it is dangling around your neck or shoulder all day. From the test results I've read, the 18-140's IQ is comparable so I don't think either one has the edge here so the big difference would be zoom range and physical size. About the only way to really resolve this would be to compare them side by side on your camera body and see which one you like the best.

 

[PropilotBW]

Do you think it would be silly to have a 18-140 and a 70-300 in the bag? I don't want to over step too much coverage. I also have the 10-24mm...which is my I may be leaning away from the 16-85.
I want the 18-140, but I also want to make sure I think down the road a little bit.

 

[greybeard]

On one hand you read like you are wanting a 1 lens solution but on the other hand you want to utilize all your lenses. To be honest, the 10-24, 35, and 55-200 covers it all.

 

[sifelaver]

I'm Looking for a replacement for my 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses. I am looking for a one-lens replacement that will be a good walk-around lens. I'm leaning towards the 18-140 based on reviews. For a similar price point ($350) what else competes with it's performance?

Get the 16-85 like Derrel recommended.

 

[PropilotBW]

On one hand you read like you are wanting a 1 lens solution but on the other hand you want to utilize all your lenses. To be honest, the 10-24, 35, and 55-200 covers it all.

I definitely want to use some of my other lenses. I am just looking for a good walk around lens for when I just want to take one lens and nothing else.

 

[PropilotBW]

I'm Looking for a replacement for my 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses. I am looking for a one-lens replacement that will be a good walk-around lens. I'm leaning towards the 18-140 based on reviews. For a similar price point ($350) what else competes with it's performance?

Get the 16-85 like Derrel recommended.

I'm still considering that lens too.