I have Nikkor 18-105 and 70-300mm, would 18-140 and 55-300mm be better set?

I haven't used the 18-140 DX and 55-300 DX, but people seem to report that they're better than the other two lenses. However, I do not think that it makes any sense to swap one pair of medium-grade lenses for another pair of medium-grade lenses. The difference will simply not be substantial. If you want make a meaningful move towards "best quality", you need to step up to something like a 16-80/2.8-4 DX and a 70-200/4 VR.

I don't know much about the 55-300 or the 18-140 other then the reviews which are generally good . I can tell you that I have the 18-105 which is a very well regarded lens on all websites that have reviewed the lens , it does have some heavy barrel distortion at 18 but thats about it .The Nikon 70- 300 , if your talking about the vr lens it is excellent . So good that many websites have said that its IQ is comparable to some of Nikons costlier options . But to be truthful I don't think the change to be worth it as your present combo is so good at its price point that in order to get a noticeable improvement in IQ you you have to go with their expensive options like a 24-70mm with a 70- 200 .

You could if you want better image quality at a lower price go with primes as the 35mm dx or g models , 50mm d or g , 85mm D model . You would have to use your feet but thats about it . Take care .

Marc Trotter said:

Does anybody know if either of the 18-140mm or 55-300mm has better image quality than my current lenses, used on my D5100? I'm always looking to get the best results I can. Of course, one nice thing about having the 18-140mm for a "walk around" lens is it's greater "reach", so that I would less frequently have to swap out to the longer lens. Now, I would not be interested if the image quality would not be as good as the 18-105, which is why I am asking! Thanks.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the 18-140 is slightly better than the 18-105. I have not heard that the 55-300 is better than the 70-300, though. Other than that, I agree with BasilG. The 16-80 and 70-200 would be a very nice pair

The 18-140 is slightly better than the 18-105

The 55-300 is NOT better than the 70-300

I bought 70-200 F4 and after I compared it to 70-300 VR, I returned it. I did not see $1000 difference in IQ

The 18-105 and 70-300 is a fine combination. No need to change to those two options. Some other options:

Nikon 16-80/Nikon 16-85

Sigma 17-70

There are some 17-50 options, if range is not a factor.

I have the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, but it is more of a specialty lens.

There are some FX options, too.

Marc Trotter said:

Does anybody know if either of the 18-140mm or 55-300mm has better image quality than my current lenses, used on my D5100? I'm always looking to get the best results I can. Of course, one nice thing about having the 18-140mm for a "walk around" lens is it's greater "reach", so that I would less frequently have to swap out to the longer lens. Now, I would not be interested if the image quality would not be as good as the 18-105, which is why I am asking! Thanks.

Click to expand...

Marc;

i use the 18 140 on my D7100, and my D3300, I find it very good! I also have the Sigma 17 70 2.8 4.0 C lens, its also very good for the price. I also have and use the 70 300 VR, I've had that lens since 2007, the AF was fixed by Nikon once, but you'll find most reviews show it somewhat soft at 300 or there abouts, up to 200 very good, I use a alternative zoom? I have the older 70 210 ED lens and up to 200mm, I think its as good or maybe a tad better than the 70 300 VR? just my opinion, but it doesn't have VR, if thats that important to you? I shoot it a lot from a tripod,so VR not a factor.

You might consider the two lenses mentioned here the 16 80 and 70 200 F4, nice two lens combo, but get your checkbook out! I'd like them too, but I'm very happy with my el, cheapo, set up.

"dog house riley'

Viperpr said:

I don't know much about the 55-300 or the 18-140 other then the reviews which are generally good . I can tell you that I have the 18-105 which is a very well regarded lens on all websites that have reviewed the lens , it does have some heavy barrel distortion at 18 but thats about it .The Nikon 70- 300 , if your talking about the vr lens it is excellent . So good that many websites have said that its IQ is comparable to some of Nikons costlier options . But to be truthful I don't think the change to be worth it as your present combo is so good at its price point that in order to get a noticeable improvement in IQ you you have to go with their expensive options like a 24-70mm with a 70- 200 .

You could if you want better image quality at a lower price go with primes as the 35mm dx or g models , 50mm d or g , 85mm D model . You would have to use your feet but thats about it . Take care .

Click to expand...

Thanks! I recently picked up a prime, the DX NIKKOR 35mm 1.8G. The only thing is, sometimes it is not possible to "use your feet", and then you have to crop the heck out of a shot to compose it like you want.

The Big One said:

Marc Trotter said:

Does anybody know if either of the 18-140mm or 55-300mm has better image quality than my current lenses, used on my D5100? I'm always looking to get the best results I can. Of course, one nice thing about having the 18-140mm for a "walk around" lens is it's greater "reach", so that I would less frequently have to swap out to the longer lens. Now, I would not be interested if the image quality would not be as good as the 18-105, which is why I am asking! Thanks.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the 18-140 is slightly better than the 18-105. I have not heard that the 55-300 is better than the 70-300, though. Other than that, I agree with BasilG. The 16-80 and 70-200 would be a very nice pair

Click to expand...

Thanks! On another thread, somebody posted that their experience was that the 18-140 gave sharp results on a D7200, while the 18-105 was not so good.

Marc Trotter said:

Does anybody know if either of the 18-140mm or 55-300mm has better image quality than my current lenses, used on my D5100? I'm always looking to get the best results I can. Of course, one nice thing about having the 18-140mm for a "walk around" lens is it's greater "reach", so that I would less frequently have to swap out to the longer lens. Now, I would not be interested if the image quality would not be as good as the 18-105, which is why I am asking! Thanks.

Click to expand...

Why don't you go with the 18-140 and the 70-300? Out of the 4 that's what I'd pick.

I am very happy with the 16-85 and 70-300 for general use, complemented with a couple of primes of your liking.

Thanks for all the replies and info! From the replies here and reading lens reviews, it appears that my 70-300 VR is a highly rated lens and there is not much reason to try to do better, given the cost of anything that would represent a significant improvement.

Now, with respect to the 18-140, I am seeing a decent amount of opinion that it may be a bit better than the 18-105. And what really appeals to me is that it would be a significantly more versatile "walking around lens", with its greater reach. And I would not as frequently have to change lenses.

Yannis K said:

Marc Trotter said:

Does anybody know if either of the 18-140mm or 55-300mm has better image quality than my current lenses, used on my D5100? I'm always looking to get the best results I can. Of course, one nice thing about having the 18-140mm for a "walk around" lens is it's greater "reach", so that I would less frequently have to swap out to the longer lens. Now, I would not be interested if the image quality would not be as good as the 18-105, which is why I am asking! Thanks.

Click to expand...

Why don't you go with the 18-140 and the 70-300? Out of the 4 that's what I'd pick.

I am very happy with the 16-85 and 70-300 for general use, complemented with a couple of primes of your liking.

Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe I'll do that. And I just got a prime 35mm 1.8G a few weeks ago.

I agree that the 70-300 VR is an excellent lens for the money, though the resolution drops off beyond 200mm. The 55-300 is reported to have slower AF than the 70-300 VR, and I would not expect it to have better resolution. Now that I have higher resolution cameras (D810 and D500, approaching the resolution of your camera), I have replaced the 70-300 with the 70-200 f/4 lens, giving me much better AF and more and better pixels per bird than the 70-300 used to on my D300s. If you don't use the long end of the 70-300 a lot, I would say that the 70-200 f/4 is an outstanding lens, with very fast autofocus and good image quality even at f/4 compared to the 70-300 at f/5.6. I also find that the 16-85 gives me a big boost on the wide end compared to the 18-xx lenses, and would be my recommended replacement for the 18-105, providing a better one-lens walkaround solution for my applications. If you can afford it, the new 16-80 has excellent reports, and should have significantly faster AF than either the 18-140 or 16-85. I'm waiting for a deal on the 16-80, though. Seems pretty expensive compared to the big markdowns on the 24-120.

--
Pat

Esquilo said:

The 55-300 is NOT better than the 70-300

Click to expand...

I think that other than AF, Thom disagrees. That said, I've used only the 70-300 VR, and it's very good, IMO. Certainly no point in side-grading to the 55-300 DX from that one.

Marc Trotter said:

Does anybody know if either of the 18-140mm or 55-300mm has better image quality than my current lenses, used on my D5100? I'm always looking to get the best results I can. Of course, one nice thing about having the 18-140mm for a "walk around" lens is it's greater "reach", so that I would less frequently have to swap out to the longer lens. Now, I would not be interested if the image quality would not be as good as the 18-105, which is why I am asking! Thanks.

Click to expand...

On a D5100, what you have is fine. A 18-140 would give more range. Next question is at what price. IMHO the 18-140 is worth the price only when bundled with D5500, D7200 so you also move into a 24mp sensor.

If rumors are true, the 70-300 VR is due for a VR2 update.

Along these lines you could look for a D5300 with a 18-55 VR2 + 55-200 VR2 lens bundle to replace your existing kit. You would lose the 200-300 range.

Move forward , not sideways . If there is a place where you live to rent the lens go for it . That way you will be able to compare and make a wise desicion based on your eyes and tastes . Many times a reviewer might find a lens better then another one but in most cases in the real world those differences are barely noticeable , differences that to be seen it has to be at 100% magnification and even then it is slight .

Viperpr said:

Move forward , not sideways . If there is a place where you live to rent the lens go for it . That way you will be able to compare and make a wise desicion based on your eyes and tastes . Many times a reviewer might find a lens better then another one but in most cases in the real world those differences are barely noticeable , differences that to be seen it has to be at 100% magnification and even then it is slight .

Click to expand...

Thanks, well I live 100 miles from Dallas in east TX, so no places to rent lenses here. Yeah, I'm beginning to think I'd get more bang for my buck by just buying a D7200 body and keep my current lenses than by spending a lot of money on better lenses and continuing on with my D5100. At least with the D7200, I will have a lot more resolution to work with, as well as better dynamic range.

Marc Trotter said:

Thanks for all the replies and info! From the replies here and reading lens reviews, it appears that my 70-300 VR is a highly rated lens and there is not much reason to try to do better, given the cost of anything that would represent a significant improvement.

Now, with respect to the 18-140, I am seeing a decent amount of opinion that it may be a bit better than the 18-105. And what really appeals to me is that it would be a significantly more versatile "walking around lens", with its greater reach. And I would not as frequently have to change lenses.

Click to expand...

You will indeed get a better lens but the diference is going to be hardly noticeably between the 18 105 and the 18 140, basically if you didnt had the 18 105 and you have to choose between them the 18 140 is better, but if you already have the 18 105 just dont bother. If you are going to replace 18 - 105 with a lens that is going to be complemented with the 70 300 I suggest you to get a lens that is going truely make a difference. The nikon 16 85 and sigmas 17 50 2.8 and 17 70 2.8 4 are going to be a better complement to the 70 300 and you will get a noticeably improvement on IQ. About the 16 80 its always the same, people who use it say is great (after they pay for it), but I still hadnt see a single picture from that lens that made me believe is something I can't get with some other lens that cost between a 3rd and half the price of the 16 80.

Tomi O said:

Marc Trotter said:

Thanks for all the replies and info! From the replies here and reading lens reviews, it appears that my 70-300 VR is a highly rated lens and there is not much reason to try to do better, given the cost of anything that would represent a significant improvement.

Now, with respect to the 18-140, I am seeing a decent amount of opinion that it may be a bit better than the 18-105. And what really appeals to me is that it would be a significantly more versatile "walking around lens", with its greater reach. And I would not as frequently have to change lenses.

Click to expand...

You will indeed get a better lens but the diference is going to be hardly noticeably between the 18 105 and the 18 140, basically if you didnt had the 18 105 and you have to choose between them the 18 140 is better, but if you already have the 18 105 just dont bother. If you are going to replace 18 - 105 with a lens that is going to be complemented with the 70 300 I suggest you to get a lens that is going truely make a difference. The nikon 16 85 and sigmas 17 50 2.8 and 17 70 2.8 4 are going to be a better complement to the 70 300 and you will get a noticeably improvement on IQ. About the 16 80 its always the same, people who use it say is great (after they pay for it), but I still hadnt see a single picture from that lens that made me believe is something I can't get with some other lens that cost between a 3rd and half the price of the 16 80.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Yes, I read a slew of reviews on the 18-140. Most are positive, but also a lot of reviews saying it is terrible. Some reviewers even compare the 18-140 to the 18-105 and don't find the 18-140 any better.