Is the 18-140 kit lens worth $300?

SteveCooper said:

Steve,

I think you could make fabulous photos with a K-Mart Blue light special lens! GREAT photos!

Click to expand...

SteveCooper said:

Steve,

I think you could make fabulous photos with a K-Mart Blue light special lens! GREAT photos!

Click to expand...

Escape said:

I mean, the Sigma isn't bad. I was just wondering if the Nikon 18-140 is better.

Click to expand...

Escape said:

Thanks. And yes, I would like to ditch my current Nikon 55-300 and replace it with a 70-300 which from all I've seen has decent sharpness all the way up to 300mm. My 55-300 is not sharp beyond about 210mm.

Click to expand...

Escape said:

Thanks. And yes, I would like to ditch my current Nikon 55-300 and replace it with a 70-300 which from all I've seen has decent sharpness all the way up to 300mm. My 55-300 is not sharp beyond about 210mm.

Click to expand...

rashid7 said:

Escape said:

Thanks. And yes, I would like to ditch my current Nikon 55-300 and replace it with a 70-300 which from all I've seen has decent sharpness all the way up to 300mm. My 55-300 is not sharp beyond about 210mm.

Click to expand...

i m most impressed w/ the new AFP 70-300. It is much lighter than the FF version, and very fast AF! (i used to own a sharp Tamron 70-300VC which is roughly similar to the old Nikon)

Click to expand...

rashid7 said:

Escape said:

Thanks. And yes, I would like to ditch my current Nikon 55-300 and replace it with a 70-300 which from all I've seen has decent sharpness all the way up to 300mm. My 55-300 is not sharp beyond about 210mm.

Click to expand...

i m most impressed w/ the new AFP 70-300. It is much lighter than the FF version, and very fast AF! (i used to own a sharp Tamron 70-300VC which is roughly similar to the old Nikon)

--
Keep it fun!

Click to expand...

Escape said:

rashid7 said:

Escape said:

Thanks. And yes, I would like to ditch my current Nikon 55-300 and replace it with a 70-300 which from all I've seen has decent sharpness all the way up to 300mm. My 55-300 is not sharp beyond about 210mm.

Click to expand...

i m most impressed w/ the new AFP 70-300. It is much lighter than the FF version, and very fast AF! (i used to own a sharp Tamron 70-300VC which is roughly similar to the old Nikon)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Escape said:

rashid7 said:

Escape said:

Thanks. And yes, I would like to ditch my current Nikon 55-300 and replace it with a 70-300 which from all I've seen has decent sharpness all the way up to 300mm. My 55-300 is not sharp beyond about 210mm.

Click to expand...

i m most impressed w/ the new AFP 70-300. It is much lighter than the FF version, and very fast AF! (i used to own a sharp Tamron 70-300VC which is roughly similar to the old Nikon)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

mfetz1026 said:

I bought the 18-140 as the kit lens with my D7100. It is a very good all around lens and I find no fault with it.

I also have the 16-80. Not sure why so much controversy regarding it. No, it is not a cheap lens. Yes, I like the photos I get with it on my camera.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/96701999@N05/

Click to expand...

volks 1 said:

mfetz1026 said:

I bought the 18-140 as the kit lens with my D7100. It is a very good all around lens and I find no fault with it.

I also have the 16-80. Not sure why so much controversy regarding it. No, it is not a cheap lens. Yes, I like the photos I get with it on my camera.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/96701999@N05/

Click to expand...

Actually there is not that much controversy regarding the 16-80 other than price for some. Only Lenstip gives it a poor rating ( they tested it with an older Nikon camera ) and Noflashplease who does not even own that lens. Like you, I am perfectly happy with mine.

Click to expand...

noflashplease said:

m1964 said:

Escape said:

That is the extra cost when buying a new D7200 with it included.

I currently have a Sigma 17-70, but it's not very sharp at 17mm, even when stepped down a bit. Wondering if I could expect better results out of the Nikon 18-140, plus the extra reach might come in handy sometimes.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Never had sigma lens but the Nikon lens most likely will have quicker AF, better subject tracking, focus ring does not move while focusing.

I do not think it would be major upgrade from your sigma.

16-80 would be.

Click to expand...

No, the 16-80mm is a very controversial and expensive lens. I personally wouldn't own it.

The 18-140mm is far superior to the 16-80mm in terms of autofocus speed and accuracy and doesn't have any notable issues with color fringing. For $300 it's a steal. For $1,100, the 16-80mm is a very poor value.

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=458

http://www.lenstip.com/399.1-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_DX_18-140_mm_f_3.5-5.6G_ED_VR.html

I don't know which 17-70mm Sigma that you have, as there's been 3 generations? As I recollect, all three have been well regarded and the current "Contemporary" is a fine lens.

I personally enjoy the near macro capabilities of the 18-140mm at the long end and it's usable wide open at any focal length. It's a great lens and probably the best of its kind. However, it all depends on how much you need the $300.

Click to expand...

volks 1 said:

It boggles one's mind when almost all reviews of this lens range from good to awesome,

noflashplease continues to badmouth this lens due to input from lenstip alone. True some rate it only good due to it's price, however those that actually own it in most cases rate it great to awesome. Noflashplease continued false negative comments (other than price) do a great disservice to those that may be interested at having a look at this lens. I have finally had enough and he is now on my ignore list.

Click to expand...