D500 with Nikon 18-140 VR

Sonykon88

Member
Messages
22
Reaction score
15
Is anyone using the 18-140 along with their D500 as a general photography lens? Would it be a sin to pair this lens with the D500 for general photography. I have other primes that I really like for my D500 but as a travel lens or general photography I'm hoping the 18-140 will do the job.
 
Is anyone using the 18-140 along with their D500 as a general photography lens? Would it be a sin to pair this lens with the D500 for general photography. I have other primes that I really like for my D500 but as a travel lens or general photography I'm hoping the 18-140 will do the job.
..my 18-140mm is on my D3300 and works well.. this lens should work even better on the D500..

..Cheers..
 
Is anyone using the 18-140 along with their D500 as a general photography lens? Would it be a sin to pair this lens with the D500 for general photography. I have other primes that I really like for my D500 but as a travel lens or general photography I'm hoping the 18-140 will do the job.
I have that lens, and I won't mind using it at all, but since I now have a faster 24-70 I prefer that for my use.

Remember 18-140 was the standard kit lens on a d7100 (24mpx) and yes it is a quite good lens for general photography, I kept it when I sold my D7100.
 
Thanks! I am also considering a 24-70. Are you missing the ability to go wider than 24?
 
Not my first choice but a decent option if you want a wide zoom range w/o sacrificing too much in IQ. I used it recently when I was taking a day drip and only wanted one lens with less heft than the 17-55 2.8.
 
Whilst I don't have the 18-140 it seems to be one of the relatively newer decent lenses. On my D500 for general purpose shooting I use the very good and somewhat older 16-85. I would think the 18-140 would be fine got general purpose shooting.
 
Thanks! I am also considering a 24-70. Are you missing the ability to go wider than 24?
No and Yes, Mainly because when I want to go wider, its really wider than what 18mm would provide.

I have a 10-24 lens for For Wider usage in my bag but that is used quite rarely and only when the situation calls for it. 24-70 give me FOV of a 36-105 FF Equiv which is quite adequate for most of my use. I lose a stop of light to my primes (and some image rendering) but I gain in VC/VR.
 
Thanks! I am also considering a 24-70. Are you missing the ability to go wider than 24?
No and Yes, Mainly because when I want to go wider, its really wider than what 18mm would provide.

I have a 10-24 lens for For Wider usage in my bag but that is used quite rarely and only when the situation calls for it. 24-70 give me FOV of a 36-105 FF Equiv which is quite adequate for most of my use. I lose a stop of light to my primes (and some image rendering) but I gain in VC/VR.
..the Nikon 10-24mm lens can be very useful.. it's my go-to lens for landscape sceneries.. below is a picture sample from my 10-24mm

..Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 lens.. @ 10mm..
..Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 lens.. @ 10mm..

..Cheers..

--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
'wake up and smell the roses'
 
Last edited:
Thanks! I am also considering a 24-70. Are you missing the ability to go wider than 24?
No and Yes, Mainly because when I want to go wider, its really wider than what 18mm would provide.

I have a 10-24 lens for For Wider usage in my bag but that is used quite rarely and only when the situation calls for it. 24-70 give me FOV of a 36-105 FF Equiv which is quite adequate for most of my use. I lose a stop of light to my primes (and some image rendering) but I gain in VC/VR.
..the Nikon 10-24mm lens can be very useful.. it's my go-to lens for landscape sceneries.. below is a picture sample from my 10-24mm

..Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 lens.. @ 10mm..
..Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 lens.. @ 10mm..

..Cheers..

--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
'wake up and smell the roses'
The picture above illustrates why wider isn't always better for landscape photography. Half of the frame is uninteresting sand. Almost 100% of the time you would want to put something in the foreground when shooting at UWA field of view.

--
Blog
 
Thanks! I am also considering a 24-70. Are you missing the ability to go wider than 24?
No and Yes, Mainly because when I want to go wider, its really wider than what 18mm would provide.

I have a 10-24 lens for For Wider usage in my bag but that is used quite rarely and only when the situation calls for it. 24-70 give me FOV of a 36-105 FF Equiv which is quite adequate for most of my use. I lose a stop of light to my primes (and some image rendering) but I gain in VC/VR.
..the Nikon 10-24mm lens can be very useful.. it's my go-to lens for landscape sceneries.. below is a picture sample from my 10-24mm

..Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 lens.. @ 10mm..
..Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 lens.. @ 10mm..

..Cheers..

--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
'wake up and smell the roses'
The picture above illustrates why wider isn't always better for landscape photography. Half of the frame is uninteresting sand. Almost 100% of the time you would want to put something in the foreground when shooting at UWA field of view.

--
Blog
http://iangeglia.wix.com/mysite
..thanks for commenting..

..yes, I could trim the top & bottom.. however, if someone was standing there in this scene, there is that much sand coverage, and the sky is that seen..

..so if someone took a picture of desert sand dunes, that would be too much sand(?).. ;-)

..Cheers..

--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
'wake up and smell the roses'
 
..one thing to mention, is I completely agree that with some lenses going too wide can yield not so desireable effects..

..have to say, with the Nikon 10-24mm lens, while going all the way wide, is still really well managed..

..below are two pictures taken with the 10-24mm, not at the widest setting..

..taken at 14mm..
..taken at 14mm..

..taken at 24mm..
..taken at 24mm..

..Cheers..

--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
'wake up and smell the roses'
 
Thanks! I am also considering a 24-70. Are you missing the ability to go wider than 24?
No and Yes, Mainly because when I want to go wider, its really wider than what 18mm would provide.

I have a 10-24 lens for For Wider usage in my bag but that is used quite rarely and only when the situation calls for it. 24-70 give me FOV of a 36-105 FF Equiv which is quite adequate for most of my use. I lose a stop of light to my primes (and some image rendering) but I gain in VC/VR.
..the Nikon 10-24mm lens can be very useful.. it's my go-to lens for landscape sceneries.. below is a picture sample from my 10-24mm

..Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 lens.. @ 10mm..
..Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 lens.. @ 10mm..

..Cheers..

--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
'wake up and smell the roses'
The picture above illustrates why wider isn't always better for landscape photography. Half of the frame is uninteresting sand. Almost 100% of the time you would want to put something in the foreground when shooting at UWA field of view.

--
Blog
http://iangeglia.wix.com/mysite
??????

If there was a nicely tended garden over that sand, and threes instead of the buildings, would it be OK? I think the idea of that photograph is to show how wide a wide lens can capture.


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers
 
Thanks! I am also considering a 24-70. Are you missing the ability to go wider than 24?
No and Yes, Mainly because when I want to go wider, its really wider than what 18mm would provide.

I have a 10-24 lens for For Wider usage in my bag but that is used quite rarely and only when the situation calls for it. 24-70 give me FOV of a 36-105 FF Equiv which is quite adequate for most of my use. I lose a stop of light to my primes (and some image rendering) but I gain in VC/VR.
..the Nikon 10-24mm lens can be very useful.. it's my go-to lens for landscape sceneries.. below is a picture sample from my 10-24mm

..Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 lens.. @ 10mm..
..Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 lens.. @ 10mm..

..Cheers..

--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
'wake up and smell the roses'
The picture above illustrates why wider isn't always better for landscape photography. Half of the frame is uninteresting sand. Almost 100% of the time you would want to put something in the foreground when shooting at UWA field of view.

--
Blog
http://iangeglia.wix.com/mysite
??????

If there was a nicely tended garden over that sand, and threes instead of the buildings, would it be OK? I think the idea of that photograph is to show how wide a wide lens can capture.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers
That picture is a perfect example of why going wider isn't always the best idea. The people look like dots and half the frame is dominated by white sand. I don't mean to be rude but the guy said the 10-24 was his go to landscape lens.... and followed it up with a boring picture. I don't think anybody is going to run out and buy that lens after seeing that.

--
Blog
 
Thanks! I am also considering a 24-70. Are you missing the ability to go wider than 24?
No and Yes, Mainly because when I want to go wider, its really wider than what 18mm would provide.

I have a 10-24 lens for For Wider usage in my bag but that is used quite rarely and only when the situation calls for it. 24-70 give me FOV of a 36-105 FF Equiv which is quite adequate for most of my use. I lose a stop of light to my primes (and some image rendering) but I gain in VC/VR.
..the Nikon 10-24mm lens can be very useful.. it's my go-to lens for landscape sceneries.. below is a picture sample from my 10-24mm

..Cheers..

--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
'wake up and smell the roses'
The picture above illustrates why wider isn't always better for landscape photography. Half of the frame is uninteresting sand. Almost 100% of the time you would want to put something in the foreground when shooting at UWA field of view.

--
Blog
http://iangeglia.wix.com/mysite
??????

If there was a nicely tended garden over that sand, and threes instead of the buildings, would it be OK? I think the idea of that photograph is to show how wide a wide lens can capture.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers
That picture is a perfect example of why going wider isn't always the best idea. The people look like dots and half the frame is dominated by white sand. I don't mean to be rude but the guy said the 10-24 was his go to landscape lens.... and followed it up with a boring picture. I don't think anybody is going to run out and buy that lens after seeing that.

--
Blog
http://iangeglia.wix.com/mysite
..lol's, you're a funny guy..

..as JC mentioned, the picture was to show how wide the lens would go.. and in reality, I was pretty far from these people, and they were pretty small to my eyes to begin with..

..with any ultra-wide zoom lens, the user doesn't need to go the widest.. probably not the best idea to shoot everything at the widest, but is useful when need it..

..below are two pictures taken with my D3200 camera with the 10-24mm lens.. both pictures taken at 10mm..

 ..taken at 10mm..
..taken at 10mm..

 ..taken at 10mm..
..taken at 10mm..

..Cheers..

--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
'wake up and smell the roses'
 
..ohh, I forgot to respond about my 'boring' picture.. you got me.. you see, I'm a boring kind of person, enjoy a boring & relaxing lifestyle, and that's why my pictures are boring.. and I like it that way..

..so, you must be an exciting person, and prefers taking exciting pictures.. well, good for you..

..guess, we have and prefer different styles, yes(?).. ;-)

..Cheers..
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top