Z-DX 18-140 vs 50-250 (a bit disapointed)

Hello everyone,

I've tried to compare both Z-DX 18-140 and 50-250. All shots handheld and SOOC.

I let you comment the results, but I have to say that I'm a bit disapointed.

The 50-250 is IMHO a very sharp lens, and I've felt since I received the 18-140, that this later lens falls a bit behind the first two kit lenses.

I thought the 50-250 and 18-50 would be the new standard for Z-DX lenses, and that the 18-140, who could be the pillar for this segment, would be as good as his siblings.

I've no yet done the same comparison with the 18-50, but my feeling is that it's the same situation there.

In the end, the 18-140 is no bad lens and remains a good and versatile tool, but...


18-140 70mm F5.3



50-250 70mm F4.8



18-140 70mm F8.0


50-250 70mm F8.0


18-140 100mm F5.6


50-250 100mm F5.0



18-140 100mm F8.0


50-250 100mm F8.0


18-140 140mm F6.3


50-250 140mmF5.3


18-140 140mm F8.0


50-250 140mm F8.0

Thank you 'Pounch;' – this comparison is exactly what I've been looking for. I have been struct by the sharp clarity of many sample galleries that contain shots taken with the Nikkor Z DX 50-250mm f/4.5. However when reading or watching photographers evaluate this lens build, and really going over it, 1) many said the lens rattles – which didn't inspire confidence. 2) the way the lens extends seemed kind of flimsy and I wasn't sure I wanted to carry around "all that".

I really like the range of focal length with the 18-140mm f/3.5. In similar demos, galleries, and a field test or two, the Nikkor Z DX 18-140mm f/3.5 seemed more solidly built, also when reading the specs comparison. That lens also seemed more responsive and versatile, despite the shorter focal length compared to the 50-250mm. I can't say I ever saw any images produced with the18-140mm that revealed the sharp focus I thought it should deliver. So I've been hesitant to purchase it.

I had an underlying discomfort with the fact that the Nikkor Z DX 18-140mm f/3.5 did not, at least match, the Nikkor Z DX 50-250mm f/4.5 image quality, and natural color fidelity. So I really scrutinized each original image in your comparison, on one of my 5K displays. I first used my Reducing Glass to view the screen clearly at a distance to get an overall impression, that a reducing glass can provide. Then, I held the reducing glass close to the screen, which allowed me to examine image exposure, detail and focus overall. The 18-140mm sharpness was never as good or consistent as the 50-250mm f/4.5, and further, the 18-140mm showed focus really falling off considerably near the edges - getting very soft, while the 50-250mm f/4.5 maintained focus from the center, with very little fall off out to the edge of the frame - never getting really soft.

So my hunch was correct, the 18-140mm f/3.5 is simply not the performer I had hoped it would be. I'll be adding the Z DX 50-250mm f/4.5, to my Z DX 28mm f/2.8 SE, to help extend my kit – and perhaps, add the the Z DX 16-50mm short zoom as well. It's hard to resist, since they are so affordable.

Thanks again, 'Pounch,' your effort in presenting the Z-DX 18-140 vs 50-250mm comparison has been clarifying, and much appreciated.

Note: if you feel I've over interpreted your ('a bit disappointed') comment, or feel there is still considerable value in the Z DX 18-140mm f/3.5 lens, let me know. I have seen some stellar shots made with that lens – dramatic and dreamy landscapes, but none with that wonderful sharp focus and color of the 50-250mm. Though the 18-140mm can produce better and very appealing bokeh, and has better close-up ability, I've lost confidence in the lens. I really like the 'idea' of the 18-140mm, but it just doesn't deliver as I'd hoped, as exhibited in your image comparison. I know I wouldn't be happy, trying, but not getting, what I think it should be able to do.

ICONICITY said:

So my hunch was correct, the 18-140mm f/3.5 is simply not the performer I had hoped it would be.

Click to expand...

After an amazing start in FF and DX , Nikon are stumbling a bit with the latest budget Z lens releases - two slow primes which aren`t any better than decades old SLR designs, the 18-140 which should have been a 16-xxx (18-xxx is so 15 years ago) and optically in line with the other DX Zs and of course the shameless recasing and Price doubling of the Old version Tamron RXD 28-75 F2.8 which isn`t as good as the Z 24-70 F4 S and starts at 28mm .. not good ,

i know there are more turkeys in Sony than a Christmas banquet and Canon are patchy zoom wise but the Z lineup was pretty bang on across the range uptil this bunch - all of which (bar the TAMRON) can be replicated far cheaper in F mount on the adapter with no loss in image quality .

Hello Iconicity,

You're welcome. I'm glad this test could be useful to some, and be checked by sharp eyes as yours

As I said, there's a bit of frustration with this lens, partly due to the fact that the promising potential shown by the new Z mount with the two kit lenses is not fully used here. From a purely technical standpoint it's a miss.

But, we should compromise. Nikon has built two very good and affordable lenses with the 16-50 and 50-250 (I you don't already got the 16-50, go for it! ) The Z50 and Zfc are great cameras. Absolute sharpness is not the ultimate goal after all. The "clinical" sharpness of those lenses may be annoying for portraiture. The 18-140 remains a very versatile and good all around lens, and the best image is the one you can get, not having to dig into your bag.

Regarding the build quality and the rattle of the 50-250, as for the "plastic mount", it's no problem at all, at least for me. The quality feeling is quite subjective. I'm affraid I'll be worned-out before my lenses.

I'll try to complete the test against the 16-50 someday.

To be fair, the 24-70 kit lens is also sharper than the 24-200 on the FX side of things. You don’t buy these all in one zooms for peak image quality. You buy them for the versatility.

thisisbenji said:

To be fair, the 24-70 kit lens is also sharper than the 24-200 on the FX side of things.

Click to expand...

Yeah but the 24-70 "Kit lens" is also sharper than the F mount 24-70 F2.8 as well (At least at the edges anyway) ....... the 24-200 is actually very sharp indeed even pixelpeeped wideopen end to end on a Z7 ... from the samples I`ve seen, the 18-140 doesn`t live up to that by quite a mark , one guys samples were notably worse than the 18-140DX DSLR kit lens from the D90 era on the FTZ

Shame because I`d have hoped the outdated 18mm wide end was there so they didn`t have to compromise the optics

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

Let's hope they will improve with the DX 16-80 update for Z mount, if it ever comes.

Thanks for this comparison. How about for more distant targets?

ALio said:

Thanks for this comparison. How about for more distant targets?

Click to expand...

Hello Alio.

Pics were shot at more than Focalx20 for both lenses.

ICONICITY said:

Thank you 'Pounch;' – this comparison is exactly what I've been looking for. I have been struct by the sharp clarity of many sample galleries that contain shots taken with the Nikkor Z DX 50-250mm f/4.5. However when reading or watching photographers evaluate this lens build, and really going over it, 1) many said the lens rattles – which didn't inspire confidence. 2) the way the lens extends seemed kind of flimsy and I wasn't sure I wanted to carry around "all that".

Click to expand...

The 50mm-250mm rattle is normal. That is the VR in the lens. Nikon notes the rattle in the little manual that comes with the lens.

rangel28 said:

ICONICITY said:

Thank you 'Pounch;' – this comparison is exactly what I've been looking for. I have been struct by the sharp clarity of many sample galleries that contain shots taken with the Nikkor Z DX 50-250mm f/4.5. However when reading or watching photographers evaluate this lens build, and really going over it, 1) many said the lens rattles – which didn't inspire confidence. 2) the way the lens extends seemed kind of flimsy and I wasn't sure I wanted to carry around "all that".

Click to expand...

The 50mm-250mm rattle is normal. That is the VR in the lens. Nikon notes the rattle in the little manual that comes with the lens.

Click to expand...

The rattling is just more pronounced on the 50-250

I really enjoy how the two kit lenses of DX respond on my Zfc. I use 18-50 and 50-250 and love how light and sharp they are.

pounch said:

ALio said:

Thanks for this comparison. How about for more distant targets?

Click to expand...

Hello Alio.

Pics were shot at more than Focalx20 for both lenses.

Click to expand...

I see.

At any rate, the number of shooting opportunities the 18-140 offers without having to change lenses outweighs the absolute performance for me. Good to know that if there are "dedicated" telephoto opportunities, it might be worth bringing the 50-250.

That's true, I'm very happy with my 24-200 in terms of sharpness. Are there any actual reviews with scientific tests on the 18-140 yet? I didn't really see much buzz about it, in fact I totally forgot about it until I saw this thread and I own a dang Z50 lol.

thisisbenji said:

To be fair, the 24-70 kit lens is also sharper than the 24-200 on the FX side of things. You don’t buy these all in one zooms for peak image quality. You buy them for the versatility.

Click to expand...

Plus, for macro the 18-140 is almost like taking an M43 crop from a 50-250 image. The telezoom only gets to 1:4, while the superzoom manages 1:2.8 in my tests

I have both the Z 16-50 and the Z 50-250. I also recently added the Z 18-140 to use as a travel lens when I want or need to travel light and get the shots without worrying about changing lenses or using an FTZ adaptor for say an older heavier F mount lens.

My original impressions of the Z 18-140 are quite positive. The test shots I've done have been sharp, and quite impressive. I am not disappointed at all. I think this lens fits perfectly into the Nikon Z-DX lineup and does a nice job. That said, it's not a 2.8 fast lens and is more of a daylight lens or used with a flash in the evening. You get what you pay for but for those not willing to spend thousands on a lens, I think this lens does quite nicely for the cost. My copy is very sharp, and colors are fantastic.

I found the 18-140DXVR to be quite a bit soft compared to the excellent kit lenses. If you were to do some side-by-side testing I'm pretty sure you're come to the same conclusion. If it is good enough for your needs then the range can be useful, and it is rather compact. The Z50 is a surprisingly capable body that is that much better with S glass.

• The 24-70F4S is only $429 used mint (about the same size)
• A second body is only a little more than the 18-140DXVR $649 so you don't have to swap lenses, have a backup, and get more battery life.
• A 50-S prime may be a better investment
• If you need more range and speed the 24-120F4S is an amazing balance for only a few hundred dollars more. Check out Hudson Henry's recent video regarding it's surprisingly good sun-stars too.
• The 24-200DXVR is stronger on the long end, sharper in the center, and can be used on an FX when/if you upgrade/rent.
• I've actually been using the 50-250DXVR more and more often these days. If I need wider I'll shoot a panoramic for 28mm (42mm eq) FOV.

--
SkyRunR
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
'Out of the darkness there must come out the light.' Bob Marley

Hello, I just bought the DX 18 140 vibration reduction lens and had taken a few sample shots with the Nikon z 50. So far the sharpness was there and photos looked very nice. I cannot justify paying thousands of dollars for a lens. I will use this as a versatile travel lens. Larry

skyrunr said:

I found the 18-140DXVR to be quite a bit soft compared to the excellent kit lenses. If you were to do some side-by-side testing I'm pretty sure you're come to the same conclusion. If it is good enough for your needs then the range can be useful, and it is rather compact. The Z50 is a surprisingly capable body that is that much better with S glass.

• The 24-70F4S is only $429 used mint (about the same size)
• A second body is only a little more than the 18-140DXVR $649 so you don't have to swap lenses, have a backup, and get more battery life.
• A 50-S prime may be a better investment
• If you need more range and speed the 24-120F4S is an amazing balance for only a few hundred dollars more. Check out Hudson Henry's recent video regarding it's surprisingly good sun-stars too.
• The 24-200DXVR is stronger on the long end, sharper in the center, and can be used on an FX when/if you upgrade/rent.
• I've actually been using the 50-250DXVR more and more often these days. If I need wider I'll shoot a panoramic for 28mm (42mm eq) FOV.

Click to expand...

The 24-120 is almost double the price of the 18-140 ($600 vs $1100, or £630 vs £1150). It and the 24-70 also lack VR, so despite the constant aperture they're worse in low light.

The 24-200 is heavier, dimmer, bigger, about 50% more money, doesn't focus as close, and you need to stitch a panorama to get a wide angle. If you want the longer long end or have FX gear it's not a bad lens, but a DX user is giving up a lot.

I agree than the 50 f/1.8 is a good lens for the Z50, but if someone's looking at a superzoom then a prime probably won't meet their needs

Hello,

I don't know but heard that the 50mm prime S lens would not work well with Nikon z 50 cause the camera and lens does not have vibration reduction. I was almost going to buy the 50mm S lens. What are your thoughts. Larry