Posted by Bill Maile on August 22, 2013 at 1:28 PM
Hi, I'm considering my one lens purchase for the year and have read great things about this lens coming out: the Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX NIKKOR Zoom Lens. I have an 18-55mm kit lens, a Bigma 150-500mm for birds/wildlife and a wide angle.
But I'm looking for something a little better than the 18-55mm with more reach as well--water, landscapes, some portraits, magazine work, etc.
From what any of you know, is this a big upgrade to the Nikon Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor?? It's only $50 more at an intro price of $599. Or is there a Sigma (or other maker) semi-equivalent worth looking at??
Or can the Nikkor 18-105mm do the job from your experience?? It's much more in my price range, but...
The only body I have right now is a D90 FYI. Any information and or opinions are welcome--sorry if I'm a bit vague and uninformed. THANKS!
Bill
Posted by Richard Ditch on August 22, 2013 at 4:54 PM
"All-in-one" lenses are convenient, but they trade off optical performance for that convenience. They are nice walk-about lenses and good for travel where you can't take everything, but not something I"d build a system around.
I advise getting the best optics you can in the range that makes up the bulk of your work. If its birds get a 500/4 prime and a matched 1.4x converter. If its landscapes get a top of the line wide angle prime of short range zoom. If its portraits then get a fast short telephoto.
If you can live with the slow apertures of an 18-140 and it covers a range useful to you, then you would be better off getting the 18-140 VR over the 18-135 if it does not have VR based on your propensity to not use a tripod.
Bill, the 18-135 is a good lens. So is your 18-55. I would be surprised if the 18-140 wasn't an improvement on the 18-135, but I haven't had one to shot or read any meaningful reviews yet. Another great little lens on DX is the 18-200 - which I like a lot better than the 18-300. The weakness on these super zooms is always at the long end - so if that is your goal, then there are better choices.
Posted by Luke Ormand on August 24, 2013 at 10:03 AM
I always liked the 18-200 and it was a great "walk-around" lens. But you really do sacrifice quality especially when your aperture ranges from 3.5-5.6. I know budget is a concern, but it may be better for you to save up and get say a 70-200 f4 (which would allow for the use of a teleconverter for extended range)
Posted by Bill Maile on August 24, 2013 at 11:24 AM
Thanks everyone for your excellent input!! I'm still taking it all in and looking around at options. Much appreciated,
Discussion
4 repliesBut I'm looking for something a little better than the 18-55mm with more reach as well--water, landscapes, some portraits, magazine work, etc.
From what any of you know, is this a big upgrade to the Nikon Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor?? It's only $50 more at an intro price of $599. Or is there a Sigma (or other maker) semi-equivalent worth looking at??
Or can the Nikkor 18-105mm do the job from your experience?? It's much more in my price range, but...
The only body I have right now is a D90 FYI. Any information and or opinions are welcome--sorry if I'm a bit vague and uninformed. THANKS!
Bill
I advise getting the best optics you can in the range that makes up the bulk of your work. If its birds get a 500/4 prime and a matched 1.4x converter. If its landscapes get a top of the line wide angle prime of short range zoom. If its portraits then get a fast short telephoto.
If you can live with the slow apertures of an 18-140 and it covers a range useful to you, then you would be better off getting the 18-140 VR over the 18-135 if it does not have VR based on your propensity to not use a tripod.
Bill