I’m looking at replacing the 18-55 kit lens on my D7000 with something with a bit more focal length: Is the Nikon 18-140 the best option?

It will be a general use, walkabout lens.

Got an 18-105 (3.5:5.6) G lens from MPB last year and it never gets taken off the camera. It’s got vibration damping built in and is great in twighlight. I suspect the 18-140 will be even more versatsile.

I was looking at the humongous Tamron 18-270(?) lenses but was put off by some of the mixed reviews.

MPB? 270 is a bit big for my intended purpose, I reckon.

Highly recommend the 18-140
Developed for the higher res sensors so very sharp for the focal range, it’s never off my D7000

mikey74 – Member
MPB? 270 is a bit big for my intended purpose, I reckon.

mpb.com – Decent second-hand dealer. Camera Jungle are also worth a look.
I had the older 18-135mm with an old D80 and it was great as a ‘wider range than the kit lens but not silly money’ lens. The 18-140mm should be a really good bet, as should the 18-105mm.

I went the other way and just spent silly money…

Thanks folks.

Camera jungle have one at a good price, although Einfinity on ebay have one for less that they say is new: I don’t suppose anyone has any experience of them?

Scratch that, they seem pretty unreliable and it’s likely to be refurbished, rather than new.

EInfinity, from what I can gather, stock grey imports and refurbs. Personally, I wouldn’t buy from them.

24-120 is a pretty sharp lens with a useful zoom range – it’s my most used lens for “walking around”. Only f/4, so not as spendy as the top of the range kit.

Maybe this, and linked pages, might help …
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-140mm-F35-56G-ED-VR-mounted-on-Nikon-D7000__680

I’ve got the 18-135 Nikkor lens and it’s OK, but I would have thought better options are available.

If I was gonna replace it, I’d look for something with VR, and probably something faster…

The 18-140 has VR.

If your replacing a kit lens then to me you’d be better just going for better glass and even compromising on 2 lenses… VR might be useful on longer focal lengths but at the length you’re looking at its a cover up for poor glass. You can pick up a 50mm prime for <£50 and then add a smaller zoom. My walkabout lens is an older Tokina f2.8 medium zoom …

This Tokina AT-X 28-70mm f/2.8 AF is an inexpensive, well-built, light weight and fast midrange zoom. If you don’t mind slightly less contrast at f/2.8 in the corners or at 70mm, you can save a whole lot of money and weight over the equivalent Nikon zoom, and this lens feels so good in-hand.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/28-70mm-f28.htm

In fact, this f/2.8 Tokina is about the same size and weight as many of Nikon’s slower zooms, and stopped down to the same apertures, as good as the other zooms. The extra stop of speed is essentially free, and always there for you if you need it, even if it’s not quite as good as Nikon’s f/2.8 lenses at f/2.8.

I have loads of more expensive lenses but this is the one used 50% of the time… you can carry a 50 or 30mm prime for almost no extra space/weight/cost…

@steve

I like the wide-angle of the 18 and the additional zoom of the 140. I already have a Nikon 35mm 1.8 as my “fast prime” lens. With that Tokina I’d lose the wide-angle and not really gain anything at the zoom end.

The 18-140 has VR.

TBH as a walkaround lens that sounds very much on the money. 3.5-5.6 means it won’t be too heavy either; just limits your low-light and depth of field work a little. Certainly not a huge deal when ISOs go silly high now.

stevextc – Member

VR might be useful on longer focal lengths but at the length you’re looking at its a cover up for poor glass.

What does ‘poor glass’ mean? A lens that isn’t as optically accurate, or a fancy way of saying a lens that doesn’t go to 2.8?
I get confused when camera people talk about ‘glass’ because some use it to mean a lens in it’s entirety, while other are referring to the actual glass elements themselves.

My 70-300 has got VR & I’ve used it several times when I’ve tried in poor light to get sharp pics from my 18-135 at the longer end and failed. Stick the VR lens on & it makes a big difference.
I can imagine VR being a help in many low-light conditions with a lens like the 18-140; although I am still using my D80 which has relatively poor low light performance, so I tend not to whack the ISO up much above 400.
I guess if I had the money to upgrade to a modern body; VR might not be quite so necessary.

VR might be useful on longer focal lengths but at the length you’re looking at its a cover up for poor glass.

WTF?

VR has no effect on poor glass, the two things are completely independent.

No amount of VR will fix poor glass and lenses with great optical clarity can still benefit from VR.

What does ‘poor glass’ mean? A lens that isn’t as optically accurate, or a fancy way of saying a lens that doesn’t go to 2.8?

It’s usually a way of trying to convince people to spend more money, based on the fallacy that more expensive lenses have better optics, better build quality, better materials etc.

The Tokina stevextc mentions is a good lens, but it’s dated. The 2.8 aperture doesn’t really offset the VR on the more modern Nikon you’re looking at.

You get get into all sorts of pixel-peeping comparisons about MTFs and all that, but they’re of little consequence to 90% of purple and largely irrelevant if you’re only using pics on the web or small print.

based on the fallacy that more expensive lenses have better optics, better build quality, better materials etc

But generally speaking more expensive lenses do have better optics, build quality and materials etc.

But generally speaking more expensive lenses do have better optics, build quality and materials etc.

No, they have bigger optics and more parts. There’s very little difference in the quality of the glass elements themselves, even in the coatings, there’s just more bits to account for. Materials, again, is a devious one. People assume metal lenses are ‘better’, but modern plastics and composites are less prone to heating/cooling issues, lighter to handle, nicer to handle in cold weather, less prone to condensation issues…

The simple fact is I can’t really justify the price of the more expensive “pro” lenses. Originally, I wanted a ultra-wide, such as the Sigma 10-20, but I think I’d get more use out of the 18-140. However, I probably will eventually get the 10-20 as well, but not if I go spending on the “pro” lenses.

Sigma 17-55 f2.8 comes with VR, well they call it OS at a reasonable price.

But it doesn’t give me the additional focal length of the 18-140.

True guess it depends on your budget 18-140 cost a fair bit more.

One item you might want to consider in your thoughts about the various options, are the weights of the lenses, for walkabout I guess you don’t want something a lot heavier than you have now.

Weight doesn’t bother me so much.