Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Just remember that the dxo tests are bench tests & under optimal conditions. Real world shooting may not show the same results. A lot depends on the individual's use of proper techniques.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

I own the Nikon 18-140 mm, but about half a year ago I was able to "retire" it.
The focal range is certainly convenient but I was frequently disappointed
with its lack of sharpness.
It also has significant distortion- barrel distortion at wider focal lengths,
and pincushion distortion at normal to telephoto focal lengths.
I got used to using Adobe Photoshop to correct this distortion in almost every photo.

Pegasus Loc: Texas Gulf Coast

I have the Nikon 18-140 DX lens on my D5200 almost all the time. I think it's a great lens for what I do but I am under no delusion that the setup is the sharpest that can be had for landscape, macro or even portrait.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

Oh, yes- the Nikon 18-140mm also suffers from chromatic aberration-
you get noticeable "colour fringing" around the outside of objects.
Green or purple seem to be the most common colours.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I think that no matter what “multi-purpose” lens you have, there will be some sort of issue or issues with it. Some are very, very good, and some are fairly marginal in performance. I have a D7200 with the 18-140 that stays on the camera 95% of the time. I find it to be acceptably sharp, and I haven’t noticed any particular distortion or color aberrations. But then, the D7200 has a feature that auto corrects for pincushion and barrel distortion, and unless one were to start shooting architecture, buildings, etc., I doubt the distortion would be a factor with this lens. At least not for the D7200. I don’t know if the D5xxx series has this feature in the menu. If sharpness is a major concern, the only way to go is with a prime lens or one with a shorter zoom range. If extreme focal length isn’t a pressing need, do consider that Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. My grandson, who shoots with a D810 has that lens and doesn’t use it much because he’s not sure it’s a good fit for the D810. I’ve found that on my D7200 it is a superb lens. If he decides to sell it, I may take him up on it. It focuses fairly close and is very sharp and would make a good walk about lens.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I had the 18-140 on my D5300 and sold it and bought a 16-80 F2.8-f4. I like the 16-80 but in retrospect think I might have made a rash decision. I should have kept the 18-140 and left well enough alone.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

I agree. Not that the Tamron is completely cheap--it is just limited by it's wide range and light build. I've been shooting with the Tamron 16-300 on my d7100 for several years and am generally satisfied with it but have the same limitations as most people report on this lens--soft at the extremes and not very good in low light. I recently bough the Nikkor 50mm 1/4 mentioned in this reply and it solved a lot of my low light issues and generally has a better IQ. It suffers from the shortcomings of any prime lens and that is you lose flexibility in where you stand when you shoot. I find I have to move around more to set up the shot with the 50mm and that can be difficult but if you can do that it's worth the effort in IQ.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Okay, so if not the 18-140mm, what's the "best" Nikon "walk-around", mid-range zoom for image quality with similar or less range?

I think that's what the original poster is asking, but few responses are actually addressing.

I know some answers for Canon, just not for Nikon.

I agree with Scott, for macro photography a quality macro lens would be the very best solution. There are lots of those worth consideration, ranging from a fairly compact 60mm (which may put you too close at high magnification with some subjects), to 85, 90, 100 or 105mm.

There are also many excellent vintage macro lenses in these focal lengths that would be manual focus only, though that's not too big a deal for macro photography and might work well for the OP. The image below was done with a vintage, manual focus Tamron SP 90mm "Adaptall" (interchangeable mount) lens on one of my modern DSLRs...


I paid all of $20 for the lens used above, at a local second-hand store. It cost me another $40 to get an Adaptall mount to fit it to my modern Canon DSLR (Adaptall are still being manufactured in China for MANY different systems.) That old macro lens is 1:2 on its own, half life size, so for the shot above I added a 20mm macro extension tube behind it. Working with a vintage manual focus lens that's stopped down to f/11 to get sufficient depth off field, I probably took 75 to 100 shots to get a few "keepers"... might have been easier and faster with a modern AF lens that maintains wide open aperture until the moment the shutter is released.

One of the least expensive macro lenses avail. new is the Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 at about $350. A fine, simple lens... but be aware that in the Nikon-mount version it doesn't have an in-lens focusing motor so would be manual-focus-only on a D5300. To autofocus it needs a camera with an in-body "screw driver" focusing motor, currently D7000-series or higher. (Same as with AF, AF-D and similar Nikkor lenses. You need AF-S or maybe AF-P and similar from Tamron or Sigma, to be able to autofocus on D3000 and D5000-series cameras.)

If you don't need especially high magnification or the conveniences of an actual macro lens, another approach is to use macro extension tubes to make almost any non-macro lens you already have produce higher magnification. The Kenko tube set (12mm, 20mm, 36mm) offers good quality and value at a little over $100, as well as versatility. Macro tubes are simple to use, but not as quick, convenient as a "real" macro lens. There also can be some increased vignetting and edge softness in images from a lens forced to focus closer than it's designed to do... but these aren't necessarily bad things. Below is an example done with a non-macro 50mm f/1.4 lens at large aperture with an extension tube, which I knew would cause a dreamy "chiaroscuro" effect...


These were also done with extension tubes on non-macro lenses.... the left hand with a 70-200mm zoom, the right hand shot with an 85mm prime:


Have fun shopping!

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

That Nikon is a good lens, often was the kit lens in the past.

However, the lens is unlikely to be the reason for pixelation. You should have no trouble with that. I've noticed that many PP programs import the image and show it on screen as large height and width but 72 ppi. They depend on you to change those parameters to 300ppi, which will also reduce the format to a more manageable size. If you crop the 72ppi to 8x10 and try to print it, that might be the source of the problem.

That Tamron has a good reputation. I doubt that's the source of your problems.

latebloomer Loc: Topeka, KS

I have been pleased with my Tamron 16 - 300. I just don't see a problem with sharpness in my pictures (I use a tripod whenever possible.) I discovered that the vast majority of my shots were in the lower middle range of the zoom. I bit the bullet, and bought the Tamron F 2.8 20 - 70 zoom. It fits my needs for most pictures. I haven't printed any yet; but, they certaintly look sharp. The lens is expensive. I don't regret it. The F2.8 makes a difference in available low light.
Send your Tamron Lens in to Tamron. Something's wrong with the lens if the sharpness is not good on a tripod. Don't forget to turn off the VR when on the tripod. Tamron has a 3 day turn around policy which is the best in the industry.

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

In my opinion, there is no one lens that will be great for what you shoot. For portraits and macro, I would recommend the Nikkor Micro 105mm lens. For landscape, I would suggest a 24mm, 35mm, or 50mm lens. For a do it all general photography, possibly an 18-300mm lens.

Pegasus Loc: Texas Gulf Coast

Big deal the CA is automatically fixed in-camera when creating JPEG and the RAW files get it fixed in PP.

Pegasus Loc: Texas Gulf Coast

Yeah, the D5xxx have the Distortion Control feature. The most recent data file for it is just a few months old. I keep my D5200 updated.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Post a sample image. Then you will get some relevant advice and guidance.

Pixelation is related to extreme cropping, not lens sharpness, though this is not a particularly high performing lens. My guess is that you are cropping a lot, possibly shooting at a high ISO which will lead to a bit of noise, and if you are not shooting raw, you have your noise reduction turned up so you are losing important details. Add in the fact that you are probably dealing with a bit of softness, it's no wonder you aren't thrilled.

Post the sample with "Store Original" checked.

TonyBot

While everything said about lenses is correct - and getting a better lens would certainly help - a lot. BUT ... notice in line four of the original post "acceptable up to 8 x 10. Beyond that they start to pixelate". Soooo, it seems there is also a problem that may be a result of too high an ISO, but most likely, too much sharpening applied to compensate for a soft lens. If the ISO is below 1000 or so it has to be over-sharpening. A good quality, not terribly expensive "kit" lens, like the 18-140 (I'm a Canon guy, so I may be off in details) would certainly seem to fill the needs of the OP. Something like the FX 24-105 (again ... ) would be a great choice, but definitely more expensive initially (but not if the OP wants to "step up" to FX in the future). Rent 'em both and then make a decision.