BETTER GLASS ? Just thinking about what I could do that would be an improvement in lense quality. I currently shoot a Nikon 18-140mm lens almost all the time . I shoot most in the...

stant52 Loc: Williamsport, Pa.

Just thinking about what I could do that would be an improvement in lense quality.

I currently shoot a Nikon 18-140mm lens almost all the time .
I shoot most in the 18-55 mm range but I like the ability to reach 140mm on occasion. But the 18mm end is the important part.

I also have the 18-55mm kit lense, 35mm prime 1.8 and a 70-300 mm

Or am I really just looking to spend money ? GAS ? I'm attracted to a lighter lens if available.

Thanks

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

stant52 wrote:

Just thinking about what I could do that would be an improvement in lense quality.

I currently shoot a Nikon 18-140mm lens almost all the time .
I shoot most in the 18-55 mm range but I like the ability to reach 140mm on occasion. But the 18mm end is the important part.

I also have the 18-55mm kit lense, 35mm prime 1.8 and a 70-300 mm

Or am I really just looking to spend money ? GAS ? I'm attracted to a lighter lens if available.

Thanks

Prime lenses are generally lighter, smaller and faster than zoom lenses. Don’t buy a lens just to buy a lens. You have focal lengths pretty well covered from 18mm to 300mm. What are you looking to accomplish that your current lenses don’t offer?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

You are mostly having GAS........The Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 gets very good reviews - including MY recommendation - however it is not particularly small and my guess is it is only marginally better - as the 18-140 is pretty good. It is fairly inexpensive if you shop used - and you do not mind "degrading" to a non-Nikon lens ! 8-)
.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

My “aha” moment with a zoom lens was when I tried the 17-55 2.8.
The only pro quality DX zoom lens Nikon made before they had a full-frame camera.
Same build quality as the current full-frame DSLR pro lenses. Still use it on my D300.
Noticeably better than any other DX zoom lens.
Negatives: Heavier, more expensive and it’s pre-vr.

Typically, zoom lenses with over a 3x zoom range have bigger compromises.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You're having a GAS attack. Your 18-140 is a fine general purpose lens. Your ability to use it effectively is more impactful than changing to another lens covering the same / similar focal length range.

The 35 f/1.8 is a great lens. When your subjects fit this focal length (an effective 50mm ish), you can get really great images, especially if using the artistic qualities in the f/2 to f/5 range.

The 70-300mm zoom also is a fine lens, where again, your use of the lens in selecting your focal length and aperture and ISO are way more impactful than worrying about another lens options in this focal length.

stant52 Loc: Williamsport, Pa.

CHG_CANON wrote:

You're having a GAS attack. Your 18-140 is a fine ... (show quote)

Yeah , I kinda thought it was just GAS . I really don't have a complaint with my picture quality , if I do I usually can place the blame on ME. I just thought I'd throw the question out there to all the experts .

Although smaller and lighter with the same focal length would be nice .
Thanks everyone

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Yes, of course there are higher quality lenses. But as with everything else there are compromises involving size, weight, cost and utility.

Before deciding to upgrade be sure that you are optimizing your skill and technique.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

When I bought a D7200 it came with an 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G. I still have and use both as the D7200 is Nikon's highest rated DX dslr in terms of IQ and the 18-140mm is a fairly high rated DX lens. There are some sharper DX primes, but it looks like you have that covered with the 35mm f/1.8. You might want to consider a Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, which I'm very fond of. After that, you'll have to go to FX pro level glass for noticeable improvement in IQ, but now you are talking expensive glass, bulk and weight. I would only recommend that if you are planning on buying an FX body. FWIW, better glass will not make you a better photographer and there are plenty of award winning photos out there that were taken with glass not as capable as the 18-140mm.

Alphabravo2020

I would use a prime for cars, trains, buildings, landscapes or anything where I can zoom with my feet AND I am interested in an artistic effect more than a clinical documentary effect. Shooting through 15 or 20+ pieces of glass sucks all the life out of a photo but I realize that is a personal thing.

Two primes take up less space then most zooms. If I carry a lens case, then one prime is on the camera and one is in the case, and I am more compact than most any zoom or super zoom.

ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

I’l throw the excellent DX 16-80 f2.8-4G into the mix. It was one of the last F-mount DX lenses to be introduced, wider than the 18-140, and faster than most other DX lenses. It got very good reviews when introduced, and I have been very pleased with my copy. For reasons known only to themselves, Nikon seems to have discontinued the lens, but it may be available used.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am in agreement with the others that you have more than enough glass for general photography. GAS is common and we act by impulse, not common sense.
Your 18-140 from all I know is a very good lens for all purpose photography. The kit lens, the 18-55 is indeed very good and reasonably priced. Ask Sylvia from the UK about kit lenses since practically all of her photography is done with a similar to yours Canon kit lens. Her photography is excellent.

The 35mm f1.8 as Paul already discussed, is a very nice optics simulating the field of view with your APS camera that a 50mm lens can see with a FX body. The 70-300, especially the VR version is a very good optic helpful also for wildlife and "macro" shots. You could buy expensive optics but your images will not change much from your present ones. Modern lenses are excellent and only limited by our abilities.

Stay with what you have and keep on shooting.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

--Bob

Mac wrote:

Prime lenses are generally lighter, smaller and faster than zoom lenses. Don’t buy a lens just to buy a lens. You have focal lengths pretty well covered from 18mm to 300mm. What are you looking to accomplish that your current lenses don’t offer?

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

stant52 wrote:

Just thinking about what I could do that would be an improvement in lense quality.

I currently shoot a Nikon 18-140mm lens almost all the time .
I shoot most in the 18-55 mm range but I like the ability to reach 140mm on occasion. But the 18mm end is the important part.

I also have the 18-55mm kit lense, 35mm prime 1.8 and a 70-300 mm

Or am I really just looking to spend money ? GAS ? I'm attracted to a lighter lens if available.

Thanks

Gas!
IMHO as The UHH Closet Expert on Gas, sigh . . .
Smile,
JimmyT Sends

Jerry G Loc: Waterford, Michigan and Florida

I'm not going to tell you don't need another lens, if you want spend your money we should help you do what you want. This not the 18mm you said was important but it is close, AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED, a fast wide angle prime. Increased sharpness and better low light capability, only $800.

BebuLamar

Jerry G wrote:

I'm not going to tell you don't need another lens, if you want spend your money we should help you do what you want. This not the 18mm you said was important but it is close, AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED, a fast wide angle prime. Increased sharpness and better low light capability, only $800.

It's a fast wide angle prime which isn't all that wide on the DX camera. It's a rather wasteful use of the lens.