18-140 or 18-200 Nikon (Page 2): I have seen mention from some of "soft" copies, esp. in the 175-200 range. IMO any zooms (in comparisons for purchase) that go beyond 10X should be...

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

deanfl wrote:

https://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-f... (show quote)

I have seen mention from some of "soft" copies, esp. in the 175-200 range. IMO any zooms (in comparisons for purchase) that go beyond 10X should be given a good workout prior to the "keep or return" decision. Many of the DX lenses were cranked out of the factory in huge numbers, statistics would indicate that some variation is a given. My 18-200 does stay on my old D90, they have been "good buddies" for a long time, work very well together. The D71 &7200 would probably show some shortcomings (12 MP versus 24 MP) in side by side examples.

WJShaheen Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ

stant52 wrote:

I have looked these to lenses up on line and I thi... (show quote)

I've sold the 18-140 and the lenses I depend on 99% of the time are the 35mm f/1.8 as well as the 18-200, with which I'm very pleased.

WJShaheen Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ

CHG_CANON wrote:

All of Nikon's 18-xxx DX lenses are equally sharp. Some have a bit more rugged build that others and cost a bit more. You won't find a difference between 140mm and 200mm in image quality, just a bit longer focal length.

Agree.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I have the original version of the lens. I use a rubber band to control creeping. I am satisfied with the quality of the lens.
Never shoot with it without waiting for the VR function to work or otherwise the images will not be sharp. All zoom lenses are very convenient but they all have compromises.

I never owned a 18-140 so I cannot make any comments on it.

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

I own the 18-140 and the 18-300. I don’t have the 18-200

I love the 18-300. The 18-140 sits in my bag never to be used. If someone made a good offer I would probably sell it. Keep as a backup.

Chuck

V2volk Loc: St. Louis area

billnikon wrote:

If you do buy a 18-200, make sure you get the II version. The first version had bad lens creep.

I was going to say, I had the original and while decent the lens creep was terrible.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

stant52 wrote:

I have looked these to lenses up on line and I thi... (show quote)

If you are serious about image quality, I would recommend getting the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 and using it with your 70-300. I know, NOT as convenient and not Nikon !

https://www.ebay.com/itm/284370494124?epid=141784946&hash=item4235cd62ac:g:fDAAAOSwJI5gZ8ED
Check the product ratings .....
.

Vince68 Loc: Wappingers Falls, NY

stant52 wrote:

I have looked these to lenses up on line and I thi... (show quote)

Here is a link which pretty much shows the things both lenses have in common, and the differences between them. The 18-200mm does weigh more than the 18-140mm, 560g to 490g. The 18-200mm has 2x ED glass elements and 3x aspherical lens elements vs. 1 ED glass element and 1 aspherical lens element of the 18-140mm.

https://cameradecision.com/lenses/compare/Nikon-AF-S-DX-Nikkor-18-140mm-f3.5-5.6G-ED-VR-vs-Nikon-AF-S-DX-Nikkor-18-200mm-f3.5-5.6G-IF-ED-VR

If you can find a USA model 18-200mm in "Like New" condition for $135.00, thats a great deal, if it truly is like new. KEH has one listed in "Excellent" condition for $174.08. with caps and hood. MPB has two listed in "Excellent" condition as well for $164.00 with caps but no hood. I don't believe the 18-140 came with a hood included when new.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

V2volk wrote:

I was going to say, I had the original and while decent the lens creep was terrible.

It's funny with these older lenses, I've had my current 18-200 for years...it still does not "creep", but I do often hear that complaint....more manufacturing variation I guess. Mine is the "red" VR letters version.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

cedymock wrote:

Information for you to review.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm

Please keep in mind Rockwell's frame of reference for this review is from 2012.
.

Bill_de Loc: US

olemikey wrote:

It's funny with these older lenses, I've had my current 18-200 for years...it still does not "creep", but I do often hear that complaint....more manufacturing variation I guess. Mine is the "red" VR letters version.

It just might be the way people handle the camera. I only had the issue when walking, holding the body by the grip with the lens pointing at the ground. They eventually added a lens lock, but that only helped when the lens was zoomed in. That was the only position it could be locked.

---

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Bill_de wrote:

It just might be the way people handle the camera. I only had the issue when walking, holding the body by the grip with the lens pointing at the ground. They eventually added a lens lock, but that only helped when the lens was zoomed in. That was the only position it could be locked.

---

Ha, No doubt - "Handling" surely plays a part over time with all our favorite gear! And, casual use versus pro/am use, chasing after a shot, or many, with cam/lens in hand, shooting in difficult circumstances, etc.. I also imagine if I ran the zoom in and out a couple thousand times, it might feel a bit diff.

My 18-300 is a creeper (as are some others I have), slow creep, but still a creeper, glad for the lock. On the 18-200, I do often carry by the grip, lens down...but I do try to mind how I carry, and how much "shock" it actually receives. Many lenses seem to "loosen up" a bit over time (some of mine have), but this particular 18-200 never did, not stiff mind you, but never "loosey goosey".

bwmarkus

I have used the 18 - 140 as my main walking around lens on D7500 for years. It's very good overall lens. I recently decided to upgrade to the 18 - 300 to get the additional reach. I considered the 18 - 200, but decided I might as well go "all the way". The 18 - 300 is a little heavier and bulkier, but I wanted the additional length for birds and wildlife. The 18 - 300 has the same maximum aperture as the 18 - 140. I believe the VR is more advanced than my 18 - 140, but that's just an opinion. So far, I'm happy with the 18 - 300; but it's still early.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

PAR4DCR wrote:

I have the 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6GII ED VR. Stays on my D7200 about 90% of the time. Very sharp and quality build.

Don

Ditto

Duane

Ritag55

Either lens takes great photos! Perfect photos? They could PROVIDED:
You use a tripod, lock the mirror up, or use a cable release, shoot at the sharpest point of your lens - F8 or F11 and make sure you focus sharply, and use your cameras native ISO.
If you deviate from this like hand hold, your camera etc then things change!
If you have a DX format, your 18-200 is really a 27mm-300mm. Or 1.5 times as a DX sensor is a cropped sensor.
Hope this helps😊