BETTER GLASS ? (Page 2): My 18-40 is on my camera for 90% of my photos and I love it for zooming with photographing children when they move like the wind.

issa2006.

My 18-40 is on my camera for 90% of my photos and I love it for zooming with photographing children when they move like the wind.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

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

I read as many reviews and comparisons as I can before I buy anything.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Since your 18-140 is a DX lens, you might consider the Nikon AF-P DX NIKKOR 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Lens, a DX lens, or if you have a bigger budget, the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G, an FX lens.

Then again, if weight is the only concern, the above mentioned Nikon AF-P DX NIKKOR 10-20mm gives you a lighter lens and an additional range. The 20 mm prime has already been mentioned.

Compare lenses here:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Nikon_NIKKOR_20mm_f_2.8_Lens_vs_Nikon_AF-S_NIKKOR_14-24mm_f_2.8G_ED_Lens_vs_Nikon_AF-P_DX_NIKKOR_10-20mm_f_4.5-5.6G_VR_Lens_vs_Nikon_AF-S_DX_NIKKOR_18-140mm_f_3.5-5.6G_ED_VR_Lens/BHitems/36905-USA_520635-USA_1341603-REG_999548-USA

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

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

Without further information as to what type of photography you seek to add to your repertoire, it is tough to answer your question. In general, it appears you have good range coverage. New glass unless specific to application such a wide open for indoors or unique wide angle, etc. is probably just GAS. Cheers!

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

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

"Kit lens"? Try renting an upper level professional lens and see if you start drooling. If you don't drool, don't upgrade. I suspect you will be be opening your wallet for a new lens in the future.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

If you’re really looking for smaller and lighter check out a M4/3 setup. My goto lens is the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 Pro but for a wider range there’s also a 12-100 f/4 Pro, which is a little pricey. I’d probably recommend the 14-150 f/4-5.6. That’s equivalent to 28-300mm on a FF, ( your 18-140 is equivalent to 27-210), and a good used copy can be found under $300.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

imagemeister wrote:

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-)
.

If you are a technically "good" photographer you WILL be able to see the difference a better lens can provide. There are NOT many choices for really good DX lenses

https://www.ebay.com/itm/363857278906?epid=141784946&hash=item54b79577ba:g:0xcAAOSwvP1ilc3V

https://www.ebay.com/itm/204002196126?hash=item2f7f7a7a9e:g:brwAAOSwn2RiscSM&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAA4GbTqEsGpq0yC8skZT%2FoR93XR3duTkPsNRDnP0iAGhDHZLv2%2Bq0itECd9J0ERRYR1qG97SSqKyC8LXnXM5jpgb7IWE%2FO3JpNPrw%2FL6dToNk9DOWkrj%2BrvB0qghA%2FFpF0OqCsoPcdMbd7ENtplUFePvr870xyIf4%2FKXJc6mml8kwNJI7s2LfJUZ7iGODJOV%2BiUOVOnfR7wKjA7LgURHtesCaijoIFW0wXWjTQGh5rA7La5%2BEDly4a1cigaMQJZJ4FvBua7wnPX1E%2Buz8KvW771KlgQ2s7E0775QQ45%2B%2FjI4EI%7Ctkp%3ABFBMsOL3s7Vg

https://www.ebay.com/itm/185455581774?hash=item2b2e039a4e:g:IKMAAOSwKAtiji4V

With any used lens make sure you get the OEM HOOD with it !

..

Miamark Loc: Florida

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

I wider lens will make the distorton worse.

petrochemist Loc: UK

Alphabravo2020 wrote:

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.

'Zooming with your feet' will affect perspective quite differently than changing focal length. This will be noticeable in all the subject types you listed, as none of them are simply planar subjects.

Alphabravo2020

petrochemist wrote:

'Zooming with your feet' will affect perspective quite differently than changing focal length. This will be noticeable in all the subject types you listed, as none of them are simply planar subjects.

Yes. It takes planning to completely solve perspective with primes. I usually just bring a longer and shorter lens.

Thinking along the lines of @wdross, I'd suggest OP try a fast prime. They can be had very cheaply and if they don't immediately thump a gland in your brain then no harm done. The 50mm f1.2 and the 20mm previously mentioned come to mind.

Dan' de Bourgogne

GoofyNewfie wrote:

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.

Hello GoofyNewfie! You are making here an interesting post...interesting for me because I was wondering if I should buy a 17/55 lens for my D7200.
It is confusing for me, because on one side You write "“aha” moment with a zoom lens was when I tried the 17-55 2.8."...
So, I imagine You find it to be a good lens...
But You write at the end "zoom lenses with over a 3x zoom range have bigger compromises".
The problem is, this lens is over a 3x zoom range.
So, does it have bigger compromises or is it really producing "aha moment"?"

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Dan' de Bourgogne wrote:

Hello GoofyNewfie! You are making here an interest... (show quote)

Yes the greater the zoom range the more potential issues, but essentially that’s a 3x zoom. Those 4mm don’t make much difference. And really with modern lens designs there are many excellent zooms that are greater than 3x.

petrochemist Loc: UK

Alphabravo2020 wrote:

Thinking along the lines of @wdross, I'd suggest OP try a fast prime. They can be had very cheaply and if they don't immediately thump a gland in your brain then no harm done. The 50mm f1.2 and the 20mm previously mentioned come to mind.

A fast prime is always a good option for an extra lens. In most mounts the f/1.2 versions have a significant premium, but legacy f/1.4 models can be had at reason prices and the f/1.8 variants are rarely much more than £30.

These lenses may lack the flexibility of a zoom but they allow selective focus & low light shooting that a typical zoom can't touch. This might be a very different style of shooting, but it costs little to try & it can be very rewarding.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Dan' de Bourgogne wrote:

Hello GoofyNewfie! You are making here an interest... (show quote)

Ah Ha! meaning amazing.

17mm x 3 =51.....51mm vs 55mm isn't that much of a difference.

General rule of thumb- look at Nikon and Canon's "Trilogy" of their best FX lenses.
Nothing over 3x.
14-24
24-70 (Canon's 24-105 is a pretty good one though)
70-200

Nikon's 28-300 is a really handy lens, but too soft on the long end for my tastes.

Technique has a lot to do with getting sharp images, sometimes more than the lenses you're using.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

GoofyNewfie wrote:

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.

The 17-55mm f/2.8 is a great DX lens. It's an older design (I've had mine approaching 15 years), and it's a little heavy. Doesn't matter. I've used it on all of my DX Nikons...D200, D300, D300s, and now D500. It's the best way I've found to get good wide angle on a DX body. Yes, the 10-20mm is wider, but it's not as good and nowhere near as fast as the 17-55.

It is true that there is no VR, but that has never been an issue at the focal lengths involved. Disgression, good choices, and good technique have always been sufficient. Mine replaced the 18-70mm DX zoom that I started out with. That lens wasn't really good for anything, except it does turn out to be a pretty decent choice for IR photography.

When you don't need the wide end, you might consider the 24-120mm f/4. Despite it being a full-frame lens, and despite it being a 5:1 zoom, I've found it to be a very serviceable utility lens on my D500. That lens is also pretty generally available at avery attractive prices on the used market.