stant52 Loc: Williamsport, Pa.

I have looked these to lenses up on line and I think I have only gotten more confused. Which is the better all round ,quality lens ??

I have the Nikon Nikkor AF-S DX 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR and I use it almost all the time ,for everything.

But I saw the Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6G ED SWM VR IF Aspherical and it stirred up my interest .

I have a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 G SWM VR ED IF which I was thinking I don't really need . I've hardly ever used it .
The 18-140 is great but I thought the 18-200 would replace both of them . I can't imagine that I would really miss the 70-300, or would I ??
I can buy the 18-200 for $135 like new ,seen it.

Maybe I'm just over thinking the whole thing. I've read the 18-140 takes the better pictures but then I read where the 18-200 takes really good pics

Just looking for some opinions from everyone . THanks

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

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.

cedymock Loc: Irmo, South Carolina

Information for you to review.

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

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Maybe because they all had their own opinions of the results? Did they compare them or just evaluate the one lens they bought.
Define good; and who will be comparing your images to <anything>?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Then, I myself would go with the desired coverage.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have the 18-200 that I bought used, and my wife has the earlier version that she bought new a number of years ago. The newer lens has a gold "VR" badge, while the older model has a red VR badge on the top of the lens.

Both are optically quite decent. Both also have some interesting operational quirks that can be distracting when you first notice them, but both can do a quite acceptable job if used with a little care. She uses hers on the D40x that she's had for approaching 15 years. I bought mine to use on my D300, but now occasionally use on my D500.

The "new" price of this lens has been right around $600 for pretty much its entire life history. The big complaint is that it has a tendency to "self-extend" if you carry your camera lens-down.

It's not by any means a great lens, but it is quite serviceable. I've been using a 24-120 f/4 full frame as my main "casual" DX lens for approaching two years, and a Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 for more serious situations.

I cannot speak to the 18-140, because I've not used one, but if the lens you are looking at is fully functional (including working VR), the price seems pretty attractive, regardless of which version it is. But I'd try it out before commiting to buy it, just to make sure.

PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place

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

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I had the 18-140 lens on my D7200 when I had it, and found it to be a very good, all around lens. It’s sharp, has little distortion of any kind, and I never found any color aberration. At least not that I could tell. I had a longer lens and almost never used it.

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

I had the 18-200 for years - started with it on a D60 thru D70 then a D90 for the longest period of over 8 years. Then D3300, D3400 and finally a D5300. I also got the 18-140 with the D5300 when I bought it however I found I liked the extra reach of the 18-200 so sold off the 140 version. My daughter also had the 18-200 with various bodies but when she upped to a D5600 decided on a new lens to go with it and bought the latest 18-300. A very impressive lens this is, barely bigger or heavier than either 18-140 or 18-200 it has much better IQ all the way to 300mm and will focus much much closer almost to macro distances. Yes I bought one for my D5500 and have never regretted it. Its on there to stay while ever I have that camera.

ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

This discussion of the best « one lens solution » for Nikon bodies (both DX and FX) has been going on for years. I’ve bought and sold all contenders and have settled (I think) on the 18-140, but don’t hold me to it. For $135, just get the 18-200 and see which you like better.

P.S. Swtching to mirrorless doe not make the issue go away.

Bill_de Loc: US

Version 2 of that lens provided a lock to prevent the self extending. I have the original which came bundled with a D300 and suffered from 'lens creep'. The simple solution to that is the $5 lens band (or make your own) that became very popular shortly after the lens was introduced.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/834032-REG/LENSBAND_628586557949_Lens_Band_Red.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI877B2cr28QIV2XxvBB0FvQllEAQYASABEgIvgvD_BwE

As an aside, I had a 200 - 400 F/4.0 that was extremely stiff to zoom. When the camo "Lens Coat" was looking pretty warn I removed it. The zoom became smooth as silk. The Lens Coat acted as a super duty Lens Band.


--

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

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

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

My experience with this series is quite a few years worth, all the VR models (older to newer) seem to work equally well. I have never ran a direct shot for shot comparison, but agree that image quality/mechanical/electronics all perform well. I currently own the 18-105/18-200/18-300 VR versions (no longer have 18-140, but it was equal to the others, went in a trade package). If the lens covers the focal length you need/wide to long reach you need, I'd say you will be a happy camper. If the condition (all parameters) makes you happy, the price is good. Enjoy!

deanfl Loc: Georgia

https://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/thoms-recommended-lenses.html

I just bought a used 18-140 that I am starting to use. I also own the 18-200.

One of the reasons I got the 18-140 was the review from Thom Hogan. It is on his list of recommended Nikon DX lenses. The 18-200 is not on his recommended list because “Just doesn’t hold its own with the 24mp sensors. You can see that it’s not as sharp as the other super zooms Nikon made.”

I haven’t done a personal comparison. I like that the 18-140 is lighter. I know some people are happy with the 18-200. I seldom use mine lately.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

There aren't many comparisons available, but both lenses have a good reputation. I would go for the 200mm just for the extra reach. That was my go-to lens on my D7100.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-140mm-F35-56G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D500-versus-AF-S-DX-Nikkor-16-85mm-f-3.5-5.6G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D500-versus-AF-S-DX-VR-Zoom-nikkor-18-200-f-3.5-5.6G-IF-ED-on-Nikon-D500__1208_1061_172_1061_206_1061
https://versus.com/en/nikon-af-s-dx-nikkor-18-140mm-f-3-5-5-6g-ed-vr-vs-nikon-af-s-dx-nikkor-18-200mm-f-3-5-5-6g-ed-vr-ii
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Nikon_AF-S_DX_NIKKOR_18-140mm_f_3.5-5.6G_ED_VR_Lens_vs_Tamron_18-200mm_f_3.5-6.3_XR_Di-II_Macro_Lens_for_Nikon_Digital_SLR_vs_Tamron_AF18-270mm_f_3.5-6.3_Di_II_VC_PZD_AF_Lens_for_Nikon_vs_Nikon_AF-S_DX_NIKKOR_18-200mm_f_3.5-5.6G_ED_VR_II_Zoom_Lens/BHitems/999548-USA_550952-REG_747931-REG_644744-USA