sxrich

Been shooting for many years and could care less about the cost of the gear. Not a gear snob. Today, earlier, accosted by a somewhat reactive OP who suggested otherwise. So, here are some images, with the INEXPENSIVE 18-140dx, taking while shooting events, one wedding shot etc. Some with the INEXPENSIVE Nikon SB-400 flash for fill. That said, shooting an event, low light, no flash, faster glass ie 24-70 2.8 or 70-200 2.8 makes a huge difference; but, in the right light, Nikon kit lenses perform very well IMHO

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Totally agree.
I have several non L lenses and they do great.
That is why I do not post downloads for those who stress over what lens or camera including big stress over our camera being in my wife's name.
Great shots and excellent point, thank you for this post.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

Quixdraw Loc: x

I really don't think about the cost of gear using it, only when buying it. Regardless of cost, it delivers results or goes.

Moondoggie Loc: Southern California

I agree, great post. Thanks!

greenwork Loc: Southwest Florida

We're spoiled with incredible technology. It's good to be reminded every now and again that even the INEXPENSIVE stuff delivers some pretty impressive images. Of course, the photographer had something to do with it. Thanks for sharing!

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

I agree. Don't get hung up on the "next great thing" in tech. It might be great but do you really need it?

gmontjr2350 Loc: Southern NJ

George

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Very nice share!

My wife took thousands of decent shots with the 18-140 and gave it up for the longer Tam 18-400 for our Yellowstone shoots. That’s another very usable and pleasing lens from cactus to wolves.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

All of Nikon's 18-whatever DX lenses are pretty much the same, regardless of focal length zoom, being overall excellent and well-matched to the DX bodies. More so than Canon's corresponding EF-S lenses. There are subtle build-differences in the lenses, some with plastic mounts vs metal mounts on others. That might be one of the main differences, beyond the zoom length.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

I have a 70-300 Nikkor Kit lens that is at least equal to my 200-500 within it's range

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Based on my experience, I have come to believe that it is dangerous (or at least can be) to make generalizations about low and intermediate-priced lenses, particularly Nikkor lenses. I have had very different experiences with a number of them.

My wife years ago had a Nikkor 18-55 mm kit lens. It performed admirably with her camera. Her only complaint was that it wasn't long enough, so we got an 18-200 mm Nikkor zoom to replace it most of the time. She liked that lens, except for the added size and weight, and used it for a number of years before mostly retiring it in favor of her iPhone 8.

The lens I bought for my first digital camera was a Nikkor 18-70 mm zoom bought new-in-the-box. I hated that lens as long as I had it...loose construction, seriously unsharp, just generally crummy. Couldn't save up for a 17-55 mm f/2.8 fast enough. Still have and use the 17-55 after 15 years.

I got another 18-200 mm Nikkor zoom in a box of stuff that I bought fot myself. It does a nice job on my D500 in certain situations, but it is quite slow and really just sort of flaky to use. It's on loan this summer to a school nurse, and I've missed having it available a time or two.

I tried hard to like a 16-80 mm Nikkor DX zoom, but found it too expensive and too mediocre to even make it to the check-out counter. Lots of folks love that lens, but not me.

If you believe what you read here, the 24-120 mm f/4 full frame Nikkor zoom is nothing but a pile of garbage. I've had one for over three years, and used it on both DX and FX cameras, including the D850. There is nothing wrong with that lens, except that images made with it need a little bit of saturation boost. I liked it so well that I bought a second one in the recent refurbished sale. Unfortunately, it is at Nikon for repair, awaiting parts. It was apparently mishandled either in-store or by the original purchaser. I'm confident that it's going to be just fine when I get it back.

So I urge care with generalization. Some things may be more true than others. Some may be true part of the time.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

They all look great to me!

merrytexan Loc: georgia

Very nice set with the dog action shot being my favorite.