Beginner Nikon 18-140 or third party?

N

Nickzx6r

Suspended / Banned
Messages
89
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I'm just returning to photography after a good few years off. I never did progress past beginner stage!!

I've bought a nikon d7200 and have identified the nikon 18-140 as a decent everyday lens.

Before I commit to one I just wanted to see if anyone has any advice regarding the third party brands such as sigma and tamron, particularly whether there's a 3rd party lens that might give me more value for money?

Also any advice as to best place to get one from? Are the 'grey' models on eBay to be trusted?

Thanks
 
Nickzx6r said:
Hi,

I'm just returning to photography after a good few years off. I never did progress past beginner stage!!

I've bought a nikon d7200 and have identified the nikon 18-140 as a decent everyday lens.

Before I commit to one I just wanted to see if anyone has any advice regarding the third party brands such as sigma and tamron, particularly whether there's a 3rd party lens that might give me more value for money?

Also any advice as to best place to get one from? Are the 'grey' models on eBay to be trusted?

Thanks
Click to expand...

There are no third-party alternatives covering the 18-140mm range. It's not quite a 'super-zoom' that generally run from 18-200-plus, but a lot of the same things apply. Super-zooms are a compromise, basically trading various aspects of optical performance and specification for unrivalled all-in-one convenience. They are not so popular among enthusiasts, but that's a different question. Try to get hands-on with one, and some of the alternatives.

There is no shortage of views on the grey question if you search. The products are all identical, but obviously the sellers are not, you may get clobbered for VAT and import duty, and there are further questions over warranty support.
 
In addition to Richards reply, the Nikon 18-140 will outperform any 18-200, not by much perhaps but it is a better lens in every way than any 18-200/300 lens (well ... except for reach ;)). I wouldn't put any 18-200/300 on the front of a D7200 but I don't like superzooms so am biased ;)

Useful review of the 18-140 here http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/ni...lens-reviews/nikon-18-140mm-f35-56g-af-s.html

Don't disregard Tamron and Sigma, especially the 18-50 f2.8's as these are very decent indeed. Another to throw into the mix is the Nikon 16-85 or even the newer 16-80 (though this is expensive). Both are good, you may still find some 16-85s new but used are also an option to consider.
 
Thanks for the advice.

I'm not dead set on the range of the 18-140, I had originally looked at he 18-105 but research seems to says that it's just not as good a lens. I'm sure I won't be disappointed in anyway with the 18-140 but if there's something better for the same money I'd rather have that.

I very much like the sigma 24-70 but it's very expensive. I've been watching a few used 17-50's too.

I'll have a look at the lenses mentioned above too
 
The "problem" with most 24-70's is that they are designed for full frame (FX) so tend to be much bigger and heavier. Also 24mm isn't particularly wide on DX. The 17/18-50's all tend to work well enough and are nicely sized, the Nikon 17-55 is built like a tank (and weighs as much) but it is a nice lens.
 
Thanks for your advice Paul, I hadn't realised that about the 24mm lenses .

I've gone for an 18-140 for now but am seriously looking at the sigma 17-50 too for the constant and bigger aperture it offers.

Am I right in thinking I'm the f2.8 lens would be a good indoor lens?

I'm also thinking of a 35mm prime nikon. But don't want to end up doubling up as this buying spree may well be about it till next summer.

Cheers
Nick
 
Nickzx6r said:
Am I right in thinking I'm the f2.8 lens would be a good indoor lens?

I'm also thinking of a 35mm prime nikon. But don't want to end up doubling up as this buying spree may well be about it till next summer.
Click to expand...
The faster the aperture the better for indoor use is a reasonable general guide. It allows use of lower ISO for higher shutter speeds. Modern cameras are much better though at higher ISOs so it can be a bit of a trade off. The zoom range (17/18-50) is very useful too.

As for the Nikon 35mm f1.8G DX lens it is an utter bargain! It has very good IQ and can also be very useful indoors.

I doubt you'll be disappointed with the 18-140 though.
 
Thanks once again for the valuable input Paul.

I'll grab a 35mm and keep my eyes open for a bargain sigma I think.
 
I have the 18-140 plus 35mm 1.8 and they Re both excellent,i also bought the macro sigma 105 2.8 and looking at Nikon 200-500, by the way dxo give the 18-140 a V good review
 
Sorry, but you're talking about making a compromise by hoping to achieve great images with a sub-ideal lens, particularly given the zoom range you're considering. That's a range that will

a. optically disappoint
b. make you lazy when framing

Minimally variable range zooms with big apertures (24/28-70 or 80 and 70/80-200 are exceptional lenses and second only in image quality to primes. The more you push the optics the more you degrade the image.

Everything in photography is compromise unless you have complete control over light, speed and distance of subject, composition of action (should that be a factor) and angle of shot as well as many other variables. If that day ever comes I'll be a really happy photographer.

My standard ISO speed is 200 (back in the days of film it was 100) although 400 is a reasonable alternative when needed. If a lens is likely to push you to 800 and beyond with the type of photography you enjoy you should avoid it.

Alternatively, ignore me completely and go where you want to. I don't really care anyway. :)
 
Robert_M_Whatsanfstop said:
Sorry, but you're talking about making a compromise by hoping to achieve great images with a sub-ideal lens, particularly given the zoom range you're considering. That's a range that will

a. optically disappoint
Click to expand...

I have come to realise that the main people who are "optically disappointed" are the ones who spend most of their time zoomed in at 100% in lightroom.

99.9% of people who view your photographs will not notice if it was shot with a £1000 lens or a £100 lens. Subject, composition and light will effect the viewer much more than a small loss in sharpness at the image edges.
 
I certainly won't be ignoring anyone. The more input and opinion the better.

I only went for the range mentioned as from my limited knowledge and research thought it looked a reasonable lens, especially given my budget (far from huge). I also thought it would make a good everyday lens, not from a lazy point of view but more from a not having to take multiple lenses with me (possibly a little lazy but more realistic with 3 kids in tow).

From what I have seen I think a 17-70 would do me just fine. And then a lens to cover 80-200. I fear though that the cheap 55-200 nikon I see wouldn't really cut it? I'd need to dig a little deeper?

Would you say, when looking at the longer lenses that image stabilisation is a must?

One lens I had started to identify for next year was the nikon 70-300 vr. Would you say this is a little too much zoom? Should I go for something with a little less variation? I will need the 300 as I intend to take pics of my daughters at karate competitions and won't always be able to get mat side, unless I am competing myself.

Starting to realise that this is a much bigger minefield that I first thought
 
Nickzx6r said:
I certainly won't be ignoring anyone. The more input and opinion the better.

I only went for the range mentioned as from my limited knowledge and research thought it looked a reasonable lens, especially given my budget (far from huge). I also thought it would make a good everyday lens, not from a lazy point of view but more from a not having to take multiple lenses with me (possibly a little lazy but more realistic with 3 kids in tow).

From what I have seen I think a 17-70 would do me just fine. And then a lens to cover 80-200. I fear though that the cheap 55-200 nikon I see wouldn't really cut it? I'd need to dig a little deeper?

Would you say, when looking at the longer lenses that image stabilisation is a must?

One lens I had started to identify for next year was the nikon 70-300 vr. Would you say this is a little too much zoom? Should I go for something with a little less variation? I will need the 300 as I intend to take pics of my daughters at karate competitions and won't always be able to get mat side, unless I am competing myself.

Starting to realise that this is a much bigger minefield that I first thought
Click to expand...

It's not exactly a minefield, but there is a lot of choice and you need to think carefully, considering your personal needs and situation. Please get to handle stuff before buying, only buy one item at a time and use it thoroughly before taking the next step. Whatever you get has knock-on effects that are not always obvious and can change the way you configure an outfit.

The Nikon 70-300 VR is a very good choice, and the Tamron 70-300 VC offers similar performance for less money. Both are quite chunky lenses. But looking ahead to your daughter's karate, that's where your ambitions may clash with reality. The light will probably be low, you'll need faster shutter speeds to both freeze movement and combat camera shake with a longer lens - all are in conflict. That's when experience and good technique come into play - you may get away with just pushing the ISO, or maybe need flash (and some knowledge to get the best from it).
 
Thanks Hoppy

I had been reading up on the need for Speed of shutter when it comes to the karate side of things. Light won't be great as you say and a flash would be way to distracting I think.

I'm hoping the body I've chosen (d7200) will allow me to push the iso a stop or 2 - it was the best I could realistically afford at the moment.

I just need to get a lens on it and have a play, as you say, one lens at a time. I've got a bit of time now as competitions take a break until early spring
 
Nickzx6r said:
Thanks Hoppy

I had been reading up on the need for Speed of shutter when it comes to the karate side of things. Light won't be great as you say and a flash would be way to distracting I think.

I'm hoping the body I've chosen (d7200) will allow me to push the iso a stop or 2 - it was the best I could realistically afford at the moment.

I just need to get a lens on it and have a play, as you say, one lens at a time. I've got a bit of time now as competitions take a break until early spring
Click to expand...

You may be surprised that flash is not usually distracting when used with consideration. It rarely affects horses for example, despite what you might hear. Some years ago, there was a professional taking photos of my son kart racing, with flash at quite close range. I asked if it put him off and he said "what flash?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top