Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or Nikon 18-140mm?

B

Blimsters

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi there,

Firstly, I'm new to the forum and also fairly new to photography, so here's just a bit of background. I've always had a casual interest in taking good photos, travel a lot and have always taken a camera with me, but would have never referred to myself as being 'into photography' by any means. Over the last year or so however I've significantly increased my interest, to the point of becoming close to an obsession. The partial catalyst for this is an upcoming five week road trip in the United States, which I am now fully thinking of as a photography-oriented trip. I want to be as well-equipped as possible for any opportunities that may present themselves, so have spent countless hours reading reviews of just about every camera and lens on the market, and trying to figure out what will best meet my needs (mainly landscape, nature and astrophotography).

For my Nikon D7100, my lens collection now includes: Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, Nikon 70-300mm AF-P, Nikon 35mm f/1.8 and Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 II. Although it's not the most high end stuff (my experience and ability wouldn't justify that kind expenditure anyway), I'm actually pretty happy with all of these lenses, and as a combination they obviously cover a wide range of focal lengths and potential scenarios. When I've been out recently on landscape/nature shoots however, I sometimes find myself wishing the Tamron (usual walk-about lens) had a bit more reach, and therefore frequently switch bewteen that and the 70-300mm. Nikon's 18-140mm seems to stand out as the best alternative. I could probably deal with (based on what I've read) the distortion and slight drop in sharpness, but my question is this...

Would I miss the larger aperture if I got rid of the 17-50mm and got the 18-140mm? Keeping them both isn't out of the question, but carrying 5 lenses around on holiday seems a bit ridiculous when some of them cover the same focal length.

Thank you for reading, if you've stuck with me this long. As I've said I've already done extensive reading, including some forum posts asking almost this very question, but I'm just interested to hear from some photographers way more experienced and knowledgeable than me about their experiences with one or both of these lenses, or thoughts generally on my question.
 
Lee I use the 18-140 on my D500 and I've done a lot of research about this, the Nikon 18-300 is near as dammit as good according to DXO in the sharpness area, thus my view would be if your contemplating the 18-140 get the 300 and have more reach. Ok its not the greatest lens out there but its on Par with the 140, I'm gonna get 1 I think and sell the 140

The f2.8 is something you need to weigh up, do you shoot in dark places in building etc, if so keep it.
My Lens lineup is

Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Sigma 18-35 f1.8 ( this is my main lens )
Nikon 18-140
Sigma 150-600 C
Nikon 70-200 F2.8
Nikon 24-70 F2.8

I don't know about you but I barely use the Tokina, I just seem to use my Sigma the most as its pin sharp.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, so perhaps a better option is to sell the 70-300mm and get the 18-300mm? I think I initially wrote it off due to cost, but if it could replace the 17-50mm and the 70-300mm for a similar cost and similar image quality then it seems worth it. I've got the 35mm f/1.8 which I like for indoor shooting.

Thanks for the input.
 
the 70-300 is a good one I,ll say that better than most, so if you shoot motorsport its good to save it for that, have a read at the reviews on the 300s, they don't get mega views, but I looked at Sigmas cheaper one and it isn't as sharp as Nikons, you can pick up Nikons on eBay for under 400 from Kotcha.

be aware though the 18-300 is heavy so bare that in mind if you don't want heavy things.

if I was in your shoes id buy the 300 play with it then sell stuff... when you weigh up the performance of it.
 
I'm reading some reviews saying that the sharpness of the (newer) 18-300mm isn't brilliant, but I've been wondering lately if I'm getting too hung up on sharpness lab tests in reviews. I assume a lens like this would be more than adequate for my purposes, i.e. viewing on a screen and possibly medium size printing? I understand that sharpness has more to do with technique than the lens or camera.
 
I like the 18-140 its pretty sharp and according to DXO there the same, so in my book if your not after uber sharpness then it'll be fine. They do, do an 18-200 or 18-270 I think which may be a little better

If you want the best sharpness the 18-35 is one of the best out, like having 4 primes in 1 but it doesn't give you the reach. Im going to get the Nikon 300 when I save up, as my go to do anything lens, if I want sharpness I can always fall back onto my 18-35
 
Just for clarification, are you referring to the older (f/3.5-5.6) or newer (f/3.5-6.3) version of the 18-300? The newer one is signifcantly smaller and lighter, but I've read varying reports of its relative sharpness. The general consensus seems to be that the image quality isn't as good as the older, more expensive one.
 
the new 1 lee the old one is heavier but does 1 stop better in light, however I've read a few reviews which say each is better than the other, but for me id just get the new one.
 
Thanks for all of the replies Rob, I've done a lot more reading of forums, reviews and test scores. The ultimate practicality of the 18-300 is very appealing, but I think I like the image quality and focusing speed of the new AF-P 70-300mm too much to replace it, and it doesn't make sense to have both. If I didn't already own the 70-300 I'd probably have ordered the 18-300 today. I think I'll probably try and pick up a decent priced 18-140 (your comment on its sharpness was reassuring), take that as well as the Tamron 17-50 on my trip and then sell one of them when I get back, depending on which one I seem to like the most. I figure I'll probably only lose about £50 either way.

I'm probably not going to be doing much large printing or publishing my photos in any way, so it might seem like I'm obsessing over sharpness and IQ quite a lot for what could essentially be referred to as holiday snaps. What I am prepared to invest a lot of time and money into though is that personal satisfaction of looking at some great quality photos that I've taken. Surely that's what photography is all about!
 
fair play and thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top