Nikon 18 140 Vs 18 200

By | 02/11/2022

Nikon 18-140 vs Nikon 18-105

I have been trawling the web and some DPReview threads looking for views on the pros and cons of the xviii-140 vs 18-105 but not with that much satisfaction.

I am particularly request for thoughts from those who have used both of these lenses.

Shooting mostly with D7500. I take the eighteen-105 and I find it a convenient walk around lens. I utilise the 18-105 for junior soccer shots (generally good lite).

That bit of actress reach on the 18-140 is attracting but if the performance is not actually very different …

From what I accept read online:

non a great difference between optical performance of them ??

merely diverse comments that the xviii-140 is improve for newer sensors and sharper (those views didn’t seem universal however) ??

VR on the 18-140 may better than the VR on the xviii-105 ??

Couldn’t seem to get clear info on any differences in autofocus speed/functioning.

18-140 is a bit bigger (10mm longer) and weighs a bit more (490g vs 420g), and has a metal mount.

thanks in advance.

Peter

ANSWER:

This question has not been answered yet.

Re: Nikon 18-140 vs Nikon 18-105


one

You are unlikely to find a consensus because few had both at the same fourth dimension. There could be a kind of confirmation bias feeding into their impressions to justify the extra money they’d spent on the 18-140.

The way I encounter it the lenses are very much designed the same and have the same optical characteristics just the eighteen-140 is designed to sell for more money. Hence it has a larger range and a metal mount. To me, that is the simply departure.

I preferred the 18-200 to either because it’due south built a niggling better. At the time I tested them I think the 18-140 was forty% more than the eighteen-105 and the 18-200 100% more than.

From experience I recall you will be wasting your time to wait for epitome quality differences between those three and it would exist better to save up for something really impressive. The prototype quality is okay I suppose, but if image quality is what obsesses you lot, you can exercise better.

Re: Nikon 18-140 vs Nikon xviii-105

threw the lens wrote:

You are unlikely to find a consensus considering few had both at the same time. There could be a kind of confirmation bias feeding into their impressions to justify the extra money they’d spent on the 18-140.

The way I see it the lenses are very much designed the aforementioned and accept the same optical characteristics merely the 18-140 is designed to sell for more money. Hence it has a larger range and a metal mount. To me, that is the merely difference.

I preferred the 18-200 to either because information technology’s congenital a fiddling meliorate. At the fourth dimension I tested them I think the eighteen-140 was twoscore% more than than the 18-105 and the 18-200 100% more.

From feel I think you will exist wasting your time to look for image quality differences between those three and it would exist amend to save up for something really impressive. The paradigm quality is okay I suppose, but if image quality is what obsesses you, you tin can practice better.

thanks

I approximate I wouldn’t be obsessing over the quality differential just it seemed a way to frame the comparison.

I thought they might exist pretty similar.

I had both at the aforementioned time


1

Both were abrupt but the eighteen-140 was sharper at 105 than the 18-105 was.   And, incredibly, the 18-140 was very sharp at 140.

As far equally “extra reach” I found the difference between 105 and 140 to exist near nothing.  The heavy lifting is done from 18 to 105.

And the eighteen-140 didn’t weigh any more than than the 105.  BTW, both are sold considering I find myself shooting from xviii to 55 mostly, with my super precipitous 18-55 AF-P.  I wound upwards never carrying my 18-140.