Should I spend the extra to upgrade from the 18-55mm to the 18-140mm lens?

bigntall1

Senior Member
Looking to buy the D5200 and I'm debating if I want to spend the extra $200 for the 18-140mm lens over the standard 18-55mm lens kit that comes with the camera. Is it worth the extra to get the 18-140 lens? I primarily will be taking family photos, vacations, kids sporting events, etc. Will the basic 18-55mm lens be enough? I hear he 18-140 lens is a good everyday lens. I plan to order in the next day or so.
 

STM

Senior Member
It would give you more optical reach than the kit lens without having to sacrifice maximum aperture, whether you want to spend the extra money is something only you can really decide depending on what kind of photography you want to do.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
It would give you more optical reach than the kit lens without having to sacrifice maximum aperture, whether you want to spend the extra money is something only you can really decide depending on what kind of photography you want to do.
It's a pretty nice, very flexible lens that sells for $500 by itself. If you can spare the extra couple hundred I'd recommend it.
 

Eyelight

Senior Member
I think the OP is considering 2 kits, one with the 18-55 and for $200 more another with the 18-140.

I'd say you would definitely like the 18-140mm and the kit upgrade of $200 is $50 less than the retail difference of the two lenses. This is assuming the 18-55mm is the latest generation.

You can compare the effect of focal length on Nikon website Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR Lenses Simulator to give you an idea of the difference between 55mm and 140mm.
 
Last edited:

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I suspect that when you get home with the 18-55mm you're going to discover in short order that the 55mm reach isn't enough for many things. Then you'll start wondering what zoom to get and how far that will need to go.

I lived with an 18-105mm on my D7000 for 2 years and it was fine for 95% of what I shot (that didn't require a 150-500mm for wildlife, that is). An 18-140mm would have been even better. I've spent the last week walking around with my 24-120mm on my D7100 and it's about perfect for everything I want to do with walking around, street photography. Add a little more at each end and it would be even better.

So, what I'm saying is, spend $200 now and avoid the nerve-wracking guilt and beating yourself up over not doing it 2 days to 2 months from now when it hits you that the second lens is going to cost you more than that, and now you have to swap when the one is out of range.
 

SpikeyLemon

Senior Member
Agree with all the above. Go for the 18-140 if you can spend the extra.

Besides the focal length difference, the 140's front element doesn't rotate as it focus, it's easier to use a CPL filter on if you ever need to.
 

aroy

Senior Member
The IQ will suffer. The 18-55 is an extremely good lense. If you do not mind changing lenses then get the 55-200.
 

carguy

Senior Member
I use my 18-105mm (picked up where Jake left off :) ) frequently for 'around town' and 'taking the kids' places. Also useful for shooting outdoor 'events'.

I imagine the 18-140mm would be even better. I concur with the others, go for it :)
 

Shawn_B

Senior Member
this reply may be a bit late, but I would suggest the 18-140mm for what you have describe your need to be.

the 18-55mm is a ice lens, but it won't have enough reach for what you described.

I have the same need a you and I tried a 18-55 ad it just wasn't enough.
 

Bryj91

New member
I purchased the 18-105mm kit lens with my nikon d5200 and I absolutely love it. It is a great first lens because of how versatile it can be. That being said, I would spend more $$ in order to get the 18-140mm lens. It is always better to have more than too little. For the price difference, if you can afford it, why not do it.
 

suvlady

Senior Member
I would suggest you get the 18-140mm lens. I bought the 18-135 lens after the fact and have found that I use it more than any other lens. It's a good all around lens for most general needs. If you have the extra funds, I would get it.
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
My 18-140 never leaves my camera unless I need an ultra wide angle , then I put on my 11-16 Tokina.

These are the only 2 lenses I used on my last vacation to Louisiana. The 18-55, the 55-200 and the 70-300 Sigma never left my bag.
Even the Tokina 11-16 got used on maybe 4 pictures out of the 700+ images that I took.
 

SkvLTD

Senior Member
I'd say maybe. The new new 18-55 has a nice compact design unlike the previous and costs next to nothing. If I were you, I'd get maybe a 35 1.8 prime to have a prime lens to play with, low light, etc.
 

Patrick M

Senior Member
I doubt you'll find the 140 long enough - and eventually you'll lust for 200 or even 300. I recently replaced my 55-200 for my new workhorse, the 18-300 and very pleased with it. I kept the 18-55 too as it's such a nice compact lens to walk around with.
 

Shawn_B

Senior Member
I doubt you'll find the 140 long enough - and eventually you'll lust for 200 or even 300. I recently replaced my 55-200 for my new workhorse, the 18-300 and very pleased with it. I kept the 18-55 too as it's such a nice compact lens to walk around with.
That is very true
I went for the 70-300mm vr g-ed if as a telephoto to complement the 18-140mm

The 18-140mm is f3.5-5.6 same as the 18-55mm
the 18-55mm des give slightly sharper images than the 18-140mm
the 18-140mm does not have the focus motor on the lens as the 18-55mm
in my experience using the 18-140mm for events and people, it does a great job. sharpness can be adjusted during post processing when shooting in RAW
 

Pretzel

Senior Member
I have the 18-55 in the bag still, and it gets quite a bit of use due to its close focus range. That combined with its work-ability as a wide angle lens makes it a nice companion. Can't say I wouldn't enjoy an 18-140, though.
 
Top