18-140mm Pretty Disappointing

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
I picked up a used 18-140mm for a walk around, having heard that it is pretty sharp for an inexpensive kit lens. Well, the one I got is about as sharp as a butter knife. I wasn't expecting tack sharp, but this is pretty bad. Maybe I got a bad copy. My Tamron 17-50 is a zillion times sharper, and I got it used for about the same price. So sad. Nothing to do but cry. My rant ends here. Time to move on. :)
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I picked up a used 18-140mm for a walk around, having heard that it is pretty sharp for an inexpensive kit lens. Well, the one I got is about as sharp as a butter knife. I wasn't expecting tack sharp, but this is pretty bad. Maybe I got a bad copy. My Tamron 17-50 is a zillion times sharper, and I got it used for about the same price. So sad. Nothing to do but cry. My rant ends here. Time to move on. :)
I had one. It was... Okay. Certainly nothing to write home about.
 
mine was sharp on my D7100. ONe of my favorite lenses. Did you fine tune it before shooting? That is the one thing I find really helps with just about all lenses on my D7100 and my D750.
 

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
mine was sharp on my D7100. ONe of my favorite lenses. Did you fine tune it before shooting? That is the one thing I find really helps with just about all lenses on my D7100 and my D750.

No, Don, but it's not a front or back focus issue. Nothing is very sharp. I wonder if this is simply a bad copy. It was an inexpensive experiment, so it's not a huge deal. I can cover the range with my Tammy 17-50 and Nikon 70-300 and get very sharp results.
 

Texas

Senior Member
I've been trying to get on with my plan to sell my 18-105mm VR. I've got its range covered just fine by other lenses but the 18-105 is just too sharp to part with. So far.

I'm betting you have a bad copy since the reviews of most of the Nikon 18-xxx's are very similar.
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
No, Don, but it's not a front or back focus issue. Nothing is very sharp. I wonder if this is simply a bad copy. It was an inexpensive experiment, so it's not a huge deal. I can cover the range with my Tammy 17-50 and Nikon 70-300 and get very sharp results.

There are 2 versions of that lens. The 18-140mm f3.5-5.6 and the 18-140 f/4. I'm betting you picked up the older inexpensive version. (difference is day and night)
 
Last edited:

Blacktop

Senior Member
There are 2 versions of that lens. The 18-140mm f3.5-5.6 and the 18-140 f/4. I'm betting you picked up the older inexpensive version. (difference is day and night)

Never mind!!! I'm not thinking clear this morning. I'm thinking about the 24-120mm. Sorry!!! Carry on.
 

lokatz

Senior Member
18-140 may simply be too much of a stretch. Every time someone announces another superzoom, I hold my breath for a quarter of a second before remembering that miracles are all but impossible in the optical world. Nikon did a pretty good job with the 18-105 and the 24-120, but I have yet to see anything with a higher zoom factor than those two that doesn't disappoint. Such lenses still have their place (for instance, Tamron's new 18-400 sure has some sex appeal for travel), but there are limits to what they can do.

Glad it's not a big deal for you, Woody!
 
No, Don, but it's not a front or back focus issue. Nothing is very sharp. I wonder if this is simply a bad copy. It was an inexpensive experiment, so it's not a huge deal. I can cover the range with my Tammy 17-50 and Nikon 70-300 and get very sharp results.

There are 2 versions of that lens. The 18-140mm f3.5-5.6 and the 18-140 f/4. I'm betting you picked up the older inexpensive version. (difference is day and night)


Mine was the 18-140mm f3.5-5.6. I have not always been able to tell whether my lenses were front or back focusing but after fine tuning they are always sharper.
 
No, Don, but it's not a front or back focus issue. Nothing is very sharp. I wonder if this is simply a bad copy. It was an inexpensive experiment, so it's not a huge deal. I can cover the range with my Tammy 17-50 and Nikon 70-300 and get very sharp results.

There are 2 versions of that lens. The 18-140mm f3.5-5.6 and the 18-140 f/4. I'm betting you picked up the older inexpensive version. (difference is day and night)

18-140 may simply be too much of a stretch. Every time someone announces another superzoom, I hold my breath for a quarter of a second before remembering that miracles are all but impossible in the optical world. Nikon did a pretty good job with the 18-105 and the 24-120, but I have yet to see anything with a higher zoom factor than those two that doesn't disappoint. Such lenses still have their place (for instance, Tamron's new 18-400 sure has some sex appeal for travel), but there are limits to what they can do.

Glad it's not a big deal for you, Woody!


I had the 18-105 first and then moved to the 18-140. the 18-140 was sharper. I sold the lens to a friend to use on his D7200. We fine tuned it and it is sharp as a tack
 

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
Never mind!!! I'm not thinking clear this morning. I'm thinking about the 24-120mm. Sorry!!! Carry on.

LOL. Yeah, I remember that when the old 24-120mm came out people were going on and on about how bad it was and that Nikon should never put their name on such a lens.
 

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
Mine was the 18-140mm f3.5-5.6. I have not always been able to tell whether my lenses were front or back focusing but after fine tuning they are always sharper.

Thanks, Don. I'm thinking I just got a bad copy, because many people have reported being quite happy with the lens.
 

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
18-140 may simply be too much of a stretch. Every time someone announces another superzoom, I hold my breath for a quarter of a second before remembering that miracles are all but impossible in the optical world. Nikon did a pretty good job with the 18-105 and the 24-120, but I have yet to see anything with a higher zoom factor than those two that doesn't disappoint. Such lenses still have their place (for instance, Tamron's new 18-400 sure has some sex appeal for travel), but there are limits to what they can do.

Glad it's not a big deal for you, Woody!

If you want to see a lens with crazy optical performance, try the Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-5.6. I had that lens for a while and got fairly sharp results at some focal lengths, and fuzzy as a cotton ball at others.
 

Nero

Senior Member
Funny thing is, while I like my 18-105mm kit lens, I always kind of wished that I had the extra money to get the 18-140mm instead. After reading this thread, I no longer feel this way. lol
 
Top