Walk around lens decision

Allen

Senior Member
I am about to purchase a 7200...when will be mostly determined by the market over the next month or so. The reason for the post is that I am trying to decide what walk around lens (so called super zoom) to pair with it. The candidates are the Nikon 18-200 and 300, and I have heard good things about the Tamron 16-300. Saying that it also seems that some maintain that the 18-140 is the 'only' lens that pairs well with this body.

It would be helpful and appreciated if you would share your thoughts, experiences and opinions....

Tnx
 

paul04

Senior Member
I like using the nikon 18-105mm Lens on my D7100,

The 18-140mm is a good walkabout lens, and will work well on your D7200,

How much do you want to spend.
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
I am about to purchase a 7200...when will be mostly determined by the market over the next month or so. The reason for the post is that I am trying to decide what walk around lens (so called super zoom) to pair with it. The candidates are the Nikon 18-200 and 300, and I have heard good things about the Tamron 16-300. Saying that it also seems that some maintain that the 18-140 is the 'only' lens that pairs well with this body.

It would be helpful and appreciated if you would share your thoughts, experiences and opinions....

Tnx

Making a decision about a walkaround lens is always a PIA. If I was shooting a DX it would be an 18-140. Lots of factors to consider. Good luck.
 

Allen

Senior Member
Thanks for the replies....Spend: really depends upon what the body costs...if it is new, that will limit the lens budget, but if I can score a factory refurbished......

...and yes, this is a PIA....lol

I know that the 140 is a superior lens as compared to the others, but do you find that it has enough reach so as not to have to switch to a medium tele?
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
Thanks for the replies....Spend: really depends upon what the body costs...if it is new, that will limit the lens budget, but if I can score a factory refurbished......

...and yes, this is a PIA....lol

I know that the 140 is a superior lens as compared to the others, but do you find that it has enough reach so as not to have to switch to a medium tele?

When I "walk around" I'm not that concerned with the long end as much as the short end. It depends on your "walk around" surroundings.
I'm talking about walking around at a car show, or going downtown, maybe a fair or even a farmers market. For me, the 140 end was long enough for this.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Thanks for the replies....Spend: really depends upon what the body costs...if it is new, that will limit the lens budget, but if I can score a factory refurbished......

...and yes, this is a PIA....lol

I know that the 140 is a superior lens as compared to the others, but do you find that it has enough reach so as not to have to switch to a medium tele?
This question boils down to deciding on what you to compromise on and by how much; because you're going to have compromise somewhere unless you're willing to put out some major dinero. This is a cost vs. image quality vs. ease of carry (e.g. weight) question, as I see it and personally, I too find the Nikon 18-140mm a good middle ground. If you want something with a longer, or wider reach, and/or higher IQ, or a faster maximum aperture that's great, you can have those things but you're going to have to pay for it, dearly; either in dollars, weight or both and most likely the latter. We'd all love to see the 10-500mm f/1.4 lens with superb IQ across the board that costs $300 and weighs eight ounces but it doesn't exist and it's probably not going to in our lifetimes.

Besides, there will always be those times you can't get the shot you want because you don't have the right lens on at that particular moment. That's just life.
 

Allen

Senior Member
I absolutely agree that the decision is a compromise; that being said, I suppose the improved IQ of the 140 lens over the others provides for a better cropping solution given the reduced reach....no?
 

MaxBlake

Senior Member
The 18-140mm lens came with my D7200 as part of the purchase package. I wasn't all that excited about it until I tried it out. It's a fine lens, offering a great many options. I traveled with it recently and never once went to the spare lens that I took along, just in case. The quality is better than decent, the photos that it takes are sharp, and it compact enough to pack around without worries. All in all, it's a winner and one you might consider.
 

Allen

Senior Member
So for the heck of it I called a couple local camera stores (yes, retail) and got mixed advice. One suggested the 18-140 and the other the Tamron 16-300, saying that it was superior to the Nikon....really?

Anyone have any experience with this?
 

Elliot87

Senior Member
I'm interested in the 18-140mm lens too. I'd probably have it permanently attached to my D3200 for when I want a light walkabout setup in good light.

One question I have is, has anyone used the lens on a full frame or 35mm film camera? I know there will be severe vignetting at the wide end but wanted to know if that goes away and at what focal length?

The reason I ask is because my wife uses an F80 SLR with 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6 lens but I don't find that lens to be very good and the 18-140mm should be a better performer. If it worked from say 35-140 on full frame then that would be an added reason to buy it. I know the 24-120mm f/4 would be better but not ideal on DX which is where it will get by far the most use.
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
I'm interested in the 18-140mm lens too. I'd probably have it permanently attached to my D3200 for when I want a light walkabout setup in good light.

One question I have is, has anyone used the lens on a full frame or 35mm film camera? I know there will be severe vignetting at the wide end but wanted to know if that goes away and at what focal length?

The reason I ask is because my wife uses an F80 SLR with 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6 lens but I don't find that lens to be very good and the 18-140mm should be a better performer. If it worked from say 35-140 on full frame then that would be an added reason to buy it. I know the 24-120mm f/4 would be better but not ideal on DX which is where it will get by far the most use.

When I first got my D750 I threw that lens on there for shits and giggles to see how it would look. I remember it being a lot of vignetting on the wide end and some on the long end as well.
 

Allen

Senior Member
FWIW, just got back from a local camera store and played around with both the 18-140 and the Tammy 16-300. While the Tamron was just a bit heavier, it was smooth and fast, clearly can't really tell much in a store. The clerk noted that its image quality was not quite as good as the 140, but its reach (on both ends) might save having to walk around with another lens.....also, IQ is a relative thing as I noted before.....nothing is ever easy....lol.
 

MaxBlake

Senior Member
So for the heck of it I called a couple local camera stores ... One suggested the 18-140 and the other the Tamron 16-300, saying that it was superior to the Nikon....really?

Can't speak to the Tamron 16-300mm lens, but the Nikon 18-300mm lens is fabulous. I use it a great deal with terrific results and highly recommend it.
 

§am

Senior Member
Consider also how much reach you really need?
100mm+ or could you do with less?

Even a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art could be considered walk about depending on what you were going to use it for
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
FWIW, just got back from a local camera store and played around with both the 18-140 and the Tammy 16-300. While the Tamron was just a bit heavier, it was smooth and fast, clearly can't really tell much in a store. The clerk noted that its image quality was not quite as good as the 140, but its reach (on both ends) might save having to walk around with another lens.....also, IQ is a relative thing as I noted before.....nothing is ever easy....lol.
Maybe go back and take an empty card with you. Shoot both lenses in similar conditions then go back home, look at the images and then make up your mind.
 
You only need to look at the DXO sharpness charts to see that the 18-300 Nikon trounces the sigma and Tamron opposition and that the 18-140 ( which is my choice ) is sharper/cheaper and lighter ....

Testing lenses in store is a bit of a waste of time unless you are going to set the fine focus adjust for each lens and set the picture controls or bring home RAW files
 
Last edited:

Allen

Senior Member
You only need to look at the DXO sharpness charts to see that the 18-300 Nikon trounces the sigma and Tamron opposition and that the 18-140 ( which is my choice ) is sharper/cheaper and lighter .... <clip>

Thanks for the reply....so, if that is true why would two independant (different company) camera stores suggest the Tammy 16-300? Unless of course, they make more money on it than the Nikon. Seems penny-wise and pound-foolish if that is the case.
 

carguy

Senior Member
When I "walk around" I'm not that concerned with the long end as much as the short end. It depends on your "walk around" surroundings.
I'm talking about walking around at a car show, or going downtown, maybe a fair or even a farmers market. For me, the 140 end was long enough for this.

18-140mm seems like a great choice. I had the 18-105mm for a bit before that lens was available, great walk about glass on sunny days.

If the long end isn't important, consider a used Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, I use on on my D7100, sub-$300 used - a great buy actually :)
 

aroy

Senior Member
Do you really need 100mm+ while walking around? I find the kit 18-55 excellent walk around lens. Unless you are walking in wide open country and shoot across a field, there is very little to shoot in urban situations that requires a long lens. I have walked around with 18-55, 70-300 and 35mm, and barring a few occasions the 35mm prime sufficed.
 

Allen

Senior Member
Thanks for the comments...I suppose for me it all comes down to how much cropping I would have to do post. When I walk around it could be anywhere from a beach to forest trail to looking for textures in landscapes; I really don't know until I am there.....which is why a fairly wide range is handy. The downside is what you lose in IQ, hence, my original post....hoping to benefit from others experiences.....
 
Top