The best walk around landscape lens -- ever :-)

Borga Voffe

Senior Member
8mm.jpg



Walked my dog, Borga, just now. Tested my shiny new 18-140
This must be the best lens ever made, maybe not in sheer ultra sharpness, but this tiny lens on my big d7200, just grab and go and get such snapshots on a short stroll around the corner!!
Both photos is from excacly same standpoint, the trashbin we put the "dogbags" in :)

140mm.jpg
 
Last edited:

nsomnac

Senior Member
I bought this lens with high hopes. In the end I'm still bummed with it - saying to myself "I should have known better".

I think it's fine for general purpose outdoor if all you want is infinite focus - somewhat defeating the capability of your D7200.

I find the corners are quite dark at 17mm, and a bit soft at its fastest f3.5, and it's just too slow at 140mm.

This lens has zero Bokeh IMO, so creative landscape shots are near impossible - unless you're introducing ND filters into the mix for creativity with flowing things.

Don't let me even start on indoor...



Jim
 

WayneF

Senior Member
I bought this lens with high hopes. In the end I'm still bummed with it - saying to myself "I should have known better".

No experience with that one, but I felt that same way when I bought a 18-200mm quite awhile back. I know many users like it fine, but mine has long since been sold... only lens I ever sold, I still have a few old ones never used now. It wasn't "bad", but it just never excelled, just never quite happy.

18-200 is a 11.1x range. That's really a lot. I should have known better too, lots of compromises to make that happen.

18-140 is 7.8x

18-85 is 4.7x (and I was very happy with mine... still not f/2.8 though, and 18mm is tough about distortion and vignetting). I still have it, but I use FX now.

Something like 24-70 is 2.9x, and short zoom ranges like that have fewer compromises. My opinion is it's equal to any prime lens. And of course, a f/2.8 lens performs better at f/4 than does a f/4 lens, like with bounce flash. But certainly spending $1800 helps too... price is a huge factor.
 
Last edited:

paul04

Senior Member
I bought this lens with high hopes. In the end I'm still bummed with it - saying to myself "I should have known better".

I think it's fine for general purpose outdoor if all you want is infinite focus - somewhat defeating the capability of your D7200.

I find the corners are quite dark at 17mm, and a bit soft at its fastest f3.5, and it's just too slow at 140mm.

This lens has zero Bokeh IMO, so creative landscape shots are near impossible - unless you're introducing ND filters into the mix for creativity with flowing things.

Don't let me even start on indoor...



Jim


I find you work with what you have, if the only lens you have is a 18-140mm look at it as a positive, if you look around the internet, you will find 1000's of excellent shots taken with this lens.
 

Danno

Senior Member
Walked my dog, Borga, just now. Tested my shiny new 18-140
This must be the best lens ever made, maybe not in sheer ultra sharpness, but this tiny lens on my big d7200, just grab and go and get such snapshots on a short stroll around the corner!!
Both photos is from excacly same standpoint, the trashbin we put the "dogbags" in :)

For me it is my Sigma 18-250 mm 3.5-6.3 Macro HSM. I really like that lens and if I am going out for a walk it is the one I will often grab. It is light and versatile, I feel about it the same way you do you 18-140. I think it is a handy lens.
 

Borga Voffe

Senior Member
We have all our different opinions :)
Since I was about to succumb of "something" last year, owning these lenses and in particular 18-140 om d7300, have made me a viable person again, capable to see the light even in dark areas of life .......
AKR_0638juhuu.jpg

The photo is taken today, with that lens, guess were we where goin? Alas, I really dont care about buke or softness, I could easily used a Kodak instamatic as long as the resulys is getting what I want - that 18-140 do give me my illusions in hand, ready to be published on my webpage.
 

nsomnac

Senior Member
I find you work with what you have, if the only lens you have is a 18-140mm look at it as a positive, if you look around the internet, you will find 1000's of excellent shots taken with this lens.

Sure. That's always the case - and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My experience so far with this lens, is that it's nothing special. If you're an F/8 or higher shooter - I think this is a good lens for the value and you'll be very happy with it.

If you're into shallow DOF, or need a lens to function indoors without a flash too, it's just not a good lens - you need a lens that is in the f/2.8 to f/1.2 range (which requires about 2-3 different fairly expensive lenses to get the full 17-140 range)

I won't discount that there aren't lots of good photos with this lens, acknowledging subjectivity, if you take a look at the vast majority of the good ones they fall into a few categories: bright light, long exposure, small aperture, or high ISO.
https://pixelpeeper.com/adv/?lens=1...&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3

FWIW: I also think this lens throws color balance off (including at different focal lengths but same time/subject). It seems to seek extremes - either very cool or very warm; but generally more cool. I think this has to do with the falloff in the corners.
 

MaxBlake

Senior Member
I like this lens a great deal. It's especially useful for travel, when you don't have a lot of extra space available to carry a wide selection of lenses. It's not perfect, but it's doggone good ... along with being compact and lightweight. All in all, it's a nice to have in the case when you are on the road.
 

Borga Voffe

Senior Member
image.jpg

After using this lens for some months I finally got its place. Its one of the best light weight carry with me in the backpack on long 16 h mountain trips
The photo shows my primary use of it, photos of afar mountains.
I guess I could also used my 70-300 lens for this0
but I need them wide 18 mm as my primary lens now is them ligth weigth 40 macro and 24 2.8
 

Bukitimah

Senior Member
If you are using a DX camera body and shooting landscape, my take for the best budget lens is Tokina 11-16 f2.8. Why would you want anything above 24 mm if you are shooting landscape unless you are referring to a general walkabout lens.
 

Borga Voffe

Senior Member
Got some new lenses. This 18 140 is no walk around lens, to heavy, must reside in my bag.

For sure my 24 2.8 is the walk about lens when I am walking long mountain trips. My new 20 1.8 is heavier, but might also bee a choice then.

I wont bring that heavy tokina 12-28 on walks in mointains.

My camera is d7200

on my next mountain trip I will bring tokina 100 micro, nikon 18-140 in my rucksack, the 24 on the camera.
 

Bukitimah

Senior Member
For a DX camera 14-140 is a good walk aroubd lens. but in my opinion, you do need a f4 to meet some low light situation.

for fx, i have the 24-120 on my D610 most times. there are still situations i do hope it is a f2, 8. it is not always you coukd use flash and have tripod. you
 

nsomnac

Senior Member
For a DX camera 14-140 is a good walk aroubd lens. but in my opinion, you do need a f4 to meet some low light situation.

for fx, i have the 24-120 on my D610 most times. there are still situations i do hope it is a f2, 8. it is not always you coukd use flash and have tripod. you
Agree that the 14-140 is just an okay lens. And for many it's a great lens. It does work well in bright conditions - so if that's your subject matter - it's an excellent choice for the price. If you don't have good lighting then you're going to have to seek out faster lenses.

The topic is landscape though. Usually sharp and wide are king. Since you're usually outdoors - speed generally isn't much of an issue - so an F/4 is generally enough since they are usually sharpest around F/8 - 16 depending on lens.

This is an older thread, and since my last response, I think I may have picked up the Sigma 17-50 f2.8. Excellent walk around lens for DX IMO for price. While a fast lens - it's sharp and since it's stabilized you can shoot handheld pretty slow (1/20 - 1/30).

However a friend of mine swears by the Sigma ART 12-24 as being exceptional for landscape as well on DX. But that's more than double the price.


Jim
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
However a friend of mine swears by the Sigma ART 12-24 as being exceptional for landscape as well on DX. But that's more than double the price.
The Sigma Art series lenses are fantastic, generally speaking, and the 12-24mm f/4 is no exception. Shoot with one and you'll understand why it's a $1,600 lens. I'm currently trying to figure out how to pay for a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art and it's only $1,200.
....
 

Bukitimah

Senior Member
if you are using DX camera, the tokina 11-16 f2, 8 is a good lens. just that it does have that zoom you need at times. i have a light weight AFD 50 f1, 8 which is cheap and good.
 

Borga Voffe

Senior Member
Sold the 18-140. Sold my 7200.
It got in way of my photo creations.

Now I walk with primes on my d750. Mostly the 35 2 D.

On short walks with my dog, I use the af-s 24-85. A magnifent lens

In my rucksack is my fav lens. The fantastic new nikkor 70-300 vr. Gives me stunning close ups of the mountains

oh yes, I crave for that Sigma art super wide. Will buy it if I get the money. Just wondering is it much better than nikon 16-35

I cant see that the sigma will be any walk around lens for me its too heavy.
 
Last edited:

Bukitimah

Senior Member
Since we are on wide angle. I have always being itchy to buy another lens. I am very happy with my 24-120 f4 on my D610. on occasions where I need a wider angle, I took 2-3 shots and stitch them together. The good wide angle lens are generally expensive and I hardly really shot that wide. I am also not into fish eye lens.

Just for discussion, what would you consider for a wide angle of around 12 mm for a FX camera that don't break your bank?
 
Top