Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX NIKKOR Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for DSLR Cameras Review

I’m probably very critical of optics - I shot on a crop with many lenses - but I bought a multi-pixel camera and fell for the advice of marketers that in order to reveal it, I supposedly need 18-140 and I really regretted it . There is no quality at such ends, not in vain experienced users talk about three to five zoom ratios - ideally it's 17-50 (I'm not talking about whale) . Of course, this lens will suit many beginners - until they increase their shots by 30,40,50% . I regret that I didn’t…

too picky: 1) Sometimes autofocus is dull (if speed is important, focus manually) while focusing, I flew far enough, There is no blend in the composition, but you can buy for 300 Let' I chose between 18-140 and 18-105 take better 18-200 a pity I didn' Ru/mail/ygennew/_myphoto/h-21 Jpg Ru/mail/ygennew/_myphoto/h-18 Jpg

I am a beginner "photographer" After a week of using the 18-55mm whale lens, read reviews, and now I became the owner of this 18-140 http://fotki.

Compared with my 16-85 it definitely loses in all respects (both in sharpness, and in distortion, and in chromatic aberration) then 16-85, if the emphasis is more on the body, then 18-140 the constructive (in accordance with the price) is better for 16-85 http://fotki. Pros below: universal focal lengths, good stabilizer, workmanship, sharpness from open. Its cons: at the short end, soapy at the edges of the frame, no lens hood included.

Pros: Sharp enough, but only in good light, it is advisable to use a tripod at night, but in general everything is fine, there is no backlash anywhere. Cons below: Very dark, like most telephotos, especially at 140mm, but fortunately everything can be removed in the editor.

Compared with my 16-85 it definitely loses in all respects (both in sharpness, and in distortion, and in chromatic aberration) then 16-85, if the emphasis is more on the body, then 18-140 the constructive (in accordance with the price) is better for 16-85 http://fotki.

With its pros. Sharp enough, fast focusing, 18-105 is much worse, the stub works well Its cons: After a year of use, the sealing ring between the zoom segments came loose, that is, it sits in place, when zooming it comes out of the groove, I will glue it to death; quite weighty

Has some pros The price is acceptable. The assembly is good. Large range of focal lengths ("travel - zoom"). On the middle and long end - good sharpness. Its cons: At 18 lathers around the edges shamelessly! Sometimes the focus misses.

Some pros: Small, relatively cheap, for short ones - excellent aperture ratio. Cons: There is no latch in the folded position, it is dark at full eversion. It feels like 100-120mm and not 140.

Different pros: Better 18-55 and 18-105. The picture is juicier and richer. Focal. Tough focus. Got cons: A bit dark, but this is a matter of habit, to give a little more aperture or ISO.

This lens is much better than the 18-135 that did not take root in all respects. I think he deserves respect. Thanks to convenient focal lengths, it is indispensable for reporting and travelling. Even in low light, the pictures are worthy without a tripod. Good workhorse. Different pros: I liked it, even very much! Cool lens! Instant focus and nice, natural color reproduction. Metal mount, unlike 18-105. Got cons: For a lens with such characteristics - they are not. Well, if the price, I think,

Came bundled with D5300. Glad I took it and not 18-55. As a universal whale - a great thing. Some pros: Universal set of focal lengths. Very convenient for travel ("travel zoom"). You can take pictures of both the sea at a wide angle and animals in the zoo at 70-140 mm. Sharp enough (not like fixes, but still) Good build quality (several years of operation - it seems that nothing has come loose yet, does not creak) Some cons: No hood and case included. Thank you for at least putting a normal…

Don't be afraid to buy this lens. An important condition is that you are not a professional, but an advanced amateur photographer. For shooting children, nature, etc. -a good thing. Below are photos without photo processing. Nikon D3100 device. The mode is automatic. Pros: Knowing the basics of DSLR operation, combined with the characteristics of the lens, allows you to take very good photographs. creative possibilities are significantly expanded in comparison with Nikon 18-55. Different cons…

Bought complete with D5100. The lens is universal - I mainly use it on a trip. Autofocus sometimes misses (even after adjustment in Nikon's official service), but this does not matter. When recording a video, the motor makes noise, it also does not bother (this is primarily a camera, and video is a nice bonus). I ordered the HB-32 hood. Dust sucks rather than not. There is a stabilizer. Summing up, I can say that this is an excellent lens for the money.

Compared with my 16-85. At the short end, it definitely loses in all respects (both in sharpness, and in distortion, and in chromatic aberration). There is parity somewhere in the middle. Wins on the long end. There is a profile in Lightroom, everything is almost completely corrected. So if you need a wide angle, then 16-85, if the emphasis is more on the body, then 18-140. Well, the constructive (in accordance with the price) is better for 16-85. Photos here: http://fotki.…

An excellent lens for all occasions, universal focal lengths, much more convenient than 18-55, the stabilizer works fine, the picture pleases [url=https://fotki. . Ru/next/users/mister-zim/album/209708/view/979523][img]https://img-fotki. . Ru/get/170815/119054856.5e /0_ef243_648bedec_L. Jpg[/img][/url] [url=https://fotki. . Ru/next/users/mister-zim/album/209708/view/979468][img]https://img-fotki. . Ru/get/5203/119054856.5e /0_ef20c_edd1959d_L. Jpg[/img][/url]

Good replacement for stock. If you're too picky: 1) Sometimes autofocus is dull (if speed is important, focus manually). I tried to photograph flying planes on May 9, while focusing, I flew far enough, photographed with wires. Summary: Hover manually. 2) There is no blend in the composition, but you can buy for 300. Bought for travel. Let's see how it will show itself. It remains to purchase an ultraviolet light filter and a polarizer. I chose between 18-140 and 18-105. Who cares about the

For a long time I selected a staffer for the new Nikon D7100. Prior to that, I did not trust staffers. But I really like this one! In terms of sharpness, it is not inferior to my fifty dollars 50mm 1.8G. Although, I note, color reproduction, bokeh, they are different. Fifty softer. I think this is the best option for multi-pixel cameras. Provides 24MP resolution at 100%. I advise.

Excellent glass from Nikon. Very satisfied. I had a Nikkor 18-70. According to the overall score on the DxOMark tests on the Nikon D90, it bypasses 18-140, 18-105 and 16-85. But in the picture, no. There, the colors went more into gray and blue colors, the picture turned out to be some kind of “plasticine”, the lens didn’t have much of a picture, it just fixed everything as it is. 18-140 still has a drawing, some kind, but there is. The colors I like the most, they are deep and rich. For…

Praise the lens is not in vain. Sharp pictures with good color reproduction. Resolution for a 24 megapixel matrix (Nikon) is quite enough. It may be that the fans of the "open aperture" do not like something, such as the "dark lens" - this is nonsense. What do you want? For all focal lengths for 20 ty apertures 1.4 - 1.8? In daylight, even in cloudy weather, it focuses normally (there are separate letters about focusing features, everything is explained there, no need "a cheap lens does not…