I have a Nikon D7500 and have an opportunity to buy either a 18-140mm or 18-200mm, for $225, both are the first version. Looking for recommendations on which one to get, which is sharper or don’t go with either lens? I’ve read reviews that the 18-140 is the better lens. I have the 16-80mm. I’m thinking something this this for Travel/vacations, outside/landscapes. Thank you .
Not sure about the 18-140, but I have had both versions of the 18-200mm, and the VRII is a better lens for sure. They both get a little soft at the 200mm length, but still very useable. I would go with the 18-200 for the extra reach...
Might depend on how much use you will make of the 140-200mm range.
I had an 18-140 (which was a nice lens) that came with my D7200 in 2015. I replaced it in 2017 with a 16-80mm. I then bought a 70-200 F/4 to cover the tele range. I use the 16-80 as my main lens (for travel, landscapes, etc) and haven't missed the 80-140 range. You might find that the 18-140 essentially duplicates the 16-80 range without giving you much more. I've never owned the 18-200 but have read mixed things about it.
You might find l this discussion from 2014 on another site to be helpful. The 18-140 seems to get more 'joy' for IQ. But, the 18-200 was preferred as a one lens option due to the longer tele end.
Both the original and second 18-200 are VR II but only the second one is labeled as such.
Second version has a creep stop switch, that's the only internal change from the first version.
$225 is too much for the first version, check ebay. People think the VR II label is worth $100 extra.
I'm busy with my D750 lately and don't much use my 18-200 / D90 / J5 but will not sell them for as little as they will bring. It is a very good lens.
Thank you. I thought about the 18-140, but as someone pointed out, this is close to my 16-80, and not really worth it. I’d like something sharp, I don’t believe the Nikon 18-300 is all that great either. I’m not sure about a 16-300 or 18-400 - these are either Sigma or Tamron? Any thoughts? Thank you
If you already have the 16-80, there's no reason to duplicate that focal length. Get a 70-200 or 70-300. I've never shot with the 16-80, but if it's a really sharp lens, you probably won't be happy with the results from a superzoom in the 16-80mm range. Even sharp kit lenses like the 18-140 have a lot of distortion. Lenses such as the 70-300VR don't have this distortion. What a 2-lens solution lacks in convenience, it makes up in image quality and post-processing ease.
