According provided by lens Nikon DX VR AF-S Nikkor 18-140mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED SWM IF Aspherical many thanks to Andrey Ivanov.
Review Nikon 18-140mm VR
Nikon 18-140mm VR was introduced in the summer of 2013 as a replacement for the obsolete Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-135mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED SWM IF Asphericalreleased back in 2006. I suspect the 140mm focal length was dictated by the need to accurately distinguish the new '18 -140 VR 'from the old '18 -135', which turned out to be not the most popular lens.
Main technical characteristics of Nikon DX VR AF-S Nikkor 18-140mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED SWM IF Aspherical:
| Review Instance Name | Nikon DX VR AF-S Nikkor 18-140mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED SWM IF Aspherical |
| Basic properties |
|
| Front Filter Diameter | 67 mm, plastic thread for filters |
| Focal length | 18-140 mm EGF for Nikon DX cameras is 27-210 mm |
| Zoom ratio | 7.8 X (usually rounded to 8) |
| Designed by | for digital cameras Nikon DX |
| Number of aperture blades | 7 rounded petals |
| Tags | focal lengths for 18, 24, 35, 50, 70, 140 mm, bayonet mount mark and hood mounts |
| Diaphragm | 18 mm from F / 3.5 to F / 22. 140 mm from F / 5.6 to F / 38. The lens is deprived of the aperture control ring, control is via the camera menu (G - lens type) |
| MDF (Minimum Focus Distance) | 0.45 m over the entire range of focal lengths, maximum magnification ratio 1: 5 |
| Stabilizer features | 4 stops by CIPA standards. The stabilizer monitors the movement of the camera while shooting panoramas. |
| The weight | 490 g |
| Optical design | 17 elements in 12 groups, including
Image of optical circuit clickable |
| Lens hood | Nikon HB-32, bayonet type, plastic, the following lenses use the same lens hood: |
| Transportation | With a soft cover CL-1018 |
| Manufacturer country | Thailand, inscription on the lens: “MADE IN THAILAND”. Important: since 2016 the lens has been produced in China. |
| Period | From 2013 to the present day (at least until 2017) |
| Instructions | View–> |
| Price |
It is interesting to note that the Nikon 18-140mm VR only has one aspherical element in its optical design, while the old Nikon 18-135 has two. You can view and compare optical schemes in the section about 'Optical design for all Nikon DX lenses'.
Since the Nikon 18-140mm VR has a built-in focus motor, it is perfect for any Nikon DX class camera. The lens itself can act as “lens for all occasions“. True, for versatility you will have to pay low aperture.
Nikon 18-140mm VR Side View
Autofocus speed is average, almost exactly the same as that of Nikon 18-200mm GII VR, Nikon 18-200VR, Nikon 18-300 / 3.5-5.6 VR, Nikon 18-300 / 3.5-6.3 VR, Nikon 18-135 и Nikon 18-105VR, if we compare the focusing time from infinity to MDF and vice versa (analysis can be carried out on video from the network). Of all the Nikon DX zoom lenses, it only focuses noticeably faster Nikon 16-85VR, Nikon 17-55 и Nikon 18-70. Funny but even the simplest lenses Nikon 18-55G, 18-55GI, 18-55 VR, 18-55VRII still focus a little faster than Nikon 18-140mm VR.
The autofocus speed at 18 mm focal length is slightly faster than 140 mm. A decrease in the auto focus speed with an increase in the focal length is common to almost all super-zooms Nikon DX.
View Nikon 18-140mm VR at 140mm
The lens has internal focusing, which makes it possible to use light filters without any problems. The front lens also does not rotate when zooming. But the rear lens moves when zooming and creates the effect of a “vacuum cleaner”. The zoom ring is rubberized, wide and easy to operate.
The minimum focusing distance is only 45 см. This is a very good indicator for super-zoom, and allows you to shoot objects close-up, with a magnification of approximately 1: 4.3.
The lens has a 'A-M' focus mode switch, exactly the same as previous lenses: Nikon 18-135 и Nikon 18-105VR. Sorry but the lens does not support continuous manual focus control Nikon M / A.
The 'A-M' switch in this lens is non-standard. Normally, in all lenses equipped with such switches, manual focus cannot be performed in 'A' mode. But here is what the manual says for Nikon 18-140mm f / 3.5-5.6G:
Manual focus can be performed even if the AM lens mode is set to A. Set the camera to focus on AF-S and press the shutter-release button halfway to autofocus. Then, while holding the shutter-release button halfway, manually rotate the lens focus ring to fine-tune the focus. Note. Do not try to rotate the focus ring while the autofocus function is operating. When the autofocus function completes, release and press the shutter-release button halfway again.
Thus, in AF-S mode, after successful focusing, you can still rotate the focus ring to adjust the focus or refocus it. Unfortunately, such a property is only a miserable semblance of a full-fledged regime M / AM with the possibility of constant manual focus control.
You can find more information about lenses with a similar feature in the section Focus Features 'A', for some Nikkor lenses with the 'A-M' switch.
Nikon 18-140mm VR rear view
It's a pity, but, unlike more advanced lenses, Nikon 18-140mm VR, apart from focal length markers, does not have any useful designations, such as focusing distance or depth of field.
Enlightenment of the rear lens of the Nikon 18-140mm VR lens
Made lens in Thailand. There are no complaints about the assembly. Very good, which, unlike Nikon 18-105VR и Nikon 18-135The new lens has a metal mount. The lens from this review is new, and therefore I have not yet observed a spontaneous loss of a trunk under its own weight, perhaps such an ailment will never occur in the lens. But still, a small drawback is the lack of a hood in the package, which will have to be purchased separately. Nikon 18-140mm VR uses the HB-32 lens hood exactly the same Nikon 18-105VR, Nikon 18-70 и Nikon 18-135.
Enlightenment of the front lens of the Nikon 18-140mm VR lens
The lens has a built-in image stabilizer and a dedicated 'VR ON OFF' switch to turn it on and off. The stabilizer works fine, I have no problem took off without grease at shutter speeds of 1/60 second and 140 mm of focal length. When turning on and off, the stabilizer emits quiet clicks.
View of the Nikon 18-140mm VR lens on the slam-shut device
Nikon 18-140mm VR tried to do well, it has good sharpness, but chromatic aberration is not so good. The lens noticeably suffers from distortion (especially at 18mm, the gallery has examples of photos with curved walls) and vignetting on open apertures. In backlight, it can easily catch glare. I did not find anything outstanding or serious flaws in the lens.
The parameters shown in the photo gallery:
Everything is filmed on Nikon D80 using protective filter fox Digital SC UV 67mm. On camera JPEG L fine without treatment, reduced size to 3 MP. Everything was shot in N (Neutral) Picture Control. Noise reduction function is disabled at slow shutter speeds, noise reduction function at high values ISO - 'Norm' or 'Off'.
Optical design AF-S DX18-140mm f 3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon
In my opinion, the Nikon 18-140mm VR can be a worthy replacement for staff members from the category 18-55 / 3,5-5,6, but change to it Nikon 18-105mm VR I don’t see the point. Yes, and the newcomer is still a little expensive. The advent of Nikon 18-140mm VR can satisfy those who need focal length Nikon 18-105mm VR 'few', and Nikon 18-200mm VR - roads. I almost never met Nikon 18-140mm VR as a complete lens for modern cameras and I think that it is much more profitable to buy a kit with Nikon 18-105mm VR... My rating of stock Nikon DX zoom can be found in the 'Choosing a Nikon Camera and Lens'.
Lens prices in popular stores can look at this link, or in the price block below:
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
An accurate list of all Nikon DX Nikkor lenses
- 10.5 mm/ 2.8G AF Fisheye [gold ring]
- 35 mm/1.8G AF-S
- 40 mm/2.8G AF-S Microphone
- 85 mm/3.5G AF-S VR Microphone
- 10-20 mm/4.5-5.6G AF-P VR
- 10-24 mm/3.5-4.5G AF-S
- 12-24 mm/4G AF-S [gold ring]
- 16-80 mm/ 2.8-4IN AF S VR [gold ring]
- 16-85 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR
- 17-55 mm/2.8G AF-S [gold ring]
- 18-55 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-S [black / silver]
- 18-55 mm/3.5-5.6GII AF-S [black / silver]
- 18-55 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR
- 18-55 mm/3.5-5.6GII AF-S VR
- 18-55 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-P
- 18-55 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-P VR
- 18-70 mm/3.5-4.5G AF-S
- 18-105 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR [Thailand / China]
- 18-135 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-S
- 18-140 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR [Thailand / China]
- 18-200 mm/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR [Japan / China]
- 18-200 mm/3.5-5.6GII AF-S VR
- 18-300 mm/3.5-5.6G VR
- 18-300 mm/3.5-6.3G VR
- 55-200 mm/4-5.6G AF-S [black / silver, Japan / China]
- 55-200 mm/4-5.6G AF-S VR
- 55-200 mm/4-5.6GII ED VR
- 55-300 mm/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR
- 70-300 mm/4.5-6.3G AF-P
- 70-300 mm/4.5-6.3G AF-P VR
Results
Nikon DX VR AF-S Nikkor 18-140mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED SWM IF Aspherical turned out to be a worthy super-zoom. Such a lens is suitable for most photo tasks and will be damn useful on vacation or outdoors.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
fits
NIKON D7000 with which lens is better to buy with 18-105 VR KIT or 18-140 VR KIT, many thanks in advance to all who answered.
Better to take 18-140 VR. The quality is not inferior to 18-105 (even better) and there will be a bit more focal
For me, the difference in price between whales 18-105 and 18-140 is unreasonably large, and the difference in quality and range of focal lengths is not very large. If you have extra money, take 18-140.
On the whole, 18-105 is quite good for a 7000 matrix. If you need a telephoto lens in the future, 140mm will not save you, and as a portrait photographer it is not very good either. For the not very expensive TV range - 70-300VR, it is already quite good as a portrait lens, and the AF speed will be noticeably faster.
It’s true that it’s difficult for beginners to master the nickname 7000, although there is also experience with the Zenith with the computer too. And how
buy the best new with of. guarantee. Although I am already 46 and I think that it is not very often i.e. not every day I’ll use it makes sense to take such an expensive thing, though my elder bribes the university and says anyway I will pick it up later and I think 7000 will be at its best for a long time because of its qualities.
it is very easy to master. As for me, the more expensive the camera is, the easier it is to work with it - the more expensive models have much better AF, much more convenient ergonomics, a more accurate exposure meter and WB. therefore, to get a good shot, you need to make fewer body movements and make less effort.
Well .. how about getting into a newbie for a Skoda with a gun or getting behind the wheel of a 24-volga Volga :)
Today I use 18-140 the second day (bought yesterday)
What immediately caught my eye was a huge distortion at 18mm.
It is not just big - it is HUGE (I have never seen such a huge lens on any such lens, including whales, at 18mm)
Honestly, the picture is dull ..
The lens does not have its own drawing - it just conveys, as it were, “documentary” what it has .. Unlike at least the newest kit 18-55 VR II.
In general, to summarize, I can say that from 18-140 I expected much more (and not only reading the reviews, but also looking at the release date - fresh)
I was looking for a complete replacement for my whale (VR II), went through 6 objectives with FR from 17-18 (Tamrons and Sigma) - however, the whale remained different in quality.
Unfortunately, in this case, for shooting, you have to prefer the whale 18-55 VR II (use 18-140 only if necessary for RF, and on the whale range the whale gives the best quality) ..
To be honest, even a little sorry for the money spent on 18-140 ...
I forgot to say (the article says this too, and I felt it myself) -
also very noticeable vignetting.
Also on Nikon's whales, Tamrons and Sigma of this size, I have never seen a vignette, but here in almost every picture.
“Honestly, the picture is dull ..
Unlike even the newest kit 18-55 VR II. "
==================================
Can you post paired photos of RAVA?
"The lens does not have its own drawing - it just conveys, as it were," documentary "what is."
==================================
almost ALL zooms produce a “dry” documentary picture.
"To be honest, even a bit sorry for the money spent on 18-140 ..."
==================================
not the first time I read this. from 18-140 did not work.
Have you tried 18-105?
photos on him are such
https://fotki.yandex.ru/users/vmirefoto-blogspot/album/363308/
Tell me, please, how will it be compared to the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm 1: 3.5-4.5G ED VR SWM IF Aspherical on the D90? The difference in the angles is understandable, the picture itself is of interest. Thank you in advance.
Hello. Please help me determine the lens for nikon d7100. I already spent a lot of time searching for information on the Internet, but I really didn’t choose it. In any case, I want to buy a nikkor 35mm lens. And another one with a variable focal length. The money budget is limited, so I choose from 18-140 nikon, 18-200 (270) tamron, 18-200 (250) sigma. Help decide.
depending on why you need a lens.
For portraiture + full body + landscapes ... sometimes macro
for macro you need either macro fixes or macro rings.
and everything else is enough 35 mm.
35vv isn’t enough for her at all (unless I take a full-length shot in the apartment)
35mm - the sentence is one of the stupidest, which can be done in this case auto question.
Enough for everything. Unless, of course, be able to use
As an option 60 / 2,8 macro.
For large portraits, 35 mm will greatly distort the proportions. I would still choose 50 mm for portraits
for large classical portraits you need from 85 and above
In your case, the choice is simple.
Since you have Nikon D7100, then in principle it can be provided either by Nikkor 18-140, or Sigma 18-200 (second generation)
And that's all ...
All the rest (including budget Nikkors) are not intended for your matrix (24 megapixels)
All of them were designed and developed for matrices of 6-10-12 Mp ...
So in your case, the choice is very simple - either Nikkor 18-140, or Siigma 18-200 II
Sigma 18-200 (second generation) - which one? I have not yet been able to find a normal working Sigma that would have a stable AF with correct focusing at different distances. As Sigma Service explains, they do not have access to Nikon's phase AF commands / protocols, therefore, for example, after updating the firmware of the camera, the AF often starts to fail at the lens that needs to be dragged into the service for flashing if it is available :)
I doubt that the 18-200 dark zoom will give a normal picture ...
The second generation is (like mine) - SIGMA AF 18-200 mm f3.5-6.3 II DC OS
Redesigned and Reclaimed
Works great
Take a nikon 18-55 gII vrII - and you will save money, and its macro is much better than 18-140, and it is 3 times lighter, more compact. You probably won't see the difference in image quality. And portraits (full-length) will turn out excellent by 35 mm
18-55 gII vrII rarely sucks. Nikon removed all special elements from there, everything is made of cheap plastic. the result is very sad. in fact, the lens gives out a tolerable picture only on some focal lengths with a clamped hole with a pretty micro-contrast.
and what else to want from a piece of plastic s / s about $ 30? :)
This is shot at 18-55 with a button.
good shot. I’m shooting this on an iPhone. or on a soap dish,
https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/vmirefoto-blogspot/album/349948/view/1786834?page=12
and is he ... alive? or do you photograph corpses?
The corpses do not pose like that. In general, and the corpses, too. And frozen.
Here you are fundamentally mistaken (you can see right away - you did not look at Nikon's own schedules for the release of this 18-55 BP2.
In fact, this new kit 18-55 VR II is one of the few (or rather, only of two lenses - 18-55VR2 and the new 18-140) who are able to support the 24MP matrix
The 18-55VR II has very little to do with the previous 18-55VR
Immediately it was necessary to read the documentation - and then "advise" nonsense like "rare sucks." nikon removed all special elements from there ”, etc.
what am I wrong ??? is there an ED element as in the earlier version? HE IS NOT HERE! )))
there is an aspherical hybrid plastic. the lens is optimized for high contrast and center resolution to the detriment of the rest.
Do you need to explain what is plastic? why serious lenses do not use it but use ED? why is bull contrast not always good?
it's like a boom cycle on a cheap radio tape recorder))) the masses like how it buzzes and how it buzzes! )))
strictly speaking, if you compare the lenses of the D version and the D series, you can immediately see that Nikon was carried away by increasing the contrast to the detriment of the midtones and color reproduction.
yes, and read the documentation before correcting someone))) and less believe the rockwell, people work out denyuzhku)))
The very idea of a button is beyond good and evil. WHAT FOR??? the SLR is still not a stolen camera, but the reliability and efficiency have decreased significantly. )))
“It’s immediately obvious - we didn’t look at Nikon’s charts ...”
================================================== =
how can I explain to you ... well, you cannot make from .... candy. NO.
if the s / s of the lens is tightly limited, if extremely cheap materials are used, then no matter how you go, the output will be guano. this is not a Nikon problem but a problem of price / materials / design. and Kenon has enough of this guano. and others.
you can buy guano for a lot of money, but for a little money you definitely can’t buy a candy. what graphics do not draw.
clearly - see the kenon test 24-70 / 4 and 24-70 2.8 yes, 24-70 / 4 sharp, super sharp and contrasting. but at comparable apertures the difference in color and so on with the 2.8 version is huge. miracles do not happen, alas. Shanghai leopard will not be sold for the price of a dyed rabbit!
In order not to argue with you, I will say that yes, by and large you are probably right, and the button is controversial and there are no special glasses. But what’s interesting, guano basically comes out when you shoot the guano, but we don’t care what he can’t do, we are interested in quite the opposite, what he can.
I agree that a person who has just moved from a soap dish to a DSLR is most likely to be disappointed, but anyone who knows what this or that glass is capable of will try to squeeze the maximum out of it. I do not defend 18-55, I have glasses and are more curly, but from time to time it comes in handy for me, which means I knowingly gave a denyuzhku for it.
I do not agree.
I came across several options whale 18-55, from the time of the Nikon D40 to the latest model.
Under certain conditions, with this glass you can take good pictures.
the lower the color requirements, the more likely it is to get a shot.
from the point of view of focal lenses are uncomfortable, you still need to remember where it starts to soap. the lens is dark.
its application is not entirely clear - for travel? not good. for portraits - not good. landscapes? also no. in fact, you can safely replace it with a 35mm 1.8 fix and get an order of magnitude better picture quality.
or 18-105 getting a universal zoom.
I don’t know why you come up with color problems, I only shoot in RAW and I don’t worry about it. And I took it consciously, especially as a plug at a relatively wide angle in travels. I do not see any reason to compare it with others, the MORE with 35mm 1,8. At the expense of sharpness, I don’t even want to listen to anything, it’s sharp and point. Perfectly fulfills a close-up (not macro). To have it with a single lens is sadness, longing, but when it rolls among the rest of the set, it often finds use.
And lastly, I didn’t want to say this, but you touched me with the phrase: “I shoot this on my iPhone. or on a soap dish, "
So, you’ll get the hell out of it on an iPhone and a soap dish, and not because I was offended, but because I exhausted all the wires myself trying to remove it on a smartphone and a soap dish, and even with the use of various macro devices.
In short, returning to 18-55, in skillful hands and a stick shoots.
I apologize for the comments not much on the topic, but Alexei in his reasoning is like one of my friend who drives a BMW X7 and believes that everything else can in no way be like a car. I like Bright's position more. I also have a whale 18-55 VR II, and I don't consider it such a bad lens. To listen to Alexey like that, then it makes no sense to engage in photography if you do not have a thousand-dollar lens, something like the 17-55mm f / 2.8G IF-ED. And I will also support Vivid in that matter that you’ll get such a hell on an iPhone.
What about the AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85MM F / 3.5-5.6G ED VR
for nikon d 7000-7100
16-85 for the D7000 is definitely suitable.
For D7100 - in theory, it should come up. The glass is quite sharp. But expensive :(.
AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85MM F / 3.5-5.6G ED VR - the lens itself is quite good. Mighty darkness. do not wait for bokeh, sharpness is not bad, as is the picture as a whole.
But! she is very overrated.
from the picture you are unlikely to distinguish it from 18-105 or 18-140. this is the whole problem 16-85- why pay more especially for crop lens ???
if you find it at a price of $ 250-300 - a good option. if it's more expensive - maybe it's better to take 18-105 or 18-140 and some kind of fix?
16-85 on the D7000 is only suitable (
But on devices with 24Mp matrices (D5200, D7100), it will no longer fit (of course, you can put it - but it will not be able to provide the matrix with the disclosure - this grandfather was designed for another 6, maximum 10 Mp)
The lens was once advanced, but its time has passed - now modern cheap whales are already of better quality than this pensioner ..
wrong. the lens will perfectly provide a resolution of 24MP crop at least in the center.
24MP in 100% no one uses. after downsizing or for printing, the resolution of the lens is enough in excess. strictly speaking, only some fixes (from $ 2000) and top zooms fully allow a small pixel of a 24MP matrix over the frame field :)
Alas no
Unfortunately, this 16-85 lens (already in fact a pensioner) was relevant and worked well before (when the matrices were 8-10 megapixels)
By the current time, it is already irrevocably outdated - and if you can still use it on 16Mp matrices with a stretch, then it is stupid to put it on matrices above 18Mp ..
And even more so in the light of the appearance of the newest 18-140)
Unfortunately, time is irrevocably leaving, and what was good for 8-10 megapixel matrices, alas, even approximately will no longer roll on modern models ..
Old lens already. (
Anatoly, take 24-70 2.8 and compare the center of the frame on the D7100 with 16-85 or even 18-105 holding the aperture to 5.6
post the result. then there will be something to discuss)
Ahh ... well, if we talk about “for printing” (that is, take a 24MP camera to print 10 by 15 pictures on a home printer) - then yes, even with a lens 16-85 you can shoot (it will give the quality of a soap dish - but on this size does not matter)
I have already decided on a set of lenses on the d7100.
Native - Sigma 18-35mm f / 1.8
And in the future I will take nikkor 50mm and 70-300mm
A knowledgeable person advised, but what do you say?
I didn’t use Sigma, it’s embarrassing for the small scatter of FR for a staffer: something like 17-50 will be more practical.
Nikkor 70-300VR - ok, good choice with quality / price ratio. I've been using it for three years now, I'm satisfied.
Why do you need fifty dollars? It has a very limited use on the crop: portraits larger than waist-deep should not be taken, but for the full-length ones it is necessary to move quite far away. At the very 50 / 1.4G, but I rarely use it. If you really want fifty dollars - take the Helios-81n - without autofocus, but for its price - that's it.
And for chest portraits and larger, you need FR from 85mm. In principle, 70-300 as a portrait is not bad, but the background will not blur much (except that the background will be o-very far away).
70-300 just blurs the background no worse than fifty dollars. It’s just that it was too far to move away from the subject. Helios can be recommended, but only if a person is friends with a completely manual regime.
My recommendations: Tamron or Sigma 17-50 / 2,8 and Nikon 70-300. And only then, when you understand what fix you no longer need, buy one more. For example, I want a motor 85-ku, but so far it can not afford.
70-300VR 4.5-5.6 does NOT blur the background much, due to its small aperture. It will get well only if the background is very far.
Von Jupiter 37a is well washed out on an open hole, and 70-300 cannot be competed with, so there is no need to mislead people.
In order not to be unfounded:
http://vk.com/albums44381128?z=photo44381128_376572601%2Fphotos44381128
FR in the region of 135-150, hole 5.0. Where is the blurry background? From the model to the background about 7-8 meters, from the photographer to the model 12-15 meters.
"Jupiter 37a blurs the background well on an open hole"
==========================================
it’s good, it’s good, but with manual lenses that focus is still that hemorrhagic!
especially on dark little JVI crop cameras.
if you really like manual glasses - you will have Kenon 6D in your hands with its super light OVI and the ability to change the focus of the screen in 2 minutes.
Nobody canceled LiveView.
The aforementioned Jup-37 has a very long focusing ring travel, focusing manually is a pleasure :-)
And yes, on almost any Nikon CLC, the focusing screen also changes in a minute.
Sigma 18-35mm f / 1.8
=======================
inconvenient in focal and very large problems with the accuracy and stability of phase AF.
"70-300mm"
=======================
the stub version is a great option.
I shot them about 250mm surfers
https://fotki.yandex.ru/users/vmirefoto-blogspot/album/350272/
"Nikkor 50mm"
=======================
almost useless on crop. the lens itself is good that 1.4 that 1.8.
As for the 50 mm, I do not agree, I rent almost the entire wedding walk on it. Great lens when space allows. For its price, it’s difficult to find a fast auto focus portrait portrait on a crop
A 50mm lens angle is considered by many to be what a person actually sees.
on the crop it is 35mm (35 * 1.5 = 52.5mm)
50mm on a crop turn into an under portrait with an angle of view of 75mm.
it is not quite a portrait lens yet, but it is no longer a universal lens, especially in rooms, there will simply not be enough space.
I generally prefer to besides fifty dollars for shooting children in nature. At 35mm you can’t take it close, and at 85mm you go too far and lose contact with them. In addition, the shutter speed is more convenient, because always shoot in the evening, at sunset. And the flash recharges faster.
Sigma - it knows, it's already a matter of desire.
Half a thing on the crop is not meaningful. For fashion and front-waist portraits, it is better to take Nikon's 85 / 1,8g, for general, children and in general - 35 / 1,8g
70-300 is a good lens, mainly for shooting animals and for some reason something from afar. Street reporting, for example. For portraits, he is so rough
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeY31KYfjZw Here you can see To start a bunch of reviews and exactly how they say about 16-85.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgVSJk35arg here is a sigma 17-50 review
My apologies, here is a link to the lenses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glYWaVfsMS4
I myself am now interested in this topic on the selection of a staffer on nikon d7000, here on this site, the people advised me to look http://ru.pixelpeeper.com/cameras/?camera=1496&p=9 , Tamron AF SP 17-50mm f / 2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical IF VC for Nikon lens - whatever you say.
any Tampons and Sigma have incomplete compatibility with Nikon phase AF.
their accuracy and stability depends on the firmware of the carcass, lens and lens and carcass model
Read above, everything has already been chewed up many times, and again in the comments.
Ohhh ... completely confusion in my head :) That is, for portraits on the crop it is better to take 85 than 50?
And the visibility of the eye on the crop corresponds to 35?
But sigma 18-35 I was advised because of the hole 1,8. What is not on the more practical 18-50.
But do you need it, this hole 1,8 yes on such focal?
Well, actually quote, what they wrote to me.
“And despite my advice on buying a Sigma 18-35mm f / 1.8 as a crop kit, people are still looking towards the Tamron 17-50mm f / 2.8 or a similar Sigma 17-50mm f / 2.8. Yes, I understand people, they want to save money. After all, 18-35 / 1.8 is more expensive. But here's what I don't understand, why then bother buying a new lens (any of the 17-50 / 2.8), if it is mediocre and then soap is on the open. And after the purchase to be disappointed in the soapy f / 2.8 and shoot at f / 4 or more covered holes, in order to get sharp photos at 17-50 / 2.8 !? You can just as well shoot with a whale on such holes. A colleague of mine, a photographer, also bought a Tamron 17-50 / 2.8 in an effort to save money that year. After 9 months of disappointment, he sold it. And the misunderstanding on his face disappeared, which was present when I bought my 18-35 / 1.8, which is supposedly more expensive only because of the f / 1.8 hole ... But the fact is that I have been shooting for the second year and enjoy it, but he remained disappointed , and even lost in money, since he sold it cheaper than he bought it. As the saying goes, the miser pays twice. "
Catherine,
everything is really simple.
1. all zooms usually give a "dry" picture, they are more of a reporter. all zooms are a compromise between weight / size / price / zoom size / aperture ratio, etc.
2. for artistry you need to buy fixes
3. Any (practically) lens has a “quality” curve in the form of a “hill” - ie. worst quality at max open and closed more than 10.
in total - the best quality is achieved when closing by 1-2 stops from max open up to 8-10.
simple conclusion - if the lens is 1.8 then the picture will be good from 2.2
if the lens is at 1.0 then a decent quality will be 1.4 -1.8.
but the price for each additional stop aperture increases in the geom of progress increased by 4)))).
4. any non-branded lens (sigma, tampon, tokina) can have problems with phase AF and often lose color reproduction to branded lenses.
Sigma's newest lenses are great optically but large, heavy, expensive, and have serious phase AF issues.
PS
there are exceptions, zoom type 14-24, 70-200 2.8, etc., but their price ...
Another quote
“However, if you've noticed, most quality full-frame optics (especially zooms) come with an f / 2.8 aperture. And for the crop, there is the Sigma 18-35mm f / 1.8. Do you think there is f / 1.8 just like that? Of course not! This is done to equalize crop and full frame in terms of ISO limitation. After all, having more aperture optics on the crop, there is no need to strongly raise the ISO to those values that can reduce the quality of the photo ”
Well, what do you say? :))
That the given words are some kind of senseless pathos, without real facts of the best of 18-35. Or in general his assessment.
So you can agree to the point that 35 / 1,8 is better than 17-50 / 2,8 because of the hole.
And on which lens for the crop is the most beautiful bokeh and portraits?
Triplet t-22
and available from nowadays? :)))
And it is quite accessible. 500 rubles with carcass
For example, you can evaluate.
A strange question, beautiful portraits are in your head, in your imagination, so to speak. And there are a lot of lenses with beautiful bokeh, so how do you choose the most-most of them. In addition, to get a nice looking bokeh, just a lens is not enough. One must also make a known skill, and diligence.
Catherine, no one has yet canceled the optical properties of millimeters of focal length, and a picture with a 35mm lens will look exactly like 35mm but with a viewing angle of a fifty dollars, only the depth of field is bigger. This applies to all other lenses.
And the main meaning of a big hole is blurring the background, not shortening the shutter speed. In the end, each for himself decides how it is more convenient for him to reduce shutter speed, flash, bright sun, stabilizer or high ISO.
Therefore, the lens must be selected based on the set photo tasks. You can, of course, take a landscape with a television set, but a whole bunch of nuances appear, for example: if the landscape is wide, then either bombard the panorama and glue it later in the editor, or move away, but then the detail drops.
This is where shirik is needed in order to capture a wide landscape from a relatively short distance, the inevitable distortion doesn’t do much harm to trees or bushes, but the detail is on top!
But a portrait on a wide-angle can also be shot, like a landscape on a telephoto, with a bunch of reservations, the right angle can create a masterpiece, and not just the right embarrassment and disappointment.
So, creativity is creativity, and focal lengths and aperture size must, nevertheless, be chosen wisely, for specific tasks, and not because someone called this or that lens a camera lens or portrait or some other catchy word.
“But what I don’t understand is why buy a new lens at all (any of the 17-50 / 2.8), if it’s mediocre and it’s still soap on the open…”
- Shawarma! Buy shawarma! Very tasty, muah!
- Don't buy from him! The ram was very thin, sad, ate little - he was dead!
Ekaterina, why do you need a "hole" 1.8, as you say. If for the formation of bokeh, then the physical diameter of the diaphragm plays a decisive role. In your case, that would be 35 divided by 1.8, roughly 20 millimeters. In the case of the 85 1.8 portrait lens, it will be 47 millimeters, that is, more than 2 times more and, accordingly, it will blur the background more, plus there will be less distortion by 85 mm. In the case of 17-50 2.8, then dividing 50 by 2.8 we get about 18 millimeters. That is, you have a very small advantage. And if you calculate the area of the aperture: Pi multiplied by the radius squared, then 85 will receive 4 times more light than your 35mm (approximately.) 17 50
Then, as I understand it ...
It is better to take as a staffer 17-50 2.8
For portraits 85 (by the way, will it be possible to take pictures of him in full growth?)
And for animals, nature, etc. 70-300
Well, if you have the necessary funds so well, then it might make sense to consider something like 70-200 f4 vr.
I think for your sigma you just need to buy 85mm for shooting outdoors
Well, not all at once :)
And 70-200 needs to be supplemented with something else ... 14-24 and 24-70 for example ... And they have a price tag ...
If you think that it is necessary to cover all focal lengths, then this is not necessary. Some cost fixes, for example 20, 50, 85, 135, 200mm, and this is in the best case, some do not. The focal length and its scope are more important here.
For example, I have enough zoom width (including 35mm) and a telephoto fix (suitable either 85mm or 100mm).
everything else was sold because it was rarely at work.
I read comments, and I see that for many the dialogue went in a spiral. Guys discussed lens 18-140 !!! Who has some experience, who thinks what cameras he is more friends with. Do not write all the rank to everyone !!!
On all 24 megapixel crop he is like a native. Quality and sharp. But, you understand, without frills.
Hello again. Found a good offer in the secondary market for Nikkor 35-70 2.8 lens
What can you say about him? Will he make friends with a 24 megapixel crop?
And the same question about Nikon 80-200 2.8
18-140 by 18mm lathers a little, and at all aperture values. gets better in graphic editors.
Your instance is unsuccessful, or you are doing something wrong.
Maybe you just have too high requirements?
Nikon took 18-140 new. before that there was an unsuccessful purchase of used 18-135mm, which turned out to be with a very tricky focus glitch. generally 18-140 soaps so little noticeable. I mean, if we were to say the task was to get the sharpest picture at 18mm, then 16-85 would be cut. at the long end of 18-140, too, begins to soap, but for portraits it is just right.
Good day. I need a lens to replace the regular 18-55. Television, travel, for travel and filming in different conditions. Mostly landscapes and reports. Tell me what to look for? Budget option :).
Thank you
55-300 budget telephoto, good by the way, but not for replacement, but in addition.
18-105mm.
at a price of 150-200 dollars - 18-105 is the best. the very thing for travel.
About 18-105 I completely agree. he himself clicked for a couple of years, only with a crawling trunk he was tortured, and they were pretty good focal ones, and there was quite sharpness with the colors.