This lens is a competent performer, producing decent sharpness throughout its zoom range, with low falloff and CA. However it appears to be priced quite highly, and probably doesn't perform well enough to justify being a choice as an upgrade from a similar lens, like Nikon's 18-135mm lens, that is no longer available. However, if it is bundled as a kit with a camera body for a decent price in the future, it should be a choice most photographers, after a convenient zoom lens, should be happy with. If this 1,200×900 pixel crop is about 6" (15cm) wide on your screen, the complete image would print at 18×27" (46×768 cm) at this same magnification. It's much sharper at f/11. For real-world macro shooting, shoot at f/22 to f/32 to try to get enough depth of field: The 18-140mm has a very wide zoom ring at the front of the lens (over half the lens's length), and that ring covers the full focal length range in a bit less than a quarter turn. At 140mm, the lens extends another 2" (53mm) via two embedded barrel sections. These sections have less play and slop in them than many of the Nikon variable aperture zooms that use such designs. The 67mm front element does not rotate during zoom or focus. The front element is very close to the front of the lens, though, so be careful you don't zoom into something (or use the optional HB-32 bayonet lens hood). As is often the case with lenses sporting a high zoom ratio, distortion is quite pronounced at both ends of the range. At 18mm 5.02% barrel distortion is present, which is quite noticeable and at 300mm 1.5% pincushion distortion is present, which is less apparent. The distortion pattern is uniform across the frame, so it should be relatively easy to apply corrections in image editing software afterwards.

Something else I have seen comments about online is that this lens suffers less from focus breathing than the 18-200mm VR. I'd say that's not the case, it seems to be pretty much the same. And why would it not be, it's a super zoom, the design constraints are largely the same as the 18-200mm VR. The lens is longest when extended to the 140mm focal length, where it adds another 5cm to the overall length.if you shoot raw and then use non-manufacturer software to process that data into images then there is the possibility that there might be some, but I doubt it. I’ve tried various zoom lenses and so far the 18-140 beats my surprisingly good sample of the 18-55 noticeably, and my less than great sample of the 16-85 handily. I just got a new 16-80, which is supposed to be about the best thing there is, and my initial impression is that it about matches the 18-140 in sharpness but does not surpass it. If I did not crave the wide end in my walk-around zoom so much, I’d have gone for the relatively bargain-priced 18-140 long ago. For less money, the B+W 62mm 010 is an excellent filter, as is the multicoated version and basic multicoated Hoya filters, but the Hoya HD3 is the toughest and the best. Closest focus distance is 45cm, and focusing is performed internally, so the 67mm filter thread does not rotate, which makes this lens ideal for use with graduated filters and polarisers. The short minimum focus distance of 0.2 m/0.66 ft at the maximum wide-angle position is ideal for close-up shots.

The Nikon 18-140mm VR DX is an optically, practically and ergonomically great lens. If you think you want one, by all means, get one.Apochromatic lenses have special lens elements (aspheric, extra-low dispersion etc) to minimize the problem, hence they usually cost more. The lens is very similar in size and weight to the 18-200mm VR. It's a little slimmer and doesn't, as yet, suffer from any zoom creep, something that has always been a pain on my 18-200mm lens. The Z DX 18-140mm F3.5-6.3 VR for Nikon was first announced in October 2021. This lens is made in Thailand. While amateurs waste time worrying about lens sharpness, pros know that lens sharpness has little to do with making sharp pictures. This said, the Nikon 18-140mm VR DX is super-sharp corner-to-corner at every setting. There are no problems here! While it works great on my Z9, I don't recommend buying this for use on full-frame because the DX Z50 and Zfc cost less and have more pixels in DX mode than any full-frame camera. Even if it doesn't take advantage of the Z9's full frame sensor, if you have a Z9, it's a fun lens and makes great pictures.

Based on CIPA Standard. This value is achieved when attached to a DX-format camera with the camera's VR function set to "NORMAL", and when zoom is set to the maximum telephoto position. The Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED DX VR (phew!) lens appears to be sort of a double duty lens. First, it's filling in for the old discontinued 18-135mm, which was a very sharp but flawed lens that didn't have VR. Second, the new lens appears to be trying to up the ability ante for the 24mp sensor cameras, where even the well-behaved 18-105mm is showing its age. Nikon has gotten better with each generation of its convenience zoom designs (both DX and FX), and the 18-140mm is just another example of that.

If you compare this lens to a fixed 135mm lens, it looks about the same at infinity, and at six feet (2 meters), this lens includes about 20% more in each direction than the 135mm lens. This difference becomes greater at closer distances. Build quality is very decent, with a metal bayonet mount, smooth focus and zoom rings, and very little wobble even when fully extended.

Equipped with an optical vibration reduction (VR) mechanism that provides camera shake compensation equivalent to a 5.0-stop * increase in shutter speed. The edge sharpness of the 18-140mm isn't quite as good as the centre sharpness but again it's leagues ahead of the 18-200mm especially wide open. Whether wide open or stopped down to f8 there's a horrible blue halo along the side of the note in the corner with the 18-200mm VR, this does finally go away at f11. This is something I have noticed in real use. It's tempting to just call it chromatic aberration but I'm not sure if it's a simple as that. I've noticed when using the 18-200mm VR lens in real world situations that I do get haloing around bright highlights, often white haloing which rather suggests it's not chromatic aberration. So I think this is more of a contrast/flare problem. You can see that there's a very significant loss of contrast, especially in the corners, with the 18-200mm when shot at f5.6 and even at f8. I think issues like this are not easily quantified but can actually have a far greater effect on real world images than some of the more measurable lens parameters. Either way the 18-140mm is way, way better which is very good news. Like that this lens has a proper metal lens mount even though I never had problems with the plastic mount on the 18-105mm. Maybe it is just a psychological thing that gives the impression of better build.

Everything works perfectly on every digital Nikon ever made, except that you're wasting most of your sensor with FX cameras. Like most Aspherical lenses other than Sony's unique Extreme Aspherical optics, out-of-focus points of light can take on onion-like annuli as you see above, and in this sample you even can see Airy diffraction patterns around the edges of these large disks, signs that this lens' optics are performing at the edge of the laws of physics.