Nikon Announces Z-Mount 18-140mm DX Zoom

[ShunCheung]

Finally Nikon announces a third DX lens in the Z mount, a 18-140mm/f3.5-6.3 which has been on their roadmap for a couple of years. The lack of native DX lenses has been a concern for DX Z-mount bodies. This is a 7.8x super zoom, more or less the DX version of the highly popular 24-200mm/f4-6.3, which I have owned for several months.

 

The new 18-140 DX has optical VR. Its length is 3.5inches/90mm (I am sure that is the length of the lens when zoomed to the minimum 18mm) and weights 11.1oz/315 grams.

In the US, it retails for $599.95.

 

 

Product image copyright Nikon Inc.

 

18-140mm DX lens on Z50 body

Edited October 13, 2021 by ShunCheung

[mike_halliwell]

Sample images, tech spec, etc. here..

 

NIKKOR Z DX 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 VR | Versatile high-powered travel zoom

Edited October 13, 2021 by mike_halliwell

[robert_bouknight1]

It is shorter and lighter than the full frame 24-200Z as one would expect for a DX lens. I am sure that the lens on a Z-DX body would make a good travel setup.

 

I would miss the few mm on the wide end vs the 24-200. Although the weight and volume savings would be nice with the DX setup, I will continue pack a FF Z with 14-30 mounted, with a short tele in a belt case.

 

The 24-200 is tempting, though. I am interested to see how it will compare with the future 24-105S.

[ShunCheung]

Of course 140mm is shorter than 200mm :)

 

Concerning focal lengths, 18-140 in DX is more like 27 to 210mm in FX. To me, I would miss that wider 3mm on the wide end. I have had the 24-200mm Z for about 6 months now. It is my most-used Z lens, over the 24-70mm/f4 S and 24-70mm/f2.8 S I also have. The zoom range is especially useful for video capture.

[Gary Naka]

Now THIS lens makes sense. I was waiting for when Nikon would release it.

 

I have the F-DX 18-140, and I too miss the wider short end.

My F wide was a 24/2.8, so I go used to having that coverage, and missed it with the 18-70 then the 18-140.

[Matthew Currie]

If the new one is as good as the F one it should make a pretty nice kit lens with that body, though, like Gary above, I would miss those extra two millimeters.

[Dieter Schaefer]

So Nikon can make an FX 24-200 that from all I've heard is very good. But they can't make a DX 16-140? I owned the F-mount 18-140 briefly and was impressed by it - except for the quite noticeable vignetting (for DX I now prefer the 16-80/2.8-4). Like others, I find it necessary that a 1-lens walkaround solution starts at 24mm. For the F-mount I nowadays prefer a two-lens/two-camera solution: 2xD810 with Tamron 15-30/2.8 and Tamron 35-150/2.8-4. Main reason is that none of the 24-xxx lenses available in F-mount work for me.

[robert_bouknight1]

Agree with Dieter, any time I am seriously shooting I carry 2 bodies, one with a wide zoom and the other with something fast and longer than 50. I have progressed from a 24 prime (many years) to a 17-35 (2.8AFS, still have and my copy is darn good), and now the 14-30. Thought I would not really need anything wider than 17, but the 14-17 range is addictive.

 

If shooting people though, the wider lenses begin to distort too much, so the 27mm equivalent of the new zoom would be OK for many applications assuming barrel distortion is largely corrected (by the camera mostly these days)

[ShunCheung]

I too typically carry two or even three bodies, but nowadays I shoot both stills and video. The 24-200 is really convenient for video, where I can capture in the DX mode so that it is more like 300mm on the long end. The 24-200 is good enough that my Z 24-70mm/f4 S is not much better, if at all. I also have the Z 24-70mm/f2.8 S, which I mainly use indoors.

[mike_halliwell]

Looks like the only reason to use a fast prime is low light to keep the ISO down and DoF control, ie shallow.

 

IQ of the better Z zooms is excellent I gather...:)

 

I only have the 'kit' Z 24-70mm/f4 S (on the Z6ii) so-far and it's pretty good as a walkaround.

[ilkka_nissila]

Looks like the only reason to use a fast prime is low light to keep the ISO down and DoF control, ie shallow.

 

Well, those are two pretty big reasons. An f/6.3 lens on a DX camera is depth of field equivalent to an f/9 lens on FX.

 

IQ of the better Z zooms is excellent I gather...:)

 

Nonetheless the primes are even sharper, and likely the smaller number of elements leads to cleaner images as well, less flare etc. E.g. if one shoots at f/2.8 the Z 35/1.8 is quite a bit sharper than the 24-70/2.8 Z, for example. According to photographylife's testing, the 35/1.8 gives Imatest MTF values of 3744/2367/1800 while the 24-70/2.8 gives 2979/1868/1701. The Z 50 mm f/1.8 S is even more strikingly better with 3987/2750/1979 vs. 2584/2255/1734 for the zoom at 50 mm f/2.8.

 

I only have the 'kit' Z 24-70mm/f4 S (on the Z6ii) so-far and it's pretty good as a walkaround.

 

The 24-70 has a narrower focal range and as such is expected to be high quality.