I’ve had the Z50/16-50/50-250 combo since it was introduced (2020?). Lightweight and sharper than one would expect. However, I picked up the 18-140Z as soon as it became available, and haven’t used the 16-50 since. The 18-140 meets my travel & outdoor needs and the occasional church/family requests ( I did weddings & gatherings for 30 years for vacation funding). Is it perfect? No, but it’s reliable and gets the photos I want. What I’m most surprised with is the 50-250 – shoots well above its cost and build. Far sharper & lighter than any 70-300 I’ve owned or tried. Great lightweight travel combo with the 18-140 despite the focal length overlap.
Rendy
September 9, 2024 12:39 am
I have Z50 and the 18-140, which is a great travel combination. However, one thing bothers me, and that is the slight radial movement of the lens in the z50 camera mount. Given that the zoom ring is quite tight, it occasionally causes a clicking sound when zooming (zoom is more tight than mount in the bayonet). Is your setup completely firm, or is there some radial play in the bayonet mount?
Doug A
June 19, 2024 8:51 am
I’ve been very pleased with the 18-140 as a “do it all” travel package with my Z50. I also have a Zfc but the 50 is smaller, lighter and also has built in flash when needed. I’ve also been pleased with the 16-50 and 50-250 lenses but I found myself often wanting the other lens on the camera particularly for things like photos of our grandson at the aquarium. I’ve carried both bodies at times but that’s not as convenient when you fly for most of your travel. I also tried my 24-70 f4 that I have for my Z5 and while it’s a superb lens, it’s not as compact and I found myself wanting VR and to be able to go wider and longer in focal length. The 18-140 on the Z50 went on a recent Colorado trip, (along with the small 16-50 for backup), and I used it exclusively. The combo did not disappoint in any situation. The 18-140 is not as sharp as my 50 1.8 and doesn’t do macro as well as my 105 MC 2.8 and (as shown here), falls slightly behind the kit lenses but as a compact, lightweight, 1-lens solution it’s hard to beat and I find that a few extra minutes in Lightroom will cure most ills.
John D
April 27, 2024 7:42 pm
I’d rather have a 24-200 f4.5-9 than spend money on Nikon’s half hearted DX cameras. I wouldn’t mind having the Zfc with 16-50 as a very compact and pocketable travel camera, if the price was right, but this all plastic zoom is just too much money to justify, imo.
Rob H
April 27, 2024 9:49 am
Thanks for the review Spencer – lovely photographs, as usual. I use this lens on my Z50 for backpacking trips, where weight is at a premium and swapping lenses can be a pain. This combo is almost a full pound lighter than a 24-200 on a Z5, and that’s a difference you feel. I’ve been happy with the results. The general excellence of the 16-50 means that the 18-140 is not an automatic choice, but its telephoto capability is nice and it’s what I usually settle on when I’m looking for a single-lens solution.
caj
April 26, 2024 8:48 pm
Very good review (as always). Thank you Spencer.
I’ve used the Z50 and the two original kit lenses (16-50mm and 50-250mm) for a couple of years as a daily carry camera. All fit nicely in my messenger bag or a small fanny pack.
My preference is for wide angle lenses, so when the 12-28mm was introduced, I adopted it immediately. I more recently added the 18-140mm as a compliment to the wide angle zoom and that pairing has worked out quite well with a bit of overlapping focal lengths.
There are no hard and fast rules for focal lengths, but my experience is: For outdoor hikes and activities the original 16-50mm and 50-250mm pairing is a great kit. For indoor things like tourism, museum, social events, documentation and such the 12-28mm and 18-140 have been very useful focal lengths. Both kits fit the same small bag or fanny pack.
Hope you might be planning a review of the 12-28mm sometime.
Chris
Christophe
April 26, 2024 6:22 am
“At least at the moment, there is no Nikon DX camera that is sold alongside this lens as a pair”
In France this lens is offered as a kit with the Z50 and Zfc
I don’t understand why Nikon made this lens. I own the z50 and the 2 kit lenses. They cover most of the bases, as you noted. Nikon does not seem interested in this format by what they are producing. If I decide to stick to Nikon, I’ll need to go full frame by the looks of it. No hint of a Z500 (which would be great for birds).
I agree. It’s very frustrating. I’m currently waiting on the Z6iii, but I’m not holding out that much hope that it’ll trump the D500 for wildlife/action photography. If you can’t afford exotics, then you need an aps-c sensor that will put 21mps at 750mm with a 500mm lens. A 24mp fx camera just puts about 11mps in dx mode. It’s a bit of a bad show that I might end up trying to buy a used 2016 camera (costing £1,700 new) because it’s better for action photography than a 2024 camera (costing £2,500). I don’t want to pay £4,000 for a Z8 solely because it has 21mp in dx mode (I’m quite content with 24mp for non-action photography). A £1,000 Z5 and a £800 used D500 might be the solution. Oddly.
I made the same calculation and recently purchased a used D500. Sure, a Z8 would offer better focusing performance, but I’d just be cropping out those extra pixels. The difference in cost paid for a nice lens.
Lawrence Lee Huber
April 25, 2024 3:22 pm
Excellent review of a Nikon lens. Most all reviews of Nikon lenses are just driveling platitudes of praise because it is a Nikon product. This gives the good, and the bad unvarnished. Thank you.
I’ve had the Z50/16-50/50-250 combo since it was introduced (2020?). Lightweight and sharper than one would expect. However, I picked up the 18-140Z as soon as it became available, and haven’t used the 16-50 since. The 18-140 meets my travel & outdoor needs and the occasional church/family requests ( I did weddings & gatherings for 30 years for vacation funding). Is it perfect? No, but it’s reliable and gets the photos I want.
What I’m most surprised with is the 50-250 – shoots well above its cost and build. Far sharper & lighter than any 70-300 I’ve owned or tried. Great lightweight travel combo with the 18-140 despite the focal length overlap.
I have Z50 and the 18-140, which is a great travel combination. However, one thing bothers me, and that is the slight radial movement of the lens in the z50 camera mount. Given that the zoom ring is quite tight, it occasionally causes a clicking sound when zooming (zoom is more tight than mount in the bayonet). Is your setup completely firm, or is there some radial play in the bayonet mount?
I’ve been very pleased with the 18-140 as a “do it all” travel package with my Z50.
I also have a Zfc but the 50 is smaller, lighter and also has built in flash when needed.
I’ve also been pleased with the 16-50 and 50-250 lenses but I found myself often wanting the other lens on the camera particularly for things like photos of our grandson at the aquarium.
I’ve carried both bodies at times but that’s not as convenient when you fly for most of your travel.
I also tried my 24-70 f4 that I have for my Z5 and while it’s a superb lens, it’s not as compact and I found myself wanting VR and to be able to go wider and longer in focal length.
The 18-140 on the Z50 went on a recent Colorado trip, (along with the small 16-50 for backup), and I used it exclusively. The combo did not disappoint in any situation.
The 18-140 is not as sharp as my 50 1.8 and doesn’t do macro as well as my 105 MC 2.8 and (as shown here), falls slightly behind the kit lenses but as a compact, lightweight, 1-lens solution it’s hard to beat and I find that a few extra minutes in Lightroom will cure most ills.
I’d rather have a 24-200 f4.5-9 than spend money on Nikon’s half hearted DX cameras. I wouldn’t mind having the Zfc with 16-50 as a very compact and pocketable travel camera, if the price was right, but this all plastic zoom is just too much money to justify, imo.
Thanks for the review Spencer – lovely photographs, as usual. I use this lens on my Z50 for backpacking trips, where weight is at a premium and swapping lenses can be a pain. This combo is almost a full pound lighter than a 24-200 on a Z5, and that’s a difference you feel. I’ve been happy with the results. The general excellence of the 16-50 means that the 18-140 is not an automatic choice, but its telephoto capability is nice and it’s what I usually settle on when I’m looking for a single-lens solution.
Very good review (as always). Thank you Spencer.
I’ve used the Z50 and the two original kit lenses (16-50mm and 50-250mm) for a couple of years as a daily carry camera. All fit nicely in my messenger bag or a small fanny pack.
My preference is for wide angle lenses, so when the 12-28mm was introduced, I adopted it immediately. I more recently added the 18-140mm as a compliment to the wide angle zoom and that pairing has worked out quite well with a bit of overlapping focal lengths.
There are no hard and fast rules for focal lengths, but my experience is: For outdoor hikes and activities the original 16-50mm and 50-250mm pairing is a great kit. For indoor things like tourism, museum, social events, documentation and such the 12-28mm and 18-140 have been very useful focal lengths. Both kits fit the same small bag or fanny pack.
Hope you might be planning a review of the 12-28mm sometime.
Chris
“At least at the moment, there is no Nikon DX camera that is sold alongside this lens as a pair”
In France this lens is offered as a kit with the Z50 and Zfc
bought as a kit the lens costs €429 or about the same in dollars
www.nikon.fr/fr_FR…VOA050K012
I don’t understand why Nikon made this lens. I own the z50 and the 2 kit lenses. They cover most of the bases, as you noted.
Nikon does not seem interested in this format by what they are producing.
If I decide to stick to Nikon, I’ll need to go full frame by the looks of it. No hint of a Z500 (which would be great for birds).
There are many situations where I don’t want to change lenses and this one is perfect in that case.
I agree. It’s very frustrating.
I’m currently waiting on the Z6iii, but I’m not holding out that much hope that it’ll trump the D500 for wildlife/action photography.
If you can’t afford exotics, then you need an aps-c sensor that will put 21mps at 750mm with a 500mm lens. A 24mp fx camera just puts about 11mps in dx mode.
It’s a bit of a bad show that I might end up trying to buy a used 2016 camera (costing £1,700 new) because it’s better for action photography than a 2024 camera (costing £2,500).
I don’t want to pay £4,000 for a Z8 solely because it has 21mp in dx mode (I’m quite content with 24mp for non-action photography). A £1,000 Z5 and a £800 used D500 might be the solution. Oddly.
I made the same calculation and recently purchased a used D500. Sure, a Z8 would offer better focusing performance, but I’d just be cropping out those extra pixels. The difference in cost paid for a nice lens.
Excellent review of a Nikon lens. Most all reviews of Nikon lenses are just driveling platitudes of praise because it is a Nikon product. This gives the good, and the bad unvarnished.
Thank you.
No competition for my Z 24-200.