18-140 on a DX equates to 27-210 which is pretty much what my old film lens was. I don't know what "white box" entails - but that seems a reasonable saving
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-nikkor-af-s-dx-18-140mm-f-3-5-5-6g-ed-vr-lens-review-23219
As I mentioned before, 28mm is great, but I really missed the extra creativity that the wider 24mm setting would have provided. This would have allowed much more dramatic and far more 'arty' types of shots.
Most of my landscape type shots were either at 28mm (sometimes with foreground object for dramatic effect) or tended to be around ~50-70mm.
Ditto for architectural type shots. Ocassionally you'd want to zoom in on a detail or a distant feature/monument/scene etc - and this is where the wish for 300mm came from. These days it's a bit of a different kettle of fish as you can just crop in post processing to get the same result.
It all depends on what you will be mostly photographing, and whether you will get a dedicated superwide prime/zoom, as well as superfast portrait primes, and how often you like changing lenses (how much you want to carry at a time).
Just a note - if you can get lenses faster than f5.6 then they will certainly be well useful. Also, some of the do-it-all type lenses such as the Tamron 16-300 sacrifice a lot of IQ (relatively) for the benefit of hardly ever changing lenses. Generally, the shorter the zoom range multiplier the better controlled the IQ is.
You could cover just about all situations very handsomely with a Nikon 16-80/ f2.8-4 (or at a pinch the older, slower 16-85/ f3.5-5.6) and a Sigma/(Tamron) 100-400/ f5(4.5)-6.3.
If you really don't mind changing/ carrying more and it suits most of your regular situations you could go with the 18-140, and flesh this out with a 10-24 super wide angle zoom - such as the Tamron (particularly if you want any interior shots), and your 70-300 for now (until you parlay it into a 100-400, as I don't think your 70-300 would then see much use with all the focal overlap you would have
Chosun :gh: