While the UITextField class has no max length property, it's relatively simple to get this functionality by setting the text field's delegate and implementing the following delegate method:

Objective-C

- (BOOL)textField:(UITextField *)textField shouldChangeCharactersInRange:(NSRange)range replacementString:(NSString *)string {
    // Prevent crashing undo bug – see note below.
    if(range.length + range.location > textField.text.length)
    {
        return NO;
    }
        
    NSUInteger newLength = [textField.text length] + [string length] - range.length;
    return newLength <= 25;
}

Swift

func textField(_ textField: UITextField, shouldChangeCharactersIn range: NSRange, replacementString string: String) -> Bool {
    
    let currentCharacterCount = textField.text?.count ?? 0
    if range.length + range.location > currentCharacterCount {
        return false
    }
    let newLength = currentCharacterCount + string.count - range.length
    return newLength <= 25
}

Before the text field changes, the UITextField asks the delegate if the specified text should be changed. The text field has not changed at this point, so we grab it's current length and the string length we're inserting (either through pasting copied text or typing a single character using the keyboard), minus the range length. If this value is too long (more than 25 characters in this example), return NO to prohibit the change.

When typing in a single character at the end of a text field, the range.location will be the current field's length, and range.length will be 0 because we're not replacing/deleting anything. Inserting into the middle of a text field just means a different range.location, and pasting multiple characters just means string has more than one character in it.

Deleting single characters or cutting multiple characters is specified by a range with a non-zero length, and an empty string. Replacement is just a range deletion with a non-empty string.

A note on the crashing "undo" bug

As is mentioned in the comments, there is a bug with UITextField that can lead to a crash.

If you paste in to the field, but the paste is prevented by your validation implementation, the paste operation is still recorded in the application's undo buffer. If you then fire an undo (by shaking the device and confirming an Undo), the UITextField will attempt to replace the string it thinks it pasted in to itself with an empty string. This will crash because it never actually pasted the string in to itself. It will try to replace a part of the string that doesn't exist.

Fortunately you can protect the UITextField from killing itself like this. You just need to ensure that the range it proposes to replace does exist within its current string. This is what the initial sanity check above does.

swift 3.0 with copy and paste working fine.

func textView(_ textView: UITextView, shouldChangeTextIn range: NSRange, replacementText text: String) -> Bool {
        let str = (textView.text + text)
        if str.characters.count <= 10 {
            return true
        }
        textView.text = str.substring(to: str.index(str.startIndex, offsetBy: 10))
        return false
    }

Hope it's helpful to you.

The last two are identical; "atomic" is the default behavior (note that it is not actually a keyword; it is specified only by the absence of nonatomic -- atomic was added as a keyword in recent versions of llvm/clang).

Assuming that you are @synthesizing the method implementations, atomic vs. non-atomic changes the generated code. If you are writing your own setter/getters, atomic/nonatomic/retain/assign/copy are merely advisory. (Note: @synthesize is now the default behavior in recent versions of LLVM. There is also no need to declare instance variables; they will be synthesized automatically, too, and will have an _ prepended to their name to prevent accidental direct access).

With "atomic", the synthesized setter/getter will ensure that a whole value is always returned from the getter or set by the setter, regardless of setter activity on any other thread. That is, if thread A is in the middle of the getter while thread B calls the setter, an actual viable value -- an autoreleased object, most likely -- will be returned to the caller in A.

In nonatomic, no such guarantees are made. Thus, nonatomic is considerably faster than "atomic".

What "atomic" does not do is make any guarantees about thread safety. If thread A is calling the getter simultaneously with thread B and C calling the setter with different values, thread A may get any one of the three values returned -- the one prior to any setters being called or either of the values passed into the setters in B and C. Likewise, the object may end up with the value from B or C, no way to tell.

Ensuring data integrity -- one of the primary challenges of multi-threaded programming -- is achieved by other means.

Adding to this:

atomicity of a single property also cannot guarantee thread safety when multiple dependent properties are in play.

Consider:

 @property(atomic, copy) NSString *firstName;
 @property(atomic, copy) NSString *lastName;
 @property(readonly, atomic, copy) NSString *fullName;

In this case, thread A could be renaming the object by calling setFirstName: and then calling setLastName:. In the meantime, thread B may call fullName in between thread A's two calls and will receive the new first name coupled with the old last name.

To address this, you need a transactional model. I.e. some other kind of synchronization and/or exclusion that allows one to exclude access to fullName while the dependent properties are being updated.