its a ball. does this look in focus to you?

[bribrius]

yes.
And im doing lens testing with a tennis ball. Call me a nut, its okay I probably am.

I think everyone does this.
How is the sharpness at 120, 100, 80, etc ?

starts going down hill hard after the 100 mark. But its just my opinion. And I stare at the photos too long I lose judgement. so thought I would post one and at least see if it was usable and totally not my imagination of it being crap.

 

[Derrel]

this was the 18-140. Goes to crap when I get toward the 140 end.

A LOT of zoom lenses are weakest at their longer end...almost,"Goes with the turrrrrritory, pardner."

I do not own the 18-140. I read the Thom Hogan review of it....he basically states that the D7100's no AA-filter and 24MP sensor is BETTER than the lens; that the lens is "truly consumer", and basically that the lens is NOT optically good enough to make the D7100's sensor show what it can do. WHich is an issue that has come about because of ever-increasing megapixel counts that suddenly hit the market; on an older, 10- or 12-MP crop-body Nikon, a LOT of lenses look "fine". Perfectly "fine".

This has happened during the digital age; the HIGH-end Nikkor lenses are very good, but people want huge zoom ranges, small size, light weight, and convenience. Annnnnd, they want it to be "affordable". If you want 18mm to 140mm and VR in a light, compact lens, that is low-cost, well....AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!!!!!!

If you apply Unsharp Masking, and down-size, then apply USM again, and down-size, then show it on-screen at 1,200 to 1,600 pixels wide, the lenses of today are certainly adequate, and HANDY too! I can make decent pictures with so-so lenses if the subject matter and the light are interesting. For running off 4x6 or 5x7 or 6x9 inch prints or whatever, the sharpening routine is essential, and any modern lens is good enough. I would would work on your sharpening procedures more than anything.

 

[bribrius]

this was the 18-140. Goes to crap when I get toward the 140 end.

A LOT of zoom lenses are weakest at their longer end...almost,"Goes with the turrrrrritory, pardner."

I do not own the 18-140. I read the Thom Hogan review of it....he basically states that the D7100's no AA-filter and 24MP sensor is BETTER than the lens; that the lens is "truly consumer", and basically that the lens is NOT optically good enough to make the D7100's sensor show what it can do. WHich is an issue that has come about because of ever-increasing megapixel counts that suddenly hit the market; on an older, 10- or 12-MP crop-body Nikon, a LOT of lenses look "fine". Perfectly "fine".

This has happened during the digital age; the HIGH-end Nikkor lenses are very good, but people want huge zoom ranges, small size, light weight, and convenience. Annnnnd, they want it to be "affordable". If you want 18mm to 140mm and VR in a light, compact lens, that is low-cost, well....AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!!!!!!

nope. And I understand this. I suppose I just wish what it was listed for was actually its usable length. Maybe they should have listed it as a 30-100 It is my most used lens because of its convenience, which is unfortunate in a way.

 

[Derrel]

My car's speedometer goes to 120 MPH...even though the limit's 65 MPH here on the freeways, 55 MPH on secondary highways...

Should they have only given me 0 to 65 MPH on the speedometer???