My First Impressions of ONE SAMPLE of
the Nikkor 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 AF-D Zoom:

The Nikkor 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 is similar in size, weight, and appearance to the
Nikkor 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 zoom. A large ring is used for zoom (there is a
slight tendency to self-zoom when the lens is held vertical - not a big deal...),
a smaller front-placed ring is used for manual focus (the turn is swift and
short-throw, making manual focus a bit difficult at the longer FLs - and the
focus is well-damped, but not as smooth as is usual for Nikkors). Filter size
is 72mm, the same as it is on the Nikkor 24-120mm f3.5-5.6. Minimum
focus distance changes with FL, being 2.8' at 28mm, 3.9' at 35mm, and 4.9'
from 50 to 200mm (decent, but not as close as the 1.5' throughout with the
24-120mm). FL reduces with closer focus. Distortion is not high, but about
the highest I have seen in a Nikkor. IN THIS ONE SAMPLE TRIED (optical
characteristics can vary considerably from sample to sample with wide-range
zooms!), barrel distortion was fairly noticeable at 28mm; at 35mm there was
virtually no linear distortion; at 40-50mm pincushion distortion was very
slight; at 70-105mm pincushion distortion was slight but noticeable; at
135-200mm pincushion distortion (the least desireable type...) was not
high but was quite noticeable. The lens was slightly varifocal, with slightly
greater-than-infinity focus possible (!! ;-) from 28 to about 40mm with this
sample (this is not at all unusual with Nikkor zooms - but one should therefore
ignor the advice of the instruction booklet to focus at a longer FL than one
is going to use). I made no attempt to check for flare or ghosting with this
lens. A large lens shade is included with the lens.

A quick film check of this ONE SAMPLE of the Nikkor 28-200mm f3.5-5.6
showed (at infinity focus - sharpness at the edges around the 5' focus distance
was generally a bit worse than at infinity focus at f5.6, though still quite good
over most of the frame):
** 28mm - f5.6, slight optical misalignment (not uncommon in wide-angle
zooms), good sharpness to just short of the far edges; f11, good short
of the far corners, which were not terrible.
** 35mm - f5.6, very slight misalignment, good sharpness short of the
corners; f11, good short of far corners (which are OK).
** 40mm - f5.6, very slight misalignment, good short of far corners.
** 50mm - f5.6, good to corners; f11, very good to far corners.
** 70mm - f5.6, very good to corners; f11, very good to far corners.
** 85mm - f5.6, very good to corners.
** 105mm - f5.6, good to corners; f11, good to corners.
** 135mm - f5.6, OK to corners but noticeably less sharp than at 105mm.
** 180-200mm - f5.6, so-so overall but worse at edges; f11, slightly
better but not great performance.

Conclusions:
This lens is a competent compact zoom that may serve the purposes of some
for a compact travel lens, though it would not please the sharpness nut except
maybe around 40-105mm. Performance is not terrible elsewhere, and is no
worse than several other of wide-to-tele Nikkor zooms (though it is not up to
the very good Nikkor 24-120mm), but I, sharpness nut that I am, would not
choose to use this zoom in preference to fixed FL Nikkors. The misalignment
noted was less than is common in WA zooms, and was not a real problem in
this sample. Anyone want a basically new Nikkor 28-200mm for $500? ;-)
--
David Ruether
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
ruether@fcinet.com