In article <1996Oct16.105148@alder.cc.kcl.ac.uk>, udee785@alder.cc.kcl.ac.uk says...

>From time to time one sees this lens being offered
>on the second-hand market. It appears very
>infrequently compared with other Nikon zooms (such
>as the various 35-70s). On paper it would seem to
>be a good "tourist" lens either to take with a
>light body as the only lens or with a 75-150 or
>135/2.8 in a two-lens combo.

Gee, you have missed my "SLE(MN)"? ;-)....

>I would be interested to read people's experiences
>with this lens as one is being shown in a shop
>near me and I am tempted. The condition is as far
>as I can see on the outside blemishless and the
>price is less by several rolls of process paid
>slide film than what the same shop is charging for
>a used 35/2 AIS which is obviously used by its
>look (pounds 250 or so for the 28-50). Is it worth
>this price? How much is it normally in the US?

By US prices, that might be about right to a bit
high, but for Europe, not bad from what I gather
about Nikon prices there.

>Qualities of interest to me are:
>
>Does the zoom zoom itself at the vertical position
>after use (this sample seems to be very unused and
>it stays put at 28 when pointed up -- but I want
>an indication whether this will stay the case with
>use) of a considerable period?

Unknown - depends on amount of use, and cam lub.
and shape (and geometric shape...).

>Light fall-off at the faster f stops?

Not bad.

>Linear distortion over the range (tourist lenses
>get used very often on buildings)?

As with Nikkor zooms in general, not bad (though
linear distortion is present in virtually all zooms).

>Flare control? Surprising red dots appear on my
>friend's daughter's face? New lights appear in
>strange places (like UFOs in the sky) in night
>shots of the lighted Eifel Tower?

Unusually good in this lens - I didn't bother
with a shade for it during the brief period
I owned one.

>If I take it with my 100-300 AIS will there be
>considerable quality differences or appearance
>differences among the slides of a trip? With the
>135/2.8 AIS? With the 75-150 E?

The lens is very sharp over the whole field, BUT
it exhibits a characteristic rare for Nikkors:
very noticeable field curvature (nice, if you like
the people in front of you and the mountains at
the edges of the photo sharp [with the mountains
behind the people in the center soft...]).

>How wide is it really at 28 (Is it really 28 or
>32)?

I seem to remember its being reasonably close to
28mm (but zooms sometimes change FL very noticeably
when focused - so, are we talking about near minimum
or maximum focus distance....? ;-).

>These questions are being asked as obviously the
>sales conditions do not include a rent and trial
>period.

Will they let you shoot some photos with it in the
store, or just outside the door?

>BTW I've read David R's subjective eval and could
>he please expand his comments on the questions
>above?

Oh, so you DID see "SLE(MN)"....;-)
The 28-50 is constant aperture and has a 52mm filter
size. The one I had was sharp and contrasty, with low
flare and ghosting, but the range was not wide, and
the field curvature was very noticeable (making good
landscape/cityscape type photography difficult, though
people photography with this lens is OK). Overall, I
found the lens too limiting, and I sold it. It appears
to have been made for only a short time (maybe the
28-85mm killed it off....?).

>Thanks for any input.
>Regards, Fei

Anytime....
Hope This Helps