On Thu, 27 Aug 1998 18:36:02 -0700 (PDT), BILWIL@webtv.net (BILWIL) wrote:

> Always thought this would be a good
>"Walk-around" lens for P.J., but have
>never shot one. David Reuther "Babbles"
>that it's not a very good lens (2-2.8)
>Moose Peterson thinks it's an "Outstanding
>lens with excellent optics."
>(NIKON SYSTEM HANDBOOK. 4th. ed.)
>I still see them listed new for around
>$1000, and used $400-700.
>
> Since I respect the experience, and
>advice of both these highly qualified
>gentlemen, this disparity in opinions
>leaves me in a somewhat puzzled state.
>
> So, other opinons are requested. Any-
>body out there had first-hand experience
>with this lens? I like the idea of this lens,
>because it takes 62mm filters, which I
>have standardized on. Thanks for the
>help!

The two I tried were neat, and desireable
if they had been sharp (like the 35-105MF),
but both were purchased used and were
really terrible. They may share the Nikkor
35-105MF characteristic of being extremely
sample-variable, and there may be excellent
samples out there of the 35-200 (3 in 11
of the 35-105MF's were really excellent,
most of the others were not very good...).
It is worth a try if you can return it
for refund - but check it out thoroughly
before keeping it...