In article <352718D6.19D@earthlink.net>, jchiaro@earthlink.net says...

>I've been buying different non-Nikon lenses for use with my Nikon N90s,
>but I've been disappointed with all of them in regards to sharpness and
>image quality. The latest lens I purchased is the Tamron 28-200 Super.
>Unfortunately, I didn't check the internet for comments on this lens
>before I made the purchase. Now, I realize that it's probably
>ridiculous to expect top-notch image quality from such a wide-range
>zoom. (This will probably be the case even with the new Nikkor 28-200.)
>
>I've decided to buy only Nikkor lenses in the future; basically, I'm
>starting over on lens equipment. Just curious what recommendations I
>can get on mid-range Nikkor zooms, such as the old 35-135 or the 80-200?
>I'm looking for sharp, crisp image delivery from what will become my
>primary lens. I can't afford the "pro" Nikon lenses.

Hmmm, so you haven't found my "SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations (Mostly Nikkors)"
yet, huh...? ;-) It is on my web site under "I babble". Have fun with it!
But to jump into a direct answer to your question, why not consider the
lighter/cheaper/faster/sharper primes instead of zooms? There are a lot of
excellent ones around (Nikon has made a LOT of lenses, most excellent, and
BTW the MF ones work fine on the newer bodies, are made better than most
AF lenses...). Heck, a 50mm f1.8 AF or E will cost less than $100, is
a sharp lens useable at f2, weighs almost nothing, is tiny, and is "almost"
a 35mm or 70mm FL - it is a bargain compared with any mid-range zoom! ;-)
Or how about a 35mm f2 and an 85mm f2 or f1.8? Hard to beat the quality...
Etc...;-)
David Ruether
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether