Mark Sisson wrote in message <3482FF3E.40F1@okway.okstate.edu>...

>Is there anyone who has had experiences with all three
>of these lenses? I have a Nikon 8008s so the "D"
>capability is unimportant. Primary use will be as a
>backup to my 55mm micro AF. I'm using that lens to
>photograph my artwork and need an AF zoom lens to shoot
>a wide scale of student artwork without continually
>having to move the tripod back and forth.
>
>A lens with a focal distance on either side of the 55
>best suits my purposes of interchangability. I'm looking
>for the lens with the least amount of barrel distortion.
>Speed is unimportant since I shoot with tungsten bulbs.
>
>Are these lenses all optically comparable? Used lenses
>are all simlarly priced so cost isn't an issue. The 24-120 costs
>nearly twice as much. Does it merit the expense?

You may want to check out my Nikkor evaluation list
(which has all three lenses you mentioned) on my web
page under "I babble"... As zooms go, all three you
mention can be good if stopped down, though all will
show moderate barrel or "mustache" distortion at the
short end and pincushion (worse!) at the long end, as
do most zooms. The 28-85 may be the best of the three
(the 24-120 is even better, especially if well stopped
down), the 28-70 is one I am not fond of , and the 35-105
can be really excellent in a rare good sample (the MF
version also allows close focus at any FL. Though I
generally find the range too limited to be of interest,
for your use, there are two other choices: the 35-70mm
f2.8 AF, and the 35-70mm f3.5 MF (62mm filter version,
which has unusually low linear distortion). None of
the above will provide sharpness comparable with the
55mm prime at stops wider than about f8.
Hope This Helps
David Ruether - http://www.fcinet.com/ruether