In article <50q4h0$i3f@nonews.col.hp.com>, sparks@col.hp.com says...

>I've never used the 35-80, but from everything I've heard, it is
>actually one of the sharpest mid-range zooms that Nikon makes. It is
>very slow, however. It uses an aspheric element which helps a lot
>(though from a web page, it looks like there are 2 different 35-80 D
>lenses, one with an aspheric and a newer one without which might make a
>big difference, see "http://www.zaiko.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~walter/nikon.html").
>
>Other Nikon zooms that use aspherics are 20-35mm f/2.8D, 28-70mm
>f/3.5-4.5D, 28-80 f3.5-5.6D, and the 35-105mm f3.5-4.5D. I would
>recommend picking one of these as the aspherics help with sharpness
>quite a bit. Of the non-aspheric zooms, the 35-70 f/2.8 is probably the
>sharpest, but from my testing isn't quite as sharp as the 35-105 D.
>
>I was looking for a mid-range zoom about a year ago (I was replacing one
>of the older 35-70 3.3-4.5 zooms which was never very sharp for me,
>though I have seen prints from a different copy of this lens that were a
>lot sharper than mine). I borrowed a 35-70 f/2.8, 35-105 D and Tamaron
>35-105 f/2.8. I also compared them to 50mm and 85mm prime lenses that I
>own. I picked these lenses because I really wanted a 35-105mm range if
>possible but also wanted f/2.8 if I could get it. The Nikon 35-70 f/2.8
>was included because it was always supposed to be Nikon's sharpest
>mid-range zoom, at least before the zooms using aspherics came out.
>
>I tested each lens wide open and at f/5.6 at infinity and close focus
>(about 3 or 4 ft) at 35mm, 50mm, 70mm and 105mm (for the ones that had
>it). The Tamaron had terrible distortion at 35mm and 105mm and was not
>sharp at all wide open (I would consider it unusable at f/2.8). At 5.6
>it was pretty close to the Nikon 35-70, and slightly less sharp than the
>Nikon 35-105 D. The 35-105 was sharper wide open than the 35-70 at
>f/2.8 and slightly sharper at f/5.6 though the difference here was
>pretty small. The prime lenses were much sharper at f/2.8 than any of
>the zooms and somewhat sharper at f/5.6. They also have much less
>distortion though the Nikon zooms didn't have very much. If you want a
>fast lens, primes are definately the way to go. I liked the focal
>length range of the 35-105 D and ended up buying one. I'm very happy
>with the lens.
>
>The 35-80 is supposed to be of similar sharpness to the 35-105 D. I don't
>think the older 28-85 would be as good, but I've never tried it. If they
>change it's optics when they come out with a D version, it might be a good
>choice.
>
>John Sparks

What a good over-view! And bravo, for checking at both infinity and close focus - something that most testers don't do, and results can vary a lot with focus distance with some lenses, especially zooms. I, too, found the 35-70mm f2.8 Nikkor AF (2 samples) not up to its reputation. Though the 35-105mm MF is great in a good sample (completely different optics from the aspheric AFD), it is one of Nikon's few really variable-quality lenses, so I can't recommend the MF (and earlier AF non-D) version without testing. Good
samples of the 28-85mm (AF and MF are the same, optically) are fine lenses, better than the pretty-good 28-70, I think. But it is hard to beat primes
for speed, size, and image quality at wider apertures..... I just checked
a 105mm f2.5 at infinity again, after checking a 28-85 - WOW! The sharpness
of the 28-85 is very good at 85mm and infinity, but pales in comparison with
the 105 (at f2.8!) - makes one wonder, sometimes, why we bother with zooms
(though there are several very good ones....).
Hope This Helps