Just picked up a 28-105D by Nikon to replace my 35-105D. Optically it seems superior to my 35-105 especially wide open at all focal lengths and especailly at the 70-105 range. Though the 35-105 isn't a great lens it is convenient. I believe the 28-105 will replace the 35-105. Besides the 28-105 can focus(from 50mm-105mm range)down to 8.5 to 9 inches verses the 35-105's 3 feet. Anyway has anyone else purchased this lens and what has been your impression of it? Granted it's not a pro lens but it might be an optical bargain($349US in Phoenix, AZ).

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), February 16, 1999

Answers

I just noticed that there was a post a few months ago about this lens though it wasn't available in the US at that time. Consider this an update. After re-evaluating my slides the 28-105 is optically superior to the 35-105. It's distortion is less noticable also. Took some tight portraits of my son using Astia(80 and 105 - 4 to 6 feet). Very sharp at 5.6 and 8(with a 10X loupe could easily distinguish the fine peach fuzz on his upper lip - sorry but I don't have the airforce resolution tests). Even the close shots of cactus spines was impressive for a modest prices lens. No it won't replace my 60mm Micro nikkor but it will make it more covenient when I go hiking a mountain trail and I only want to take one camera and lens.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), February 16, 1999.

Gary, thanks for your post. I have a question: how does the new 28-105D zoom compare in optical quality with the well-known Nikon 24-120 f3.5-5.6D? I am debating which one of these two lens to buy. After considering the obvious pros and cons of the two (larger range of the 24-120 vs. lighter weight, smaller filter size, cheaper price, closer focusing distance, etc. of the 28-105), I think, I might buy the 28-105 if its optical quality is at least as good as the 24-120 lens. Any comments? Thanks.

-- Subhasis Laha (slaha@lucent.com), February 16, 1999.

Optically it is as good if not better then the 24-120 with less distortion but despite the distortion the 24-120 is a good lens and it does give 4mm at the wide end and 15mm and the long end more. It just doesn't focus down to 1:2. Back to the 28-105 at infinity(take it for what its worth) it's MTF is higher according to photodo.com

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), February 16, 1999.

Additional information on 28-105. If you like to manual focus you will not like this lens. From infinity to minimun focus is only 1/4 turn.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), February 16, 1999.

Somemore information on the 28-105. The newer 9 blade more rounded aperture iris does make a difference on the bokeh(hope I spelled it right) of the lens. The out of focus portions of the photos are much softer then my other lenses.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), February 17, 1999.

FWIW, photodo (www.photodo.com) has added test results on this lens and rate it higher than the 24-120 3.5-5.6 zoom. In fact the only zoom in this range with a higher score is the 35-70 2.8 D (they don't have a score for the new AF-S 28-70 2.8).

-- Geoffrey S. Kane (grendel@pgh.nauticom.net), February 19, 1999.

I've just bought the 28-105/3.5-4.5 last week and I'm testing it film after film. Next week I will be able to give a more accurate view on the optical site.

Mechanical: this lens is well built (for an amateur lens). The zoom does not creep when holding the lens up or down. This lens is very compact at 28mm and increases its overall lenght by 50% when zooming towards 105mm. Although IF (Internal focusing) does prevent the front glass from turning, zooming in or out does NOT prevent turning the front lens. The lenshood is rather big, but very effective (and not expensive). Macro facility is very useful (ratio 1:2) and works from 50mm to 105mm, when switching the Macro-button. AF seems pretty fast and accurate due to the very short focusing distance ring. Manual focusing is pretty precise and not 'loose'. Apertures: 28/3.5 - 35/4 - 50/4 - 70/4.5 - 105/4.5. At 105 the minimum aperture is f/32 (at 28mm f/22). True focal lenght seems to go from 28 to around 95mm, when compared to various other lenses. Seems like an ideal travelling companion for me. Now waiting for all my films (prints and slides) to be shot and developped and I'll give some additional info regarding the optics. A french magazine called 'Riponses Photo' published the first test and rated the lens as very good: 4.5/5. Unlike the 24-120 there was no significant loss of quality when zooming towards the long end. Hope this helps already.

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), March 01, 1999.

I read somewhere that an owner was experiencing severe vignetting @ 105 (i would have expected it at the wide end). Any problems with coverage/fall off? I too, am considering this purchase soon, and would be anxious for a response. Thanks!

-- jonathan klopman (jklopman@erols.com), March 17, 1999.

I've not experienced light falloff except at 28mm at 3.5 and then it is only slight.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), March 17, 1999.