www.photodo.com has some good MTF data on the sharpness and contrast of the new 28-105, but as far as I know no one has commented on the light fall-off, distortion, field-curvature or close-focusing performance of this lens. What would be nice is if there were a David Ruether-esque review like he did for the 24-120. I'm considering this as my "all-purpose" people / travel / kick-around lens to complement a 300/4 and a bulky 80-200 (I just started my Nikon system). It would also be a "crutch" lens to cover wide-angle and macro until I get enough money to purchase a series of primes (see previous post). But even then, it appears to be a very convenient lens and will have its place in my camera bag even if its image quality and speed is lesser than the primes I plan on purchasing. I think someone a couple of weeks ago posted a URL for some scans from prints - and I do appreciate your contribution - but it'd be nice if someone could run a really comprehensive test at all focal lengths and focusing distances. Scans from small prints displayed on a 72 dpi monitor is no way to determine image quality. Any volunteers? I'd do it myself but I'd use that same data to determine whether or not I should get this lens. :) I'm probably most interested in its close-focusing performance, as I plan to shoot a lot of flowers this spring and the 105 micro is not in my budget until later this year. Thanks in advance. Regards, Dan Dan, I have this lens, purchased about three weeks ago. I don't shoot test targets. While they are cooperative subects, they're also kind of boring. I am happy with the quality of the chromes I have received. The lens seems contrasty, with a good amount of 'snap'. Color rendition appears to be similar to other Nikkor lenses. I bought this lens to use as my single 'all purpose' lens, for when I don't want to carry a whole pile of glass around. My other choices was the Tamron 28-105mm f/2.8 and the Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6. The Tamron is faster, but a LOT heavier, about 2.5 to 3 times the price, and takes 82mm filters. The 24-120mm covers a wider zoom range, but is more expensive, heavier, and appreciably slower. My intention is to not carry this lens when I am doing serious photography. Then, I plan on carrying my 20-35mm f/2.8D, my 55 f/3.5 Micro, and my 80-200 f/2.8D AF-S. The only real negative I have about the lens is that, while it has a macro mode, it is not a true Micro lens, like the 60mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. It does seem to have some curvature of field when used in the Macro mode. This is not a major concern in 'bug and flower' photography, but it would not be acceptable if you tried to use it as a copy lens. To put the lens into macro mode, zoom the lens to somewhere between 50mm and 105mm. This range is color coded to aid the photographer in remembering to do this. Then, move the focus switch from 'Normal' to 'Macro'. The lens will now focus down to approximately 1/2 life size. One nice thing is that the closer the focus, the longer the focal length of the lens. This helps with lighting problems at close focusing distances. The zoom control zooms the lens quickly. The zoom control is a bit non-linear, moving faster at shorter focal lengths than at long ones. Not a big deal, but different from my other lenses. It is important to get the Nikon HB-18 lens hood. The reason is that, even when I tried a generic wide angle lens hood, vignetting was apparent. The HB-18 hood (about $13 US) fits over the lens, causing no problems. The hood is impressive looking, being much larger in diameter than the lens itself. A single Nikon L37C filter causes no vignetting. I have not tried two filters simultaneously. The lens focuses very quickly, with very little hunting. While I am reluctant to do it, you can set the lens down on the lens mount without having glass touch the surface it is resting on. The front of the mount does not turn with focusing (the lens is IF), but does turn about 100-120 degrees with zooming. In general, the lens handles easily, and feels solid without being heavy. It is a convenient size to hand hold and takes 62m filters. The lens is a D lens, meaning it tells the camera the focusing distance. Is the lens perfect? No. What would I like to see different? Two things: 1. Increase the speed to f/2.8-3.5 or f/2.5-3.2. I realize this would increase the filter size, weight, and cost, but I would pay it. It should still cost a lot less than the new 28-70 f/2.8 AFS. 2. Stop the front element from turning while zooming. In summary, I am happy with my lens. Hope this helps. Colin
