Bookmark and Share



Nikon 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF  PDF Print E-mail
Lenses Nikon
User rating
4.1
out of 5
Editor's rating
1.0
out of 5
avatar image
Reviewed by:
Editor
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
Average user rating: 4.1 
10 User reviews
View details
Read editor review
Read user reviews
Write review
image
Camera Gear Rentals
User Images
image image image
Lens Summary

Overview


A flexible high-power zoom lens: Ideal for landscapes, portraits and sports.




 


Lens Specifications

Generic Lens Specifications
Lens Type: Zoom
IS / VR / OS: None
Min Focal length (mm): 28
Max Focal Length (mm): 200
Number of Elements: 12
Element Groups: 11
Max Aperture: 3.5
Closest Focus Distance (m): 0.43
Filter Type: Screw In
Filter Diameter (mm): 62
Diameter at widest (mm): 59
Lens Length (mm): 71
Weight (g): 360

Details





Lens Construction: Elements / Groups


12 / 11




Closest Marked Focusing Distance [m]


0.43




Filter Attachment Size [mm]


62




Dimensions: Dia x Length (extension from lens mount), [mm]


69.5 x 71




Weight [g]


360

Price Tracking

USA Lens Price History

UK Lens Price History

Field of View of this lens

Visualise the Field of View of this lens

Help and Feedback on the FOV tool here

Amazon Price US

Amazon Price UK

Editor review :  Nikon 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF
Overall rating (weighted)
1.0
Sharpness
1.0
Build Quality
1.0
AF Speed
1.0
Value for Money
1.0
Editor review following shortly
Why should you care what I think?
My relationship with this item: Editor review
Conclusions at a glance
Would you recommend this Item: Undecided

User Lens Reviews

Average user rating from: 10 user(s)

Overall rating (weighted)
4.1
Sharpness
4.1
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
3.9
Value for Money
4.2
 

Add new review


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful

Watch for sample variations, Friday, 20 February 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
2.5
Sharpness
3.0
Build Quality
2.0
AF Speed
3.0
Value for Money
2.0
I have owned and used two copies of this lens. The first was remarkably sharp, at all focal lengths, just as other reviews had led me to expect. Unfortunately it was a used copy with a significant undisclosed flaw on the front element, so I returned it. The replacement, although cosmetically perfect and identical in every other regard, suffered from completely mediocre optical performance.

I have no way to tell which was the outlier in terms of performance, but certainly, one was very good, and one was not particularly good at all, so it seems that there is at least some significant sample variation among these lenses, and a prospective owner might be well-advised to thoroughly try a sample of this lens before purchasing it, in order to ensure that it performs well enough to meet his needs.

Miscellaneous notes:

- The "good" sample I had was capable of producing images that were very sharp at almost any focal length and aperture. While some lenses might have an edge under some conditions, the 12mp sensor of my D90 did not reveal any flaws that concerned me at all: I would have been happy to use it at any aperture at any focal length. It was therefore superior in image quality to any other telephoto zoom I have owned or used, including Nikon's 55-200mm VR and 70-300mm VR lenses. I'd give it four stars, not five, due to other disadvantages mentioned here in comparison with other available lenses.

- The "bad" sample I owned had significant visible aberrations at almost all apertures and focal lengths. It was fairly sharp at f/11 across most of its range, but still not perfect, and needed to be stopped down all the way to f/11 to give even that level of performance. At f/8, f/5.6 and wide open it was significanly soft over large portions of the image area, worse at each aperture through the maximum. I'd give it two stars, which might be a Bit generous.

- This lens does not have VR. Unless you intend to use the lens on a tripod all the time (more on that later), or shoot only in good light, I would urge any buyer to consider a lens that does have this feature instead. VR really does work superbly to allow the use of moderate and even slow shutter speeds at long focal lengths, and I would no longer consider buying any telephoto lens without VR unless I had some very specific requirements or intended it only for tripod use. VR really does allow you to get photos you could not get any other way, and is probably more important for most uses than small differences in sharpness.

- Both my samples had a fair amount of wobble in the barrel, which is a double-extending design. This doesn't bother me except that wiggling the barrel while looking through the viewfinder at long focal lengths causes the image to move around significantly in the finder. This is a problem for tripod use, where it is desirable to have the camera, lens and tripod head act as one very solid block of mass in order to damp vibration. Physically de-coupling the camera and head from the front of the lens (and consequently, from the image plane) invites imprecision. At very high or low shutter speeds this will not be a problem, but in the range of 1/focal length - 1sec or so, excessive vibration is almost guaranteed by this design. I would consequently avoid this lens for critical tripod use.

- This lens has a plastic lens mount. I wouldn't worry about this at all. Like the newer 55-200mm VR, the plastic mount contributes to a very nice, low-friction feel as the lens is mounted and un-mounted, and it seems likely to virtually eliminate wear on the camera's own lens mount. The only potential problem is in using the lens with a very heavy camera, if you are in the habit of picking the camera up by the lens. I doubt this would be a problem for most of the smaller cameras, but if using the lens on something like a D3 one would want to be careful to avoid this.

- This is a high-Contrast lens. It uses three ED-glass elements, which undoubtedly contribute to this and allow the lens to render colors more vibrantly than even some other very good lenses I have used (my 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 primes come to mind).

- This lens has very good close-up performance. At 200mm it is good enough to allow a Matchbox or Hot Wheels toy car to nearly fill the DX frame, sufficient to obviate the need for a dedicated macro lens for some users.

- Be careful not to confuse this lens with the "D" version. The "D" lens does not focus close and is not this lens' optical equal. I don't believe it uses any ED elements and it has much slower focus. It sells for considerably less, except when a buyer gets confused as to which lens he is buying and pays "G" money for a "D" lens. The "D" has an aperture ring, the "G" does not.

- Unfortunately, Nikon does not really offer a telephoto zoom that does everything I want, at any price. If you can live without VR and get a good sample, this is optically the best among those I've used, and the extended range at the wide end is very useful. I could recommend it quite highly, with the important caveat that, apparently, not all samples are up to snuff.


Other Lenses:

I've had the opportunity to own and use many different Nikon lenses and have posted my impressions of several of them here on Amazon. For those interested, here are short summaries. I have used all these lenses on Nikon DX-sized DSLRs, most recently my current D90. Refer to the full reviews for further detail.

35mm f/2 AF-D: **** Sharp, especially at large apertures, moderate contrast. Classic "normal" lens for DX but consider new 35mm f/1.8 AF-S instead.

50mm f/1.8 AF-D: *** My sample was unacceptably poor at large apertures. Perhaps a below-average sample. Focal length not ideally suited to DX.

85mm f/1.8 AF-D **** Very good short-to-moderate telephoto on DX. Acceptable at large apertures, very sharp stopped-down, moderate contrast. Potentially excellent for portrait use.

16-85mm VR ***** Very sharp at all settings, excellent contrast, very useful zoom range including true wide-angle at 16mm. Excellent VR. Best-kept secret for DX users.

28-200mm AF-G *** Of two samples, one was excellent and one poor, so watch for sample variations. Very good contrast. Not ideal hand-held due to lack of VR. Not ideal for tripod use due to design.

55-200mm VR **** Very good lens, very good sharpness and contrast, no fatal flaws. Cheap feel and feature-challenged, but has effective VR. A bargain.

70-300mm VR *** My sample had very poor performance above 200mm, good to very good elsewhere. Good contrast, generally very good focus performance. Good sports/action lens. Not good where critical sharpness is desired. Possibly a below-average sample.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Watch for sample variations, Friday, 20 February 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
3.0
Sharpness
2.0
Build Quality
3.0
AF Speed
3.0
Value for Money
4.0
I have owned and used two copies of this lens. The first was remarkably sharp, at all focal lengths, just as other reviews had led me to expect. Unfortunately it was a used copy with a significant undisclosed flaw on the front element, so I returned it. The replacement, although cosmetically perfect and identical in every other regard, suffered from completely mediocre optical performance.

I have no way to tell which was the outlier in terms of performance, but certainly, one was very good, and one was not particularly good at all, so it seems that there is at least some significant sample variation among these lenses, and a prospective owner might be well-advised to thoroughly try a sample of this lens before purchasing it, in order to ensure that it performs well enough to meet his needs.

Miscellaneous notes:

- The "good" sample I had was capable of producing images that were very sharp at almost any focal length and aperture. While some lenses might have an edge under some conditions, the 12mp sensor of my D90 did not reveal any flaws that concerned me at all: I would have been happy to use it at any aperture at any focal length. It was therefore superior in image quality to any other telephoto zoom I have owned or used, including Nikon's 55-200mm VR and 70-300mm VR lenses. I'd give it four stars, not five, due to other disadvantages mentioned here in comparison with other available lenses.

- The "bad" sample I owned had significant visible aberrations at almost all apertures and focal lengths. It was fairly sharp at f/11 across most of its range, but still not perfect, and needed to be stopped down all the way to f/11 to give even that level of performance. At f/8, f/5.6 and wide open it was significanly soft over large portions of the image area, worse at each aperture through the maximum. I'd give it two stars, which might be a bit generous.

- This lens does not have VR. Unless you intend to use the lens on a tripod all the time (more on that later), or shoot only in good light, I would urge any buyer to consider a lens that does have this feature instead. VR really does work superbly to allow the use of moderate and even slow shutter speeds at long focal lengths, and I would no longer consider buying any telephoto lens without VR unless I had some very specific requirements or intended it only for tripod use. VR really does allow you to get photos you could not get any other way, and is probably more important for most uses than small differences in sharpness.

- Both my samples had a fair amount of wobble in the barrel, which is a double-extending design. This doesn't bother me except that wiggling the barrel while looking through the viewfinder at long focal lengths causes the image to move around significantly in the finder. This is a problem for tripod use, where it is desirable to have the camera, lens and tripod head act as one very solid block of mass in order to damp vibration. Physically de-coupling the camera and head from the front of the lens (and consequently, from the image plane) invites imprecision. At very high or low shutter speeds this will not be a problem, but in the range of 1/focal length - 1sec or so, excessive vibration is almost guaranteed by this design. I would consequently avoid this lens for critical tripod use.

- This lens has a plastic lens mount. I wouldn't worry about this at all. Like the newer 55-200mm VR, the plastic mount contributes to a very nice, low-friction feel as the lens is mounted and un-mounted, and it seems likely to virtually eliminate wear on the camera's own lens mount. The only potential problem is in using the lens with a very heavy camera, if you are in the habit of picking the camera up by the lens. I doubt this would be a problem for most of the smaller cameras, but if using the lens on something like a D3 one would want to be careful to avoid this.

- This is a high-contrast lens. It uses three ED-glass elements, which undoubtedly contribute to this and allow the lens to render colors more vibrantly than even some other very good lenses I have used (my 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 primes come to mind).

- This lens has very good close-up performance. At 200mm it is good enough to allow a Matchbox or Hot Wheels toy car to nearly fill the DX frame, sufficient to obviate the need for a dedicated macro lens for some users.

- Be careful not to confuse this lens with the "D" version. The "D" lens does not focus close and is not this lens' optical equal. I don't believe it uses any ED elements and it has much slower focus. It sells for considerably less, except when a buyer gets confused as to which lens he is buying and pays "G" money for a "D" lens. The "D" has an aperture ring, the "G" does not.

- Unfortunately, Nikon does not really offer a telephoto zoom that does everything I want, at any price. If you can live without VR and get a good sample, this is optically the best among those I've used, and the extended range at the wide end is very useful. I could recommend it quite highly, with the important caveat that, apparently, not all samples are up to snuff.


Other Lenses:

I've had the opportunity to own and use many different Nikon lenses and have posted my impressions of some of them here on Amazon. For those interested, here are short summaries. I have used all these lenses on Nikon DX-sized DSLRs, most recently my current D90. Refer to the full reviews for further detail.

Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AF-D: *** Competent, sharp lens is a good fit as a bargain DX "normal" prime. Slow f/2.8 max aperture poor. Very inexpensive in used market.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM: *** Poor focusing consistency and below average large-aperture acuity combine for disappointing real-world performance. Fast max aperture, very capable if used with appropriate care.

Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-G: ****1/2 Terrific lens at a bargain price. Not without flaws, but excellent in all important respects. A pleasure to use.

Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D: **** Sharp, especially at large apertures, moderate contrast. Classic "normal" lens for DX but consider new 35mm f/1.8 AF-S instead.

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-D: *** My sample was unacceptably poor at large apertures. Perhaps a below-average sample. Focal length not ideally suited to DX.

Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AF-D ****1/2 Very good short-to-moderate telephoto on DX. Acceptable at large apertures, very sharp stopped-down, moderate contrast. Potentially excellent for portrait use.

Nikon 16-85mm VR ***** Very sharp at all settings, excellent contrast, very useful zoom range including true wide-angle at 16mm. Excellent VR. Best-kept secret for DX users.

Nikon 55-200mm VR **** Very good lens, very good sharpness and contrast, no fatal flaws. Cheap feel and feature-challenged, but has effective VR. A bargain.

Nikon 70-300mm VR *** My sample had very poor performance above 200mm, good to very good elsewhere. Good contrast, generally very good focus performance. Good sports/action lens. Not good where critical sharpness is desired. Possibly a below-average sample.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Pixelman, Saturday, 26 April 2008


Overall rating (weighted)
3.8
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
3.0
Value for Money
4.0
Great travel lens. Often on the camera while my heavy, slightly sharper, slightly better made pro lens's stay in the bag.
Why should you care what I think?
My relationship with this item: I own it
Where did you buy this item?: Camera shop
Price paid: 155
When did you buy this item?: 5 years ago
Conclusions at a glance
Would you recommend this Item: Yes
Pros: Vesatitlity
Cons: can flare in questionable lighting.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

GREAT LENS, Tuesday, 29 May 2007


Overall rating (weighted)
5.0
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
This is an excellent general purpose lens. This lens is always on my D80 camera. Whether I want to shoot group of people close up or pull in a shoot from farther away, this lens will do it all. For longer shots I use a 70 - 300mm on special occasion, but normally I use the 28 - 200mm.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

The Third Choice, Saturday, 10 March 2007


Overall rating (weighted)
4.5
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
5.0
If you want to get an ultra zoom, which despite their problems in quality arr useful if you want to carry only one lens, most people's first choice is the Nikon 18-200mm; if you can find one and afford it. The second is Tamron's 18-250mm lens. The last is one of the 28-200mm (Don't touch the 28-300mm lenses) like these. This Nikon is by far the best.

The reason why they're 28-200mm is because they were intended for film; where 28mm was a wide angle. For digital, with the automatic cropping because of the small sensor size, 28mm is at best normal. You will miss the 18-28mm range, so it's best to either have the cheap 18-55mm handy or get a 12-24mm if you can afford it.

This lens does gives good pictures, with Barrel Distortion at the wide end and occasional low contrast pictures where the back light overpowers the image, a problem I've seen in several ultrazooms. However, for most shooting conditions it gives what you need.

The only real limitation to this lens is the zoom motor, it's the old style drive gear using the camera's internal motor. It's slow, somewhat noisy like a small can opener, and D40 owners are out of luck. The lens won't work on this camera.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

A fantastic Lens for Nikon D50/D70 Cameras, Saturday, 23 September 2006


Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
5.0
If you are like me, you really can't afford the 18-200MM VR Lens. Besides, the VR lens is sold out everywhere at this time. This 28-200 lens is really spectacular. Forget about people talking about barrel distortion, keystoning, etc. The images really speak for themselves. The human eye can accomodate small optical errors. Besides, who cares? The images from this lens are simply astounding. The lens is lightweight, very compact, sharp, and is an amazingly good value.

I simply cannot find anything wrong with this lens. Just buy one and you will see.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Great general purpose lens, Monday, 02 January 2006


Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
4.0
After I bought the D50--my first DSLR--I went on the hunt for a good all-around lens. I was upgrading from a fixed lens system with 10X optical zoom, so I would settle for nothing less than a lens with 10X zoom equivalent. Luckily, with the D50 having a 1.5x crop factor, a 200mm lens would fit the bill fine. I found this lens on Amazon, and things fell into place. The online reviews were usually very good, and doing a search on pbase.com for shots taken with this lens revealed some pretty impressive results. And best of all, the price didn't break the bank. I've since taken over a hundred shots with this lens at all focal lengths, and overall, I'm quite impressed. These are my finds.

As others have stated, the focus motor isn't exactly silent or quick. Thankfully, though, it isn't obnoxiously loud or slow, either. The motor noise is easily tolerable--unless you're spoiled by silent wave motors--and the focus speed only becomes an issue when it has trouble judging the subjet's distance. Then, of course, you wish the lens was a Silent Wave Motor type, but the speed isn't unbearably slow. I haven't missed any shots yet because of it. When in doubt, set the focus switch to "Limit" to prevent it from scanning the entire focal range when you're using the long telephoto, or just switch over to manual focus if your hand is faster. Once it gets a good lock on your subject, the lens will very quickly compensate for recomposition if the change isn't drastic. Nine times in ten, the autofocus is sharp and right on the money. There is a slight falloff in image sharpness at 200mm, but it's nothing to pout about.

The ED elements result in shots that are virtually free of Chromatic aberration. I say virtually because there is still minute color fringe on contrasting elements in the shot, in the right light conditions. Hey, no lens is absolutely free of it, and it's a drastic improvement over the Aberration on many fixed lens systems.

Though the lens isn't macro rated, it might as well be. With a minimum focusing distance of just over a foot at full telephoto, who needs a macro lens?

My only real beef with this lens has been flare. I've gotten what I call "rainbow flare" when I compose the shot with brightly reflecting metal surfaces or when shooting in the sun's direction, but it's a non issue in all other situations. Again, it's impossible to find a lens that's completely free of it. Use the included lens hood to cut down on stray light rays. I surmise a polarizer filter would also help substantially with this problem.

Being a nature photographer, my true test for this lens will be shooting through the glass in zoo enclosures with a polarizer. It generally isn't a light hungry lens, but I haven't tried it with a polarizer yet. With any luck, I'll still be able to nail blur-free shots at maximum telephoto.

All in all, I am very happy with this lens. It provides all the reach I need, is easily portable (it's a wee bit heavy, but at least it's not a telephone pole on my camera body), and the optics are great. If only Nikon had built image stabilization into it, this lens would be darn near perfect.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

A good fit for your D70, Thursday, 08 December 2005


Overall rating (weighted)
4.5
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
5.0
I was looking for a do-it-all lens after I bought my D70 and took a chance on this lens. At $300 it's a great bargain. Yes, the focus is rather slow -- and noisy -- but photographic quality is still good. For anyone starting out from scratch with a DSLR with a limited budget, I highly recommend this lens. Then you can use the money saved for an ultrawide lens like the nikkor 12-24G, Tokina 12-24, or Sigma 10-20.

Note, however, that if you can afford a $700+ lens, you may wish to wait for the upcoming Nikkor 18-200G VR.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

near-perfect everyday lens, Thursday, 19 May 2005


Overall rating (weighted)
4.5
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
This lens gets along very well with my N75. I wanted a versatile lens that could go from wide-angle to telephoto, and that is exactly what this lens does. It is also extremely lightweight, extremely sturdy, and produces that classic Nikon background blur. (A pro or a con, depending on what you like.) The macro shots I've taken haven't disappointed me at all, they look very sharp to me---but I am a pretty casual photographer, and haven't played with many Nikon lenses. As a pretty casual photographer I can say that this is an ideal lens for long trips, especially backpacking---actually it's ideal for anyone who doesn't walk around armed with a tripod and/or multiple lenses. I tried the Tamron 28-300mm lens for Nikon, which does take very fine pictures, but even at 200mm I had a difficult time obtaining a really sharp image without a tripod.

This lens doesn't have silent focusing or vibration reduction. But it is 300 dollars.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

A very good "walk around" lens!, Monday, 09 May 2005


Overall rating (weighted)
3.3
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
3.0
AF Speed
3.0
Value for Money
3.0
I bought 28-200 G today to compliment the 50mm and 18-70 kit lens. I had some hope that the lens would be "good enough" and I'm very surprised at just how good this small lens is. I also tested the 24-120 VR. Call me crazy, but it seemed soft to me. When I got home I looked at the tests and the results from the VR lens were actually fine, so I think it was just the viewfinder. What really killed it for me was that 120 was just not enough reach (for me) for a really versatile walk-around lens. I took the 28-200 home and did some tests. This is a very nice lens. I found images very close in sharpness to the kit lens wide open. The near instant focus wasn't there of course (and missed!), but otherwise this is a lens that does a lot of things well. Focus was spot on and I tried some test macro shots fully zoomed in, also very nice. It's small and light and feels quite sturdy. At under 300 dollars it's a bargain that gives you all the reach you need in most cases. I couldn't see the point in waiting for the 55-200. It's simply starts too high for a walk-around all-in-one lens. I did more tests and shot a detailed object with the 28-200, 18-70 and the 50mm 1.8 all at 50mm at F6. The 28-200 was sharper than the kit lens! Samples may vary of course, but there's little doubt that the little 28-200 is nicely designed item that will also handle some macro work. Nikon also has a new 55-200mm on the way, but on a DSLR it'll be poor for a walk-around. I plan to add the 80-400 VR soon.
As others have said, the 28-200 may be a lens to live on the camera most days. If you're looking for a very nice all-in-one for that vacation or casual use, this lens delivers. Now if they make this lens a VR with the S motor we'd really be cooking!

Capt Robert B
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no


 
< Prev   Next >
[ Back ]

News | Forum | Lens Reviews | Teleconverter Reviews | About Us | Contact Us | Glossary | How To
Lens News | Lens List | © 2008 Lens-reviews.com