Nikon 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF Nikkor

Lens Reviews / Nikon Lenses i Not yet tested
28-200mm $272
average price
image of Nikon 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF Nikkor

Your purchases support this site

Buy the Nikon 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF Nikkor

(From Nikon lens literature) Three Extra-Low Dispersion (ED) glass elements for minimized chromatic aberration. Three Aspherical lens element for low distortion. Rounded diaphragm to make out-of-focus elements appear more natural. World's lightest 28-200mm lens. Shortest closest focusing distance (1.3 ft at 200mm) of any 28-200mm lens. Internal focusing for smoother focusing and better body balance.

Nikon 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF Nikkor

Your purchases support this site

Buy the Nikon 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF Nikkor

Nikon 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF Nikkor User Reviews

6.8/10 average of 11 review(s) Build Quality 7.6/10 Image Quality 6.5/10
  • 10 out of 10 points and recommended by Nikontsr (1 reviews)
    Lightweight, Focal length coverage, Macro capability, Price
    Low light shooting

    If I can have only one lens, this would be it.
    Super versatile zoom range of 28mm to 200mm - good enough for a close quarter group photo or occasional sports or wildlife shoot. Add to that the 0:32x magnification - for decent macro capability, and all of that in a small lightweight package. I have the Tamron holy trinity of lenses for my D810, but this one stays on my D700 and takes more photos than those 3 combined. Once you put it on your camera, it never has to come off.

    Dont be dissuaded by professionals, who compare this lens to a pro-grade lens that costs 15 times as much and call it soft. Objectively, this is not the sharpest lens going around open wide. But stop down to f8, and the sharpness is indistinguishable from any pro lens out there. Color reproduction is great. The only time this lens comes up short is in low-light situation, since it doesn't have a fast aperture or vr. But on a modern camera, you can crank up the ISO to get serviceable results even then. The only other lens that I recommend over this one is the 28-300 afs, for added range and vr, but it costs more than twice as much. Bar none, it's the ultimate lens for any budget-conscious hobbyist or enthusiast, which most people are. There's a reason why it's one of Ken Rockwell's all-time favorite lenses.

    reviewed March 2nd, 2021 (purchased for $200)
  • 3 out of 10 points and not recommended by Guayoredeer (1 reviews)
    The zoom.
    Blurry pictures, just the center of them looks sharp, horrible everywhere else.

    I bought this lens and I find there is not near close, to the 18-70 on the sharpness side.
    I read Ken Rockwell review, I also don't know how he could rate this lens so high.

    reviewed September 12th, 2016 (purchased for $170)
  • 10 out of 10 points and recommended by George33 (1 reviews)
    Very sharp, lightweight, inconspicuous, very affordable.
    Only goes to 28mm and I like 24mm.

    This lens was highly recommended by David Busch, author of thorough technical guides to Nikon cameras such as the D800 and D810. I took his advice and could not be more pleased. This lens is as good as the Sigma 24-105 that was my favorite walk-around zoom before. It now lives attached to my D800.

    reviewed August 3rd, 2016 (purchased for $230)
  • 9 out of 10 points and recommended by dbecker99 (1 reviews)
    -sharp throughout range (68-80 l/mm throughout) -good range (28-200) -light -relatively inexpensive -good auto focus -excellent all-around lens -don't have to change lenses often, so minimizes dust on sensor problems.
    -hard to find -significant pincushion distortion, but can be fixed in Photoshop if noticeable

    I read Ken Rockwell's review, and was interested, so I bought one from KEH. Tested out excellent, with
    measured 68-80 l/mm resolution center and corners, throughout the range. I generally use it in the studio at f8-f11, but also carry it around with me and use it outside for portraiture and landscape image.

    Originally purchased it for my D3, now use it on my D800. Also purchased 3 more copies, all four tested out sharp over the entire range. Currently use them on my D800, D3 and my son's Fujifilm S5 (DX sensor size, made by Fuji), with one as a spare.

    For the four lenses, cost ranged from $270 to $360.

    reviewed May 8th, 2016 (purchased for $320)
  • 3 out of 10 points and recommended by JacoJazz (1 reviews)
    Great on a DX camera
    Horrible on an FX camera

    I loved this camera on my D300. When I tried it on a D800, I was shocked at how soft the edges were. Pretty bad actually. This lens is not useable on an FX class camera in my opinion.

    reviewed March 31st, 2013 (purchased for $250)
  • 2 out of 10 points and not recommended by Roland (5 reviews)
    Zoom range
    Optically horrible, soft, no contrast, distortion, ghosting (at least on a full size DSLR)

    I buyed one to try it on a D700 (full frame DSLR)

    I don't know if this one had a specific problem (it was a new one), but at apertures between f3,5 and f8, the left quarter of the photos was ugly between 28 and 50 mm.
    Very very blurry, and with huge ghostings between dark and bright zones.
    The right side was also soft, but way better then the left side.
    This issue was so strong, it was pretty well visible on 6x4 prints.
    Vignetting wide open at the wide end was also very visible.
    Even toward the tele end, the photos were soft and flat, without contrast.
    Another issue is the very heavy pincushion distortion toward the tele end.

    Maybe this lens behaves better on an APS-sized DSLR, but on a D700 forget it.
    I don't know what Kenn Rockwell has smoked before he wrote his review about this lens on a D3, but I think it was something very strong !!

    I returned mine after about 40 photos and I'm now happy with a 24-85 f3,5-4,5G ED IF AF-S lens (see my review) wich gives very good results in all situations.

    reviewed February 21st, 2009 (purchased for $300)
  • 9 out of 10 points and recommended by billrogers945 (4 reviews)
    Price, size, image quality

    This is a little gem of a lens that is often overlooked. For the price, it delivers excellent performance.

    I originally purchased this lens because of my unhappiness with the 18-70mm kit lens that came with my Nikon D70. I have taken many excellent photos with the 28-200 lens.

    When I purchased a D200, I also purchased the Nikkor 18-200 VR lens.

    I kept the 28-200 lens, however, for use on the D70, and as a backup if the 18-200 VR ever needs to be repaired.

    The 28-200 is not a DX lens, it is not an AF-S lens, and it does not have VR. Still, it delivers excellent performance for its price.

    reviewed May 8th, 2007 (purchased for $320)
  • 8 out of 10 points and recommended by Solutionsetcetera (5 reviews)
    Small, light weight, and sharp.
    none in this price/zoom range class.

    I love this lens, and find it on my D50 most of the time. I have yet to use it much on my F75 so I can not speak to the vignetting and pin cushion issues others have mentioned, but it performs well indeed on the D50.

    While not a real macro it focuses quite close, and is an excellent close up lens.

    As for the plastic mount... you'll be fine as long as you're not planning on dropping it.

    This lens has taken some remarkable images at many different focal lengths, and of the do all zooms, is as good or better than most. It is a shame it has been discontinued but I am guessing all the hoopla about the pricier 18-200vr has stolen much of its thunder. You'll be hard pressed to do better than this for three hundred bucks.

    reviewed December 29th, 2006 (purchased for $315)
  • 8 out of 10 points and recommended by twmangrove (1 reviews)
    low cost, good AF speed, nice image quality
    plastic lens mount, not prime glass images

    I've had this lens for several months on my D70 and it has served me well. I've shot with it at rodeos, and I have used it with an SB-800 shooting hockey indoors under horrid lighting conditions. It has always given me images worthy of publication. It's a terrific all-in-one for keeping dust out of your DSLR. Physically it's surprisingly compact and light, yet solid enough to work with. No zoom creep either. Also, because it's not a DX lens it works very well with either the SB-600 or 800 (I've used both with it) - you don't have to calculate in the flash's zoom function for the crop factor. The exposure tends to be bang on.
    I admit, I am selling my copy to pick up the new nikon 18-200 (I tend to shoot more on the wide end), but for what I paid for this lens it has more than paid for itself. A pleasant surprise for an all-rounder.
    And though the image quality may not be that of higher end glass, it's been so rewarding that I couldn't give rat's arse. Fun to use and quick enough to capture those important moments. Besides, there's always post-processing for fine details.
    It's a lens to remind you that photography isn't always about the gear you're lugging.

    reviewed November 13th, 2005 (purchased for $260)
  • 8 out of 10 points and recommended by robertdeanda (1 reviews)
    Zoom Range, Internal Focus, Included Petal Style Hood
    Soft Wide Open, Severe Pincushion at Tele End

    I just recenlty acquired this lens as an "all rounder" walk-around lens. For my serious work I use a set of primes on a full frame camera, so I was not expecting too much from this little guy. Overall, the lens is a good buy. It truly is very small, and light, but solid.

    At 28mm, vignetting is very noticeable. On the tele end (200mm) pincushioning is very bad. Chromatic Abberation is well controlled. The corners are soft when shooting wide open, however, sharpness and resolution are very good stopped down. Try F8 for maximun results. I'm sure that it will perform far better on an APS-C sensor camera.

    As the Gin Blossoms used to sing... If you don't expect too much, you might not be let down.

    reviewed November 6th, 2005 (purchased for $325)
  • 5 out of 10 points and not recommended by WCranston (4 reviews)
    Inexpensive & big range.
    Slow focusing, not 2.8, 28mm is ok on low end for film, not for DSLR. Ugly out of focus areas.

    Pro: Inexpensive & big range. Focus limiter.

    Con: Slow focusing, not 2.8, 28mm is ok on low end for film, not for DSLR. Ugly out of focus areas. Plastic mount.

    The worst part is really the out of focus areas on telephoto shots. They are very hard a ring-like. It is really not a great lens for a DSLR & overall picture quality is not bad, but not nearly as good as the 18-70.

    reviewed November 3rd, 2005 (purchased for $300)