I had two Zoom-Nikkors during my early film years (1970s-1980s) - the first was the hated 43-86 which produced unusual and interesting results with the old Ektachrome infrared film, but otherwise didn't satisfied, so I quickly disposed of it and have not missed it. Then the 80-200 f/2.8 which I loved but it cost me the price of a small planet in the universe and weighed as if made of Portland cement, so I sold it. I wish I had kept it, but money was tight in those otherwise good old days, and I had to bite many bullets to fund my photography.
Being somewhat old-fashioned in things photographic I stayed with Nikon primes until 2012, when I bought my first Nikon D700 and the retail shop offered me a well-used 28-85 D at a bargain price.
This bargain lens is surprisingly good and produces sharp images, so I now use it almost exclusively on one of my two D700s. It visibly distorts the horizontals and verticals at 28mm, but I get around this by shooting from 35mm upwards and stepping back a bit when framing architectural images. My results overall are, as already stated, nothing short of exceptional for a zoom. I have sold images taken with it and the published shots show just a little softness on two page spreads. For one to three column images which most publications use, everything is good and sharp, even without any sharpening in post processing (which I'm told media editors try to avoid anyway).
I now own several other Zoom-Nikkors, all purchased used except a late model 35-70 AF, which I bought unused and still in its sealed original packing at a flea market. Ditto a 70-210 D, which weighs a ton but produces acceptable results on the infrequent occasions I use it.
Somewhere in my camera box is a 35-105 D which I have never used. My partner's D90 has an excellent 18-55 G, the standard offering for DSLRs, which produces surprising work given its almost entirely plastic construction, so it has to be used with care.
Other than distortion, the technical aspects of a lens mean little to me. I rate them entirely on the results they give. To me, if a lens is an f/5.6, so be it. Macro function on zooms is wasted on me, as none I've owned (not even my legendary 28-85) has produced results I was happy with. For bee's tonsils and lovely close-ups of floral internals, I use my 60mm Micro Nikkor, but then I almost never shoot these subjects anyway. My partner does, with her 18-55, with generally pleasing results.
Interestingly, no Zoom-Nikkor has ever malfunctioned or failed on me. Nikon seems to build them to last. Well and good.
Other than the 18-55 which came with the D90 and so was (sort of) free, I paid A$100 for each zoom. It's amazing what a C-note can buy in older lenses in otherwise expensive Australia.
