Nikon D200 and Nikkor 24-50 3.3-4.5 AF
Nothing obvious or distracting to me on this example. I don’t know about distortion of the lens but would think it’s reasonable on dx and if you have software that can do distortion correction I wouldn’t worry at all. Good way of getting idea about lens’ distortion is shooting a brick wall, getting the lines straight using such a software’s filter/feature (easily seen against a grid there) and note down the values plugged at certain FL having them at hand for next uses. This is working well and reduces distortions otherwise apparent to very acceptable degree – if not perfectly. Nx2 won’t have data to (auto)correct it I suppose (nor the adobe products). But an fx lens on dx won’t have big problems.
Looks nice and yes, if in good condition and within that aperture range it can be more than valid option. I’d shop for more modern D version I think though. If it’s meant for handheld use I’d also consider 18-105 VR that has high value/quality ratio plus versatility (but more distortion I guess). - having said that, a deliberate use of an "older" lens is somewhat likable to me.
|IMG_8168ABCD by citori525|
|McKinley meadow by TimR32225|
from Natural meadows
|Flare-well to a Classic Flying Machine by cjf2|
from Flying Machines
|_DSC2146 by jerste|
from Helios-44 II
|Leopoldsteinersee by RaCor|
from Landscape - Colour #3