 Solution

There is a verified inconsistency in the printed data: the original PDF says $0.025\mathrm{nm}$, whereas the relativistic de Broglie wavelength at $200\mathrm{kV}$ is approximately $0.00251\mathrm{nm}$:Use consistent length units, $C_S=1.2\times 10^6\mathrm{nm}$, and distinguish literal arithmetic from a physically consistent estimate. The familiar approximate Scherzer defocus is $\Delta f_S\simeq -1.2\sqrt{C_S\lambda }$, or about $-66\mathrm{nm}$ with $\lambda =0.0025\mathrm{nm}$. Slightly different optimum-phase conventions use $\sqrt{4/3}$ in place of $1.2$, giving about $-63\mathrm{nm}$; both are underfocus by a few tens of nanometres. The manufacturer's tabulated $200\mathrm{kV}$ values confirm that scale.^[ref]

Using the question's additional numerical relation exactly as supplied, with $u=1/(0.22\mathrm{nm})$, givesFor the physically appropriate rounded wavelength this is $\Delta f\simeq -67.0\mathrm{nm}$. The CTF itself gives an independent check: its first nonzero zero satisfies $\frac{1}{2}{C}_S{\lambda }^3{u}_0^4+\Delta f\lambda u_0^2=0$, so $u_0\simeq 4.0\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ implies $\Delta f\simeq -60\mathrm{nm}$. The plotted condition is therefore a little less underfocused than the usual Scherzer setting and has a first-zero spacing near $0.25\mathrm{nm}$. The nominal $0.22\mathrm{nm}$ and approximate optimization formula should not be treated as exactly reproducing every plotted parameter.

If the printed $0.025\mathrm{nm}$ is retained literally, the approximate Scherzer formula instead gives $-208\mathrm{nm}$, the supplied $0.54$ relation gives $-7.75\mu \mathrm{m}$, and the plotted first zero requires $-6.00\mu \mathrm{m}$. These do not describe a consistent $200\mathrm{kV}$ microscope. The physically consistent comparison is approximately $-63$ to $-67\mathrm{nm}$ optimum underfocus versus $-60\mathrm{nm}$ from the plot; the wavelength correction is explicit.