= 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 $0.00251\ \mathrm{nm}$:
$$
\lambda=\frac{h}{\sqrt{2m_e eV\left(1+eV/(2m_ec^2)\right)}}.
$$
Use consistent <length> units, $C_S=1.2\times10^6\ \mathrm{nm}$, 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 \b[$-66\ \mathrm{nm}$] 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.<Scherzer focus by JEOL>[glossary, underfocus convention and accelerating-voltage/spherical-aberration table]{ref}
Using the question's additional numerical relation exactly as supplied, with $u=1/(0.22\ \mathrm{nm})$, gives
$$
\Delta f=\frac{0.54-\tfrac12 C_S\lambda^3u^4}{\lambda u^2}.
$$
For the physically appropriate rounded wavelength this is \b[$\Delta f\simeq-67.0\ \mathrm{nm}$]. The CTF itself gives an independent check: its first nonzero zero satisfies $\tfrac12 C_S\lambda^3u_0^4+\Delta f\lambda u_0^2=0$, so $u_0\simeq4.0\ \mathrm{nm^{-1}}$ implies \b[$\Delta f\simeq-60\ \mathrm{nm}$]. 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 $-7.75\ \mathrm{\mu m}$, and the plotted first zero requires $-6.00\ \mathrm{\mu m}$. These do not describe a consistent $200\ \mathrm{kV}$ microscope. \b[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.]
Back to article page
