Nikon Viewfinder Distortion?

I was shooting a subject that has a railroad track in the foreground. The track is straight and the foreground (near the bottom of the frame) shows the sides of the rails. I noticed some pretty obvious barrel distortion with both the 105/2.5 non-AI and the 200/4 AI (it seemed to be a bit more pronounced with the 200/4). I have used these lenses many, many times, and never noticed anything like this. I have never shot this subject, though. I believe that both of these lenses are reputed to be virtually distortion-free. Was my Nikon FE's viewfinder distorting what I saw, or will my negatives and prints show bent rails? I was using the standard FE screen.

Was the camera level?

Paul

The only times I have noticed optical distortions in my Nikon SLR viewfinder; I have also noticed them on the captured image. However, I cannot speak for the Nikon FE because I have never used one.

One way to answer your question is to examine your negatives and/or prints to see if the distortions are there. I use the 105mm and would be very surprised if it produces the barrel distortion you saw in your viewfinder.

Please be sure to post your findings.

Nikon FE was distorting what you saw. Non distorting Nikon bodies are
Nikkormats and Nikon F ,F2 , ....

I used the 105 AI (possibly optically the same as yours, they changed the scheme at some pre-AI point) and the 200/4 AI at lot: I'd consider both lenses as having very low distortion (definitely not anything "obvious").
I also used the FM and the FE2 (though never the FE) bodies extensively for architectural and art reproduction without being bothered by any viewfinder distortion.

As previously mentioned, I'd guess at some kind of distortion due to perspective.

Good question in regard to being level. Indeed, I was extremely level, as I never leave home without my bubble level. It sounds like it may be a viewfinder distortion, but I will be very disappointed if I see bent rails on my negs and prints.

If this is a shortcoming in the FE's finder, then that would be unfortunate, as, in my opnion, it is the best Nikon viewfinder. I have use many Nikon SLRs, and all had some flaw in the viewfinder--either an obstruction of the viewing area (as in the FM and FM2n) or a non-constant read-out (as in the F3). I just love the speed scale on the left--a scale that does not jut out into the frame. It is nice also because it shows gradations in between each speed stop.

I will gladly post my findings. It will take a few weeks, as I wait until I have three rolls completed before sending them out for developing and printing.

I do not necessarily agree with everything Ken Rockwell states, but his tests and such are often informative. He notes that he sees "no distortion" in the 200/4 AI. In his remarks on the 105/2.5, he does not specifically comment in regard to distortion.

I need to make one correction: I should have said pincushion distortion, not barrel distortion. The curve was at the bottom portion of the frame, curving upward, and so it was pincushion distortion.

I went to the site again, and just got back. I shot the same subject with both the 55/35 AI Micro and the 50/2 AI. The lighting was not as good (rather back lit), but, with the 55 and the 50, I cannot say I observed anything in the FE's viewfinder that was obvious distortion, either barrel or pincushion. In any case, it will be interesting to see the negs and prints. I may even send this roll out early, as distortion is an important issue for me.

Can you see the edges of the focusing screen? If the screen was made as perfect rectangle, and it looks like a rectangle through the viewfinder, then there is no viewfinder distortion.

If you put in an E screen are the grid lines distorted? I just looked through the finder of an FE with a 28/3.5 AI. It has an E screen. If I tilt the camera around some parts of the edges can look stretched but the grid lines remain straight. From my experience it is possible to see distortion in the finder that doesn't show up on the film. For a 28, the 28/3.5 AI shows low distortion if it is level and parallel to the subject. At one foot the 28/2.8 AIS will be better but at longer distances the 3.5 AI is quite good. You normally wouldn't worry too much about distortion with a 105/2.5 Nikkor, old or new, because it is used more for portraits. If I have to shoot flat copy or I am worried about distortion I will use a 90/2.5 Tamron SP macro or 90/2.8 Panagor macro. The 200/4 AI has very low distortion even though I prefer the 200/4 QC. I tried the 200/4 AI in several cameras by pointing it at a set of sliding doors from about 20 feet. I focused on the center and then turned the camera from left to right to line up the edge of the frame against the edge of the finder. The FE and FE2 both showed strong distortion. The F90X showed slightly less distortion. The F2 and Nikkormat FT2 both showed no distortion. If you're talking about the 200/4 AI, it's the camera, not the lens.

Thanks, dynachrome. I, too, have the 200/4 QC. I should have stated this clearly. I often use my 105/2.5 non-AI for things other than portraits, and so I hope that lens is not distorting. With regard to my curved lines (railroad rails) with the 200/4 QC, mine were about 50 feet away.

No Distortion in Lenses

My film has been processed, and I have the results. Both the 105/2.5 non-AI and the 200/4 Q performed flawlessly--there is no distortion in any of the shots. I am very happy about this. Indeed, the distortion I noticed would have been in the viewfinder. I thank all who responded.