Hi--

I am going from memory a bit here regarding distortion of the 35-105 MF
Nikkor (same optics, I think, as the first AF, though the macro is different).
The MF is notable in that it is EXTREMELY variable from sample to sample,
and only 2 in 10 that I tried were fine (I don't know if the AF's were as variable). A good sample is very sharp to the far corners from about 35-85mm
at infinity (showing relatively poor edges, even stopped down, at 105mm);
very sharp to the far corners at the bulk of mid-distances; and very sharp
to the corners from about 50-105mm near minimum focus (with macro) - even wide-open. Distortion is low, but compound (wavy-line type) - but I never
choose to use a zoom when distortion is important! (Though the 100-300mm is
notably very low in distortion (none from about 135-300mm), the other Nikkor zooms are low in distortion, but it is evident, except sometimes at one
focal-length in the range (the 35-105 has no no-distortion point in its range).
(BTW, the absurd-seeming short shade is effective, and a must-have.) I have
not tried the aspheric "D" version, but it does have fewer elements, which
may, or may not, be relevant. I have heard good opinions of it, but a quick
trial tells much more.... BTW, another excellent lens in this approximate
range is the MF 50-135mm f3.5. It is sharp, large, not especially close-focus,
low in distortion (noticeable barrel at 50, going to slight pincushion at
135mm), and the front does not rotate when focused. A pretty decent lens is
the MF/AF 28-85mm f3.5-4.5. Again, if distortion is a primary concern, I
would avoid zooms. All prime Nikkors (except the 58mm's) 55mm and longer
have no linear distortion. Shorter than 55mm, the 50 E/AF/AIS (plastic barrel),
15mm f5.6, and 21mm f4 (non-retro) are about the only Nikkors with little
or no distortion. Hope this helps.
David Ruether

> I saw your 1995 listing of Nikon lens evaluations on WWW recently, and was
>impressed by how many of the Nikon lenses you've worked with. For this reason
>I thought you might have recently acquired some experience with the new Nikon
>35-105 "D" lens, which appears to be a redesign of the older non-D version.
>Test reports on the latter have appeared in the photo mags (Pop Photo, etc),
>and have indicated that it was very well corrected for distortion (Pop Photo
>says: pincushion distortion of 0.9%, 0.5% and 0.9% at 35, 70 and 105 mm).
>To my knowledge, no test reports are yet available on the D version of the
>35-105. I've seen some ads in magazines which indicate that an aspheric
>element has been incorporated into the new lens. While this may have
>improved the sharpness performance of the D version (once again, I haven't
>seen any test results to confirm this), my main question is how the redesign
>may have affected the distortion performance. I am considering buying one
>of the 35-105 lenses, and reduction of distortion is a major factor for me.
>The people at Nikon, of course, have a policy against discussing such things.
>I was wondering if you now had any experience with the new D lens, and if so,
>whether you had noticed any change in the distortion specs relative to the
>older non-D AF lens. Any impressions you would be willing to furnish me
>on this point would be much appreciated. If you have no experience
>with the 35-105 D, but know of someone else who has and is willing to
>describe it, that would be very useful information too.
> Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
> Bill McCaul
> mccaul@space.hsv.usra.edu
>
>