< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

3 new Nikon lenses confirmed for Photokina

Today I got a confirmation on at least 3 lenses (released at Photokina):
  • AF-S 50mm 1.4 G - replacement is coming (confirmed)
  • AF-S 85mm 1.4 G - replacement is coming (confirmed)
  • AF-S 70-200mm 2,8 VRII - replacement is coming (confirmed)
No confirmations yet on the AF-S 28mm 2.8 and on the AF-S 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 (this may change in the next few weeks).
Don't ask about the source - can't say anything else for now. I have sufficient information to believe that this info is legit and this is why I am posting it. My confidence about this rumor is 85% - it is only from a single source (in the past we had 99% confidence). The lenses will probably be N & ED but not VR. Remember, we are talking about rumors here - if you have a weak stomach, wait for the official release.
This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
  • STJ

    I sencond that – and I can run fast to get one of those 135.. ;-)

  • Steven Sow

    I’m all for turning VR off, I just would rather have the lens cost a couple of hundred dollars cheaper without VR even on it. But I understand it’s usefulness, but only on longer glass, like the 70-200 or the 200 F2.

  • Isa

    The photozone review praises the Canon 85mm 1.2 like nothing else and so does Rockwell. I wouldn’t know. Don’t like Canon cameras. Terrible ergonomics.

  • eyrieowl

    essentially it boils down to, as i understand it, film’s better sensitivity to high angle of incidence light. because of the way light interacts with film, it is more forgiving of light coming in at all angles, whereas the photosites on digital sensors are strongly biased towards light coming in perpendicular to the surface of the sensor and do not do as well with light coming in at an angle. that, at least, was my understanding from the discussion about the lens on the d3.

  • http://floggingkevin.com Kevin

    Aarrgh! Selling my 85mm f/1.4 D just got harder. Somebody please buy it!

  • Daniel

    Are you seriously refering to Rockwell on lens evaluation?
    All credible photo magz I’ve read downrated the 1.2, as to not being able to use the lens full open anyhow. So real waste of money.

  • Julien Nadeau

    I can add some substance to the 50 mm lens. I have one ordered from MostlyDigital.ca that has been backordered since June 20th 2008, and Nikon is not giving any ETA for shipping.

  • Klaus

    > I don’t understand why yet again
    > people are asking for VR on lenses
    > below 100mm focal length. It has
    > been shown in technical artiicles
    > that fitting a vibration reduction
    > system of some sort, although it
    > aids hand holding at longer focal
    > lengths, actually degrades the
    > resolution of a lens compared to
    > the same design without VR.

    Who’s asking for VR? All I ever read on forums are people making your anti-VR point, with which I strongly disagree.

    A 50mm f/1.4 with VR would be wonderful. If you do a lot of available-light shooting at night, indoors, this lens is usefully four stops faster than a 24-70mm 2.8 @ 50mm. That’s the difference between ISO 12,800 and ISO 3,200. Huge in terms of noise.

    Right now, at f/1.4, I’m shooting around 1/15th sec at ISO 6400 on my D3 in dim indoor environments. I’m already on the ragged edge of what’s possible with modern photo equipment. VR would be a welcome improvement.

    Right now, there is no setup available from Nikon that throws every available technology at the problem of low-light shooting. You have to pick VR or fast glass — you can’t have both.

  • Henry Nikon Fan

    I went to Samys Camera in Los Angeles this past Saturday and they had the AF-S 70-200mm VR lens in stock. I asked them what the price was and they stated that it was exactly what they are on their web site. Samys almost always sells merchandise for more in their stores than on their web site. So I may have seen some price movement.

  • MarkDphotoguy

    We need an af-s version of the super amazing 35mm f/1.4 ais.
    I’ve got one and it is amazing (f/5.6) but it would be even better updated with af-s and some of those nano coat crystals and better performance in the 1.4-2.8 range.

  • MarkDphotoguy

    Here, here. I LOVE my 28mm f/2.0 ais. An af-s version with the nano-CC would be great so long as it stays good for IR shooting as the ais is THE sharpest prime lens for IR I have ever used.

  • MarkDphotoguy

    Both lenses will certaily be better than their older counterparts. If you look at what Nikon has done on their recent marquee lenses they are all way better than their predessesors wide open and at the other larger f-stops.
    I love my AF 50mm f/1.4 D but 1.4 to 2.8 need some serious improvement from the current wizards at Nikon. Same goes for the 85mm.
    It’s the new optics that are getting me excited.
    The 24-70 and 24 PC-E are amazingly resistant to flare and ghosting due to the nano CC so that will help both 85 and 50 as well.

  • Vlad

    I just hope the 50mm 1.4 doesn’t get bigger. I really like the small size of if, so easy to carry everywhere. Same goes for the 35mm f2 – if they make one, please don’t make it bigger.
    As for VR, would be nice having
    it, but only if they keep the current lenses in their line-up (and make them a bi
    t cheaper…) – you’d have the AF-D lenses for people on budget and entry level photographers, and AF-S VR lenses for pros and enthusiasts.

  • saiminyaku

    that has to be one of the most absurd things i have EVER heard. it is only the 50mm 1.2L that gets no respect.

    the 85mm 1.2L (I or II) is a phenomenal performer even wide open. it is a matter of knowing how to work with such a narrow DoF that gets people bitching.

    end of discussion — 1.2 lenses from Nikon would be a very good move, very good.

  • davidthenikonuser

    I really don’t think any prime lens will ever have VR. Does not really need it. I hope they are nice and small in size to, but will probably be bigger like the older 28mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 lens are.

  • Foo

    You forgot about the 105mm/2.8 VR…

  • Preston

    I think Sigma’s new 50mm f1.4 is going to sell like hotcakes to D40/40x/60 users because of it’s motor. I wouldn’t buy a new one, but plenty of lowerend users are fed up with MF on their DSLR’s because Nikon doesn’t make anything faster then 2.8 in the shorter focal lengths that will focus on them.

  • StupidCommentsSearch

    Congratulations! Your post has been unanimously selected as a finalist for our youtube channel for forum posts!

    BTW..
    I would suggest a tripod and/or flash, but since I have been successful in achieving the same shutter speed of 1/15 on a cheap 18-55 @F3.5 in dim lit indoor enviroments at ISO 1600 (no flash). In other words, a much slower lens AND lower ISO achieving the same shutter speed!?!? perhaps a change of hobby is in order?
    We would LOVE to hear an example of what you are shooting as well, as we are intrigued as to how VR would prevail. (Crossing our fingers for fast moving objects!)

  • StupidCommentsSearch

    Congratulations! Your post has been unanimously selected as a finalist for our youtube channel for forum posts!

    BTW..
    I would suggest a tripod and/or flash, but since I have been successful in achieving the same shutter speed of 1/15 on a cheap 18-55 @F3.5 in dim lit indoor enviroments at ISO 1600 (no flash). In other words, a much slower lens AND lower ISO achieving the same shutter speed!?!? perhaps a change of hobby is in order?
    We would LOVE to hear an example of what you are shooting as well, as we are intrigued as to how VR would prevail. (Crossing our fingers for fast moving objects!)

  • StupidCommentsSearch

    Klaus wrote:
    “Who’s asking for VR? All I ever read on forums are people making your anti-VR point, with which I strongly disagree.

    A 50mm f/1.4 with VR would be wonderful. If you do a lot of available-light shooting at night, indoors, this lens is usefully four stops faster than a 24-70mm 2.8 @ 50mm. That’s the difference between ISO 12,800 and ISO 3,200. Huge in terms of noise.

    Right now, at f/1.4, I’m shooting around 1/15th sec at ISO 6400 on my D3 in dim indoor environments. I’m already on the ragged edge of what’s possible with modern photo equipment. VR would be a welcome improvement.

    Right now, there is no setup available from Nikon that throws every available technology at the problem of low-light shooting. You have to pick VR or fast glass — you can’t have both.”
    ——————————————-

    Congratulations! Your post has been unanimously selected as a finalist for our youtube channel for forum posts!

    BTW..
    I would suggest a tripod and/or flash, but since I have been successful in achieving the same shutter speed of 1/15 on a cheap 18-55 @F3.5 in dim lit indoor enviroments at ISO 1600 (no flash). In other words, a much slower lens AND lower ISO achieving the same shutter speed!?!? perhaps a change of hobby is in order?
    We would LOVE to hear an example of what you are shooting as well, as we are intrigued as to how VR would prevail. (Crossing our fingers for fast moving objects!)

    P.S. Reply feature incompatible with safari?

  • http://www.xanga.com/matthewsaville Matthew Saville Photography

    Bingo. The 28 1.4 is the lens we’re talking about, the ONLY wide angle f/1.x lens Nikon makes in AF form. The 28 1.4 goes for over $3000 on Ebay sometimes, because it is discontinued and sharp copies are ridiculously in-demand…

    I’d expect a NEW, AF-S G Nano etc. 28 1.4 to cost no more than $1000-$1500…

    =Matt=

  • http://www.xanga.com/matthewsaville Matthew Saville Photography

    Good question! First of all, any new (pro grade) prime that Nikon makes will of course be AF-S, which is SWM. (USM) Also, it will probably be ED, G, and maybe Nano-coated. So all in all, the potential is there for an INCREDIBLY better lens, before you even consider that they may re-design the lens elements altogether.

    Only time will tell!

    =Matt=

  • http://www.xanga.com/matthewsaville Matthew Saville Photography

    Here’s what I say: Put VR in the “consumer” 85 1.8, let them get all excited about their high-tech lens, and then give US PROS a no-nonsense 85 1.4 or 85 1.2 without VR… :-D

    I would say that VR may harm bokeh, but I don’t think this is true past 100mm at least, judging by the glorious bokeh in the new 200 2.0 VR and 300 2.8 VR, etc…

    =Matt=

  • Michael

    Sorry, I don’t think there will be a “more than 3.5x” f/2.8 zoom-lens from Nikon…

  • Anonymous

    joseph (joey) was right… his official answer when i pointed this out to him few days ago, “haha, nikon dont plan to release anything because their mission for this year is now complete, the d90 is the last equipment to be announced”

    …seems like you got some weak source and rumors :)

  • peter

    this is not correct on a couple of points. firstly the performance. the 1.2L is NOT an outstanding performer at all wide open. the nikkor 1.4 in pure resolution outperforms it in the centre wide open by a considerable margin. when you shoot at 1.4 or 1.2 the centre resolution is all that matters due to the razor thin dof.

    photozones review of the 85/1.2 is obviously done by a groupie becasue the comments do NOT match the MTF performance. they do sing its praises but it is not backed up by actual results. this is a common problem with PZ testing.

    i am not suggesting the 1.2L is a bad lens, not at all, its overall a fantastic bit of glass but it is NOT a phenomenal peformer wide open by any means.

    secondly, due to the massive aperture difference the lens elements are HUGE which means that the lens itself needs to be massive. the 85/1.2L is TWICE the weight of the 85/1.4 nikon weighing in at over a kilo. thats heavier than the new and massive nikon 24-70/2.8. i mean that is just outrageous.

    to make this point clearer about weight, with a 24-70/2.8 the weight is not so much an issue cos you can use your hand to support the weight and its comfortbale. not so with the 1.2L, its very difficult to control becasue its short, stubby and the shape does not lend itself to stable handholding. this in itself exacerbates the problem of focussing becasue its difficult to hold well and it has a razor thin dof and its not that crash hot wide open either.

    i carry my camera all day and i for one do NOT want any of this 1.2 nonsense that will double the weight of my kit. i would have no problem if the 1.2 was ADDED to the 1.4 to give people a choice; but if a 1.2 REPLACED the 1.4 then that would be the WORST thing nikon could offer me as a pro shooter.

  • davidthenikonuser

    I should have said any prime lens under 100mm will probably never have VR.

  • davidthenikonuser

    I would like to see the 180mm updated. With AF-S, VR, a limit switch and a tripod collar. It’s about time for it to be updated anyway.

  • Steven Sow

    Man! That’s a lens that just slipped through the cracks there. I have the AIS version and I love it, but I would love to have an AF one. It’s long past due an update, now that’s a lens that would benefit from having VR.

  • Klaus

    > Congratulations! Your post has been
    > unanimously selected as a finalist
    > for our youtube channel for forum
    > posts!

    Charming. Smugness is bad enough, but
    a smug guy who doesn’t have a clue
    what he’s talking about is even worse.

    > BTW.. I would suggest a tripod
    > and/or flash

    Would you?

    > but since I have been successful
    > in achieving the same shutter
    > speed of 1/15 on a cheap 18-55
    > @F3.5 in dim lit indoor enviroments
    > at ISO 1600 (no flash). In other
    > words, a much slower lens AND lower
    > ISO achieving the same shutter
    > speed!?!? perhaps a change of hobby
    > is in order?

    Let me get this straight: do you
    seriously believe that it NEVER gets
    so dim indoors that at ISO 6400 and
    f/1.4 a properly-exposed image would
    require a shutter speed of 1/15th of
    a second?

    Because that’s what you’ve just
    written. Well guess what, it does.

    Here’s an explanation: “dim” is a
    subjective description. My indoor
    environment must have been “dimmer”
    than yours. One would think this
    was obvious.

    > We would LOVE to hear an example of
    > what you are shooting as well, as
    > we are intrigued as to how VR would
    > prevail. (Crossing our fingers for
    > fast moving objects!)

    That old canard. Camera shake can
    cause significantly more blur than
    (slow) moving objects, depending. VR
    allows sharper images of people
    sitting reasonably still even down to
    1/8th – 1/4th sec.

    > P.S. Reply feature incompatible with
    > safari?

    Safari made you repeat that inane post
    two more times? Is it also responsible
    for the errors in content?

  • Steven Sow

    I would say that’s a good compromise.

  • gambit

    when a new 300? AFS, VR and less than 1kg.
    :D

  • StupidCommentsSearch

    The square dance continues…
    But a set of legs you won’t see shaking are that of a nice Gitzo. Sure VR might work up the courage to ask the prom queen out for a tune, but you’d better let her lead as no one enjoys having their toes stepped on no matter how cute he looks fumbling around in awe. The fact is she’s out of your league. And you can blabber about you’re car, job, money, etc… but, just cause she is gorgeous doesn’t mean she has an airhead. She knows what the really right stuff is and she knows that anyone who claims to be “on the ragged edge of what’s possible with modern photo equipment “ and chooses VR ( a feature made to COMPENSATE, to a short degree for the lack of a tripod ) over using a tripod, is just ignorantly pulling her legs.

    In your defense,
    The dance will be over waiting to cut in on all the Pros, as they are very much so content with their partners.
    and that was the last song.

    Keep pushing that edge Klaus!

  • thedetective

    lol you guys have a funny argument there. but somehow I have the feeling that you two would get along pretty well without the internet between you. sorry im in a goofy mood, a wonderful model just agreed to be photographed by me.

  • http://www.xanga.com/matthewsaville Matthew Saville Photography

    AT 180mm, the lens would be less oriented towards BOTH FX and DX. I’d say, give us an AF version of the 105 f/1.8 or f/2.5 or something, one of those legendary bad boys. THAT would sell well to both FX and DX shoters!

    =Matt=

  • Steven Sow

    If they could do that, that lens would fly out the door so far, they probably wouldn’t be able to keep up with the demand.

  • Steven Sow

    Actually 180 is a very nice length on a DX sensor, and then it’s of course a classic for 35mm(or FX), just with the 70-200 and 80-200 zooms, that lens just doesn’t get the attention that it truly deserves

  • Anonymous

    Just sold my 70~200mm 2.8 because it VIGNETTED so badly on my D700. Will be happy to see the new one.

  • Orakel

    I need a Nikon (70) 80-400 / 3.5-5.6 VR II

  • Mike Richards

    I am really hoping they come out with the following:

    24 1.4G
    35 1.4G
    50 1.4G
    85 1.4G

  • A. Asenov

    And what about AF-S 50mm f/1.8 or AF-S 85 f/1.8? Can we expect that lens soon? And how soon? `Cos the f/1.4 versions will be too expensive for me.

  • A. Asenov

    And what about AF-S 50mm f/1.8 or AF-S 85 f/1.8? Can we expect those lenses soon? And how soon? `Cos the f/1.4 versions will be too expensive.

  • Rick

    Well, where is the new 70-200 that was “confirmed” at the very top?

  • Blog Admin

    I am asking my source the same question

  • Mike

    Figures…this site lives true to its name…just a bunch of rumors.

  • Jos

    Any news on the arrival of a possible new 80-400 (AF-S VR II) ??? “This fall” was mentioned somewhere…

  • Jack

    I am very interested in the AF-S 70-200mm 2,8 VRII as I want a flatter image that the VR is said to provide when used with an FX body like the D700. However I have manual focus only film bodies too with which I would like to use this lens therefore I’m wondering it it will be “gelded” (i.e., lacking the aperature control ring) as is the VR.

    Does anyone here have any idea about this?

    Thanks,
    Jack

  • John

    Just bought a 70 200 and sold it after a month because it was soft at anything above f8 at both sides and all corners when focussing on close subjects on FX. I mean the only sharp part of the image was a circle that fitten the frame top to bottom.

    If you have a D700 or D3 or D3X try it. I dont normally shoot brick walls or newspapers but I saw this in so many actual images it made me check it out. Try it. Focus at the closest (which is another problem!) and shoot a wall. You will be disturbed… Studio work? Forget it unless for portraits.

    They have to bring out a replacement that matches the quality (and family) of the 14-24 and 24-70 as they are superb and focus close enough to be useful too.

  • Back to top