< ! --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.
  • http://robinedgar.stumbleupon.com Robin Edgar

    I am not sure that it is a good idea to talk about “a weak stomach” and “the official release” in the same sentence. ;-)

    Needless to say I am not at all surprised to hear that Nikon will be replacing it’s reputedly seriously flawed (for FX format and film use anyway) 70-200mm f2.8 VR zoom lens.

  • Arterio

    Fast 50mm and 85mm lenses with nano coating are going to be incredible!
    Still waiting on 200mm macro news.

  • Dean

    Figures. I bought a 70-200 last weekend.

  • http://www.alex-masters.com Alex

    As much as I’d love to see the new lenses, I’d rather like it if they got their ass in gear and knocked out a few more 200/2 lenses.

    I’m bored of waiting for mine :|

  • d4n131m3j14

    Well the page is nikonrumorsdotcom so.. rumors are great!
    But OMG the price on that 50mm f/1.4 AF-S will soar to heaven! I’m thinking 850.00 Dls

  • Ryan

    Where the heck are the fast WIDE primes? The 85mm f/1.4 is already stellar. A new 50 would be nice but there’s always the Sigma … but we need fast and WIDE. The 28mm is overpriced and aging.

  • Tom

    Agreed – fast wide angle like a new 28mm f1.4. I’m also hoping for a fast standard zoom someday with VR = 18-70 f2.8 VR. But I realise this is probably a dream…

  • red

    cool!! would love to see they announce the AF-S 35/1.4G ED N as well. if not now maybe next year…together with AF-S 105/2G ED N and AF-S 135/2G ED N

  • fan

    What are the differences between this new 50 f/1.4 and the old one?

    • Tim

      1. Price – about $155.00 more
      2. AF-S (Silent Wave Motor) should translate to faster and quieter focusing
      3. “G” type rather than “D” type lens (no aperature ring which means it will have limited use on most film bodies with the exception of the F-6 and maybe some others)
      4. Allegedly improved optical performance resulting from new design and coatings
      5. Nine-blade aperature (better than the older version)

  • Caesar

    The new one is AF-S.

  • freehawk

    “But OMG the price on that 50mm f/1.4 AF-S will soar to heaven! I’m thinking 850.00 Dls”

    That would be crazy for any 50- if it is that much I am going back to the 1.8, I had to ditch the 1.4 due to the flare problems

  • http://www.pbse.com/ibbo ibbo

    True that the 70~200 has mushy corners on DIGITAL FX. Not true that the same problem exists on full-frame FILM. Don’t know why: perhaps due to sensor design. certainly no porblems whatysoever with this lens on the F5 and F6. That said, we all need the update for our D3 and D700 bodies.

    ibbo

  • Anonymous

    show us YOUR source cause nikon wont come out with all 3 lenses that everybody wants nikon to replace

  • Chris P

    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.

    Due to some very clever advertising suggesting that it is a case of “no VR no good” it has become the “must have’ feature on all lenses. I think congratulations are in order to Nikon for putting optical quality before the latest fad.

    Chris P

  • James

    I’ve got everything crossed hoping you’re right! Like Chris P I dont see why everyone wants VR on a lens that is a 50mm 1.4, its not something i’d be looking for. And without VR surely that should reduce the cost! Glad to see Nikon are supporting those photographers who bought the D40 etc without an AF motor, I know a lot of people with these lenses who’d appreciate an AFS prime. Not to mention the fact that AFS focussing is faster, and more accurate on cameras such as the D50.. especially when the D50′s focus motor starts giving up the ghost! And finally a G prime!

    Anon: He’s not going to show the source, use some common sense!

  • James

    I cant see a NEW lens being cheaper than the ‘overpriced’ one it replaces?

  • STJ

    I concur with Chris P on that one – VR = more complex and heavy lenses which aught to be small and handy. Question is, I guess, with the better and better VR, will the optimum focal lenght above which to apply VR decrease?

    Personally I have the 24-70 2.8 and I’m happy with it excatly as it is – would not trade any quality (or size/weight) for VR.

  • Dan

    Nikon knows this, which is why it doesn’t have VR on its high-end short focal length lenses like the 24-70. But it also understands that VR sells, especially to consumers that don’t know better, which is why it has VR on tons of short focal length kit-grade or slightly better lenses.

  • Anonymous

    I hope this means that I’ll be able to get my hands on the older af-d versions cheap, as I doubt the price will be attractive for a while.

  • STJ

    Now I speculate wildly base on the “fact” that we get the three lenses: ;-)
    That would mean that the also long awaited sub-50mm lenses, the 80-400 (or is it going to be 70-400 to fit the 24-70?) and 200 micro are postponed :-(
    Well, you cant win the lottery and get the grand price on one day…
    By delaying those lenses do Nikon think:
    our 14-24 is great, so we can wait a bit with the sub-50mm lenses?
    The 200mm micro will never be — because it will be a 70-200mm micro (!) and we dont want that introduced together with a 70-200VRII
    The 80-400, is a very good lens for slow AF needs already.If AF got improved enough would it take too big a share of from the new 70-200vrII? Albeit they not really competitors the 70-200 also has a larger costumer base (i guess?), and have gotten massive negative press attention (more or less decerved or undecerved).
    Now these are just thoughts…

  • Isa

    Sorry but IMHO that’s just crap! I worked several times with two different 70-200 lenses on my D3 (wide open, ISO 1600 and up) – the images were PERFECT. Never unterstood why people (test-chart-shooters I suppose?) continue to bash it.

  • isa

    EDIT: I’m referring to the very first message!

  • NADI

    I would never pay hundreds of dollars/euros more just to have AF-S!! That’s stupid! Im perfectly happy with my old AF 85mm and 50mm f1.4 IF the new 85mm has improved sharpness wide open and less fringing – yes, THEN I would consider buying it.

  • Nic

    SO HAPPY!!! I have been waiting for a 70-200 for soooooo long that I almost gave in and bought a used one this weekend!!

    -Any ideas/guesses on the price for the 70-200??

  • Isa

    Well I seriously doubt that it will be the same price as the existing 70-200. At least $2.000? Maybe $2.200? Maybe more… Pure speculation of course.

  • none

    I’m hoping for the 80-400 AFS as well, and kind of expecting it too. There are rumors about this lens for a long time now. And with Sigma releasing two lenses in the same range (120-400 and 150-500)Nikon kind of needs to react. Or am I hoping too much?

  • Steve

    You might if you didn’t have a drive motor….d40 and d60 folks _will_ pay for fast primes that autofocus on their cameras, trust me.

  • http://www.itisboring.com Andrew

    I just brought my 70-200mm 2.8 last week…. ;_;

    But I will love my lens, I will love my lens, I will….

  • DAC

    it is worth to buy the new 70-200mm no matter how high the price.. as long as they fixed vignetting + Nano + VRII and macro. So D3 will never suffer again!

  • StephD

    This line up certainly makes sense. Fast AFS primes are needed for the D40/D60 crowd – otherwise Nikon is giving away to Canon customers moving up from P&S. And the 70-200VR is the missing brother of the 14-24 and 24-70. That last bit could spell good news: If it falls in the same price range as those 2, it’s not much more expensive than the current 70-200, and if it’s of the same quality, than it’s going to be awesome!

  • Viewtiful

    SAME!!!!! shld i sell it? lol

  • Anonymous

    Does this mean the “old” 70-200 will drop in prices 2nd hand for us DX users? :)

  • David Olsen

    We have it in stock over here in Norway – no waiting just nip in and pick one up :-) ..the downside is it costs 5000 dollars or 3000 pounds ;-(

  • Henry Nikon Fan

    I agree, I bought my wife a D60 and bought her a AF-S 18-70mm DX lens because the kit lens had the plastic mount, no distance scale and no internal focus and it was slower. I think that the 18-70mm is better even without VR.

  • Henry Nikon Fan

    I have a D300 and my wife has a D60. The current models of the 28mm, 35mm and 50mm will work on my camera but not my wife’s. I have been waiting for primes with an AF-S motor so we both may use them.

  • rhlpetrus

    I bet it’s redesigned as well, both primes. The test on the Canon f/1.4 on FF at DPr shows lots of problems at corners, both softnes and strongvignetting wide open. These lenses were not designed for digital.

  • rhlpetrus

    For 50mm I agree VR is no big deal, but at 85mm (which in DX is already >125mm), it would make sense. It may degrade IQ a bit under use, but then you’d be shooting handheld at lower shutter speed and VR would be better than w/o it. At more critical shooting, for landscapes for example, just turn it off and use a tripod.

    Would VR dectract of intrisnic optical Q of lens? I don’t think so, just make it a bit heavier and more expensive. But Canon have been doing it for a long time and I think Nikon should do same.

  • rhlpetrus

    They should relabel it DX and sell it for 1,200, I’d get one now! In fact, it seems to have been designed fo DX, even though for film the problems are not as apparent as in digital FF.

  • Justin

    Man… I was planing on buying the 80-200 and while I wait for the 70-200 save myself 700 for a few months… Guess ill be spending 1600 earlier then I thought…

  • Steven Sow

    It could be, we’ve got fifteen years of lens design technology advancements since that lens was first released, plus I would hope that they learned their lesson and not price themselves out of the market.

  • STJ

    If the new will be good on FX it will probably not be bad on a cropped sensor… And a drop in Nikon prices? Well you can take a look at what happened to the 28-70 when the 24-70 arrived for an indication of what to expect… We all want Nikon to give away gear.

  • Steven Sow

    Me too. For all the primes that need updating, the 35 1.4 needs it the worst. As good as they are, I don’t think that the 105 and 135 sell well enough as AF-D lenses for Nikon to upgrade them, but if they did, I would run and grab a 135….

  • Steven Sow

    There are rumors about an AFS 28 2.8? Why 2.8? Nikon’s AIS 28mm F2 is highly regarded, why not modernize that lens? If we can’t get 1.4, at least give us F2

  • http://daviddanielsphotography.com dav.d

    I want the 50mm and the 85mm – but I would love Nikon more if they came out with f/1.2 lenses!

  • Ryan Brenizer

    It most certainly would be — the 28mm f/1.4 is overpriced because it’s discontinued and has become a collector’s item. It now goes used for more than twice what it sold for new.

  • Steven Sow

    the 85 doesn’t need VR either, you really need VR on longer focal lengths, I would go as far to say 150mm and above. You can go down far as 1/50-1/40 with a 85, even slower with good technique

  • PHB

    Err, why? The reviews of the f/1.2 Canons are not good. I don’t think you will find many people willing to have a defective lens for the sake of being a half stop extra wide.

    Admittedly some of the Canon issues are being ascribed to shoddy manufacture, but reviews of the Nikon 1.2 version are not that great either.

  • PHB

    The 80-400 lens is very clearly the lens that is in most desperate need of an update. It is not just the fact that it is slow, it is the fact that it does not work at all with the entry level bodies.

    But it is hardly a surprise that Nikon would not announce an update at Photokina. The message there is the launch of the D3x/z. The fast primes and a new 70-200 are on message, the 80-400 is not.

    Another factor might well be that the 80-400 is a harder design challenge.

    I really cannot see Nikon being at all worried that the 80-400 would take market share from the 70-200 though. Both lenses have the same price tag.

    The 80-400 might take some market share from the 200-400 f/4. But that is in a completely different price range. Nobody is going to put one of those on a D60, but plenty of folk will buy an 80-400. If Nikon does not fill that gap in their lineup others will.

  • rhlpetrus

    I have tested my 105 VR carefully, because I use it for portraits. W/o Vr I can do 1/60s, which is more than half of the expected 1/FL rule (=158mm equiv).

    With VR I get exactly same results at 1/15s, a gain of 2 full stops. This is wonderful for portaits in available light at low ISOs. Why not have it? If you think you don’t need it, just turn it off.

  • STJ

    I tend to agree with you – just wanted to see if the current rumor made sens from a Nikon point of view :-)
    Any other takes on that?
    Each person has their favourites, some want a new 20mm, some a 80-400. Personally I would like Nikon to thow out the 135DC and make it non-DC (did anybody have time to use that feature in real life anyway?), but make it an f1.8 or 2.0…and drop the VR, just a nice small handy … perfect equivalent to the 85mm on FF. Ok I’ll keep dreaming… ;-)

  • Back to top