I will be updating this post as I get more info on this potentially new lens Nikon AF-S Nikkor 10-18mm f/4 G ED N.
- Origin: someone claimed that the picture was found in QQ groups (QQ is something like MSN messenger in China).
- jeff-c could not confirm or deny this rumor on dpreview.
- Here is a comparison between the two lenses (10-18mm and 14-24mm), once scaled to the same size and the 14-24mm is placed on top of the 10-18mm (sent by a reader – thanks SM):
- Could it be fake? Here is a comparison with the 14-24 and the 12-24.
- I think this next picture is the money shot – it looks real to me, but again the question is: does it make sense for Nikon to produce this lens?
- I do know one thing: our polls have always been accurate:
Related posts:
193 Comments
now THIS is a lens worth hoping for!
-David
As pointed out by another poster, the 0 next to the ten looks a little suspect and there is no DX marking, so it is a 10-18 FX ? Hmm…
Hmm is right. lolers
Well over half of the people here think it is real – and 2830 have voted so far. So I can see why someone would go to the trouble of photoshopping the 14-24. It’s a great way to spend your time if you are one of the former Nikon employees in China or Thailand.
For me, it’s the blur area on the RHS of the lens that tells me that this pic has been played with. Why play with a shot if you want to post it as real ?
Maybe someone knows a 10-18 is coming but doesn’t have a real shot of it so they made this ? Who knows ?
Besides which, I’m not sure if I care either. This lens would be horribly expensive and way out of my budget so it isn’t a big seller at a time of financila crisis. It seems like it might actually be bad news in a sense. Let’s hope it’s fake !
so you hope it fake cause you do not have cash for it? i no follow the logic.
This lens would cost a lot in R&D – it’s a whole new thing. In good times it might not make a lot of money because of the low volume of sales for an obviously expensive specialised lens. But in times like these it would be likely to run at a loss. Losses are not good news for any Nikon fan.
That’s why, from one aspect, I hope it’s fake. Then again, it’s more kudos for Nikon if it’s real. With some of the best bodies and lenses, do they need the kudos or would a bigger profit margin be better ?
Just my thoughts…
DX or FX lens?
I assume it’s true.
of course one can play with letters and general shapes only but heck if this is a photoshop, kudos to who did it…
The finesse looks the reflection of the flash on the lens glass (where’s the distance) as if it would have really been photographed a real item
even no DX mark…. no way 10-18mm for FX!
Full frame zoom fisheye. It’s technically possible. Just don’t know if it’s practical.
Pentax has a 17-28mm full-frame fisheye zoom, and Tokina makes a 10-17 DX-format fisheye zoom which apparently covers FX at some focal lengths. Nikon may be trying to continue taking a bite out of other manufacturers’ markets by offering equivalent lenses. Now if they would just bring out some more AF-S fast primes!
I hope so, but very unlikely that Nikon will sacrifice 14-24… 10-18 FX is really more appealing as f/4 is good enough for shooting landscape. And I also questioned the technique to make 10-18 f/4.. it is really unprecedented.. the widest zoom for FX so far is 12mm begins with f/4.5…
If it is real, I also hope 18-85 FX f/4 will follow…
They will drive me crazy for Nikon! ^-^
I’d like that f4 too !
Even there is no DX mark.. It is no way the 10-18mm for FX!
nikon 4.5mm fisheye existed and it’s possible.
Didn’t they need a few elements intruding into the mirror box and could only be mounted with mirror lockup?
Would be absolutely amazing if Nikon managed to develop an FX lens that wide without intruding lens elements! I highly doubt the lens is real, but on the oter hand the photos look vrey convincing.
I can’t tell really. All I can say is it’s a lens I would LOVE to have.
Rather large lens hood for a fisheye, man… fake, 100%.
10mm on FX
that would be… amasing.
120 degrees wide
can’t tell. but looks real.
This lens would make a nice architecture kit together with a D3x. I also know landscape photographers who would die for an FX zoom like this. 10 mm is just insane, like a 38XL on 4×5. Apart from those and a few other applications, such a lens is too esoteric to find wider use. Expect it to be priced accordingly.
This will have waaaay to much distortion for architecture photogs. My thoughts are that it is real though – damn shame it’s another lens you can’t use with a polariser though!
Why would you want to use a polarizer on an extremely ultra wide angle like that??
A polarizer on a lens that wide would put a hideous dark spot in the sky. It would wreck the picture in almost all cases. Polarizers are great on shorter lenses, but produce grotesque and uncorrectable images with ultra-wides. Not even usable as special effects. Tried it a number of times and then scrapped it.
Rectilinear zoom like sigma’s 12-24 for fx? Fisheye zoom like tokina’s 10-17 for dx?
If this IS rectilinear that’s quite a feat of optical engineering for an fx zoom. Although I suppose that f/4 might give them leeway. Either way, this is a lens that would generate quite a bit of attention.
Anyone care to calculate the FOV for 10mm fx?
Nvm, 120 degrees
must be more than that – the Sigma 12-24 has 122°
Diagonally, the FOV would be 130 degrees; horizontally, 121. The Sigma 12-24 (which I own) is 122 diagonal, 112 horizontal.
If it’s a real FX machine, it should be very interesting for everybody who use both full-format and APS-C bodies. At this lenght and at f4 it is maybe not so easy to get the background blurred when you focus superficial objects. Obviously, you can’t mount a polarization filter.
As FX lens i guess it will cost about 1500€/1900$. But there are also some rumours about this Sigma 10-20 f2,8 … maybe also FX…?
I hope it’s real…
Lol…. Jost calculated the Hyperfocal Distance at 10mm-f/4 = 84cm.
So you don’t really need to focus at 10mm!
I think it is real.
Would make a new push to the eytreme wide.
And most of all makes Nikon underline their already superior wide angle range towards the competition.
I think it’s a fake. The unsharpness of the on-the-table shot looks a bit off to me.
Maybe I am too much the skeptic, but the last picture (the one on the wood table) is a dead give away to me. These are renderings. I know… I know… they look pretty real. Check out some of the renderings made by this product:
http://www.maxwellrender.com/
That is my guess. But, that doesn’t make it not real. Nikon surely has enough money to do visualizations of real products early in development, I just don’t see why they would create the picture on the wood table.
As a matter of fact that picture on the wood table is really a sticking point for me. It wouldn’t serve well in advertising so why would nikon take it? And it obviously is using a fair amount of focal plane shift (available in Maxwell BTW), the DOF is so short that maybe it could be the 85pc micro, but I bet it would have to be 4×5. Who would bust out the 4×5 and then lay the thing on a table and let one anisotropic highlight run up the middle? A CG artist, thats who. Thats my guess anyways.
If this is a real, FX lens… I WANT ONE! You have no idea.
If it is a fake that is one great Photoshop job! It looks and good and would make a great addition to my kit!
The bottom picture is totally fake. look at the grain structure of the wood and you will notice what looks like joined slats (butt joints) of wood just below the zoom ring. Now look at the rest of the desk – no more joined butts anywhere. Someone spliced in the zoom ring from a different lens and the grain structure of the wood table gives it away.
Correction, make that the focus ring, not the zoom ring. Still Fake.
Also, I think the level of bokeh (blur) in the image is not possible unless manipulated in PS (with gaussian blur tool). The blur is very uneven and does not run in the same direction along a level plane, rather it runs slantwise along the edge of the lens. Definately manipulated.
… which is exactly why products are often with T/S-lenses or cameras with movements.
Okay guys. Stop knit picking. I have a desk with fake wood venier that looks exactly like that. They create random wood but so that it looks like it’s real. Other wise, the bokeh is fine. I have use tilt shift lenses that do that. Which is normal for product photography. However, I don’t think this is a product shoot. look in the foreground, its very much in focus all the way up to the edge. My guess is bad focus job.
Fake. Look at the table. Look closely. Everybody should see that.
Can’t believe no one saw this. The wood counter top has a seam on it and the wood grains do not line up. So, 1) this is a fake or 2) and very bad counter top job.
wood surfaces are often made of planks – the table is least is probably real
I concur : today’s table technology can support several planks
I don’t know man… IF this is a fake, (and there IS something funny about that tabletop-picture, now that I’ve stared at it for a while) then someone is going through an AWFUL lot of trouble.
Look at the M/A-switch, for example. It’s not the same as the 14-24. Which would, of course, be the first place it would be looked for. But does it match any other Nikkor? I don’t have any more time to go looking for pictures.
But then again, there have been pictures before that were called fake and OBVIOUS PS-jobs, that turned out to be the real thing…
But then again, a 10-18mm FX lens? How un-probable is that?
Holy moly, this IS a good one. Hats off to whoever is behind this if it’s not real.
Totally agreed. Frankly the reason why the table looks fake, is because it is fake. Its plastic foe wood planks. I’ve been looking for the switch and haven’t found anything real close. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t, but I just don’t think so. Anyway, jeff-c has rarely been wrong, so I tend to trust him.
Whether this lens ‘goes against the grain’
or not, seems like a sensible addition for a camera like the D3X designed for the type of application this lens would be used for.
On the ‘sensibility’ factor I would say it makes sense.
Ha ha guys, couldn’t this just be a bad counter job?
You know, wood lines don’t match up if they used two pieces of wood. But this looks like fake-wood to me. I’ve seen fake-wood furniture in real-life, so I just assumed it was that.
I for one am very excited!
http://niloyonphotography.blogspot.com/2009/02/i-can-has-10-18mm-plz.html
“Nikon always has been beat fairly and squarely by Sigma’s offers: the unique 30mm f1.4 and the 10-20mm ultra-wide. Sure they were DX only, but they were so EXCITING! Nobody else had anything remotely close!….
…..Of course, Nikon can’t let things stay that way, can they?”
Actually, the lens may be on the floor. My wooden floors have seams just like that in between each set of… planks I guess you could call them. But this seam does look a little big suspicious, it looks slightly bent… but
It’ll be interesting to see how expensive they put this if it is FX, and I’ll also be interested to see whether the rumored sigma 10-20mm f/2.8 will be FX and what price they’ll want… $899 or whatever it is for the new 24-70 HSM is ridiculous, I know it’s a good lens, but double the price of the original just for HSM? no way.
Either way, if this is real, then it is a very very well done photoshop job. Lots of attention to detail, must’ve spent a good amount of time on it.
One of the common problems us Canon shooters have always mentioned about Nikon is their lack of affordable (i.e. f/4) constant aperture zooms.
Canon has a few (17-40, 24-105, 70-200), and this has stopped a lot of people switching camps.
Maybe Nikon have caught up and are addressing this problem.
An f/4 zoom on a D700? Sign me right up.
For you soul’s salvation, I hope it is real
DPreview’s Jeff-C wont confirm or deny the authenticity of this lens
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=31019761
The last photo looks like a rendering using Radiosity…
Tabletop is faked: not only is there a seam… the “blurinness” on each side of the seam is different. You wouldn’t see that if it were a plank.
10mm for FX seems crazy, I own the 14-24 and a D3, and a 10-20 DX Sigma as well as a 10.5 DX fisheye Nikkor for my D80. 10mm rectilinear for FX is just crazy. Either this is a DX lens (that would actually be cool, I might have to buy a D300 after all) or a (very nicely done) fake.
You guys should quit trying to use the “wood” table to determine if the picture is real or not, as it looks just like the cheap (mis-aligned) laminate countertop in my kitchen…unless my kitchen is also fake…which I gues is possible, since some of the meals my wife prepares there seems to be fake also.
it must be a dx… but if so, what was nikon thinking?sigmas and tokinas and tamrons have it already… but if its a dx and hopefully a cheap plastic body, now i can complete my nikkors without resorting to 3rd partys…
or if its an fx… then this would be a transitory lens… can be used as an UWA on dx and a fisheye? on fx.
oh nikon, pls leak more details…
I don’t see why it couldn’t be real. Though, waht I’d REALLY love is if they came out with a Nikkor 10-24mm F2.8 G AF-S ED for FX
I have the Nikkor 24-70mm F2.8 G AF-S ED, so that would complement it very nicely, and I’d have a potential clean path all the way from 10mm to 200mm by eventually getting the Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8 lens. Probably nothing more than a pipe-dream though 
yeah.. the 14-24 2.8 has such a narrow FOV it’s almost useless…
o.O
amazing.
Does this thing need a tripod mount? It looks huge!
as an owner of the 14-24mm, sometimes I wish it went to 12mm.
10mm would totally rock. you could even use it on the DX toys and get 15mm equivalent!.
I’d so get this if it is real.
If this is fake, I would say that this is the best fake we’ve seen so far
I still think is real, but let me tell you – this one will be expensive.
Totally fake, look at the blurred overlapping edes? and what about the focus ring, look at the horizontal slits across the vertical grips on the focus. absolutely fake, but great photoshop-age.
The table doesn’t bother me: it just looks like a cheap fake wood-grain laminate in which the edges don’t line up. However, that only makes the shot legit if it wasn’t taken by Nikon or a Nikon marketing firm.
But what’s that yellow square that seems to overlap the infinity symbol? There’s something that’s not quite right there.
I’m gonna’ say “real”, but I was wrong about the 35mm DX and I was wrong about either the D300 or D700 (whichever one had the brochure released from some Chinese printing plant) — I thought the 35mm didn’t make strategic sense and there were so many typos and printing errors in the brochure that I thought it had to be fake, so what do i know?
As said, look at the “10″ white mark, obviously fake!
I agree it doesn’t quite look right… but I wouldn’t call it conclusive.
The bokeh on the table also doesn’t look right… it looks evenly blurred across the image.. instead of an increasing gradient.
Just doesn’t look right.
i’m calling fake on this one.
something in the photos just don’t seem right. if you look closely, the numbers and other stuff don’t line up….
at first pass i thought i was looking at the 14-24mm…. maybe it is.
If a fake, then I think it is an excellent fake. if real, then I think it will be an excellent lens. Expensive? The cost should be less than the 14-24, just because of the typical price diffirential between f/4 and f/2.8, however, given the apparent same build quality, it may not be that great of a price diffirential. In any case, I hope it is real and that it compares optically with the 14-24..
I will be surprised if this is a fake seeing as the table shot would be hard to fake. Hopefully we’ll see a 18-55 or similar lens following this as Nikon usually make a set of lenses like they did with the 12-24 & 24-70.
NIKON ! PLEASE I WANT A WIDE ZOOM WITH NO THAT CURVED LENS!
A 16-35 could be a great choice.
you know that curved buldge is probably what helps it do what it does.
It is like asking for a car that can do 200mph, give you 50mpg, and cost the same as a kia.
the 17-35mm is an excellent lens which is more suited to filter dependant guys. For protection, lens cap comes standard.
what’s wrong with the 17-35 2.8?
If it is nothing more than a photoshop’d 14-24, then they did an excellent job modifying the hood…
This looks like it’ll be FX and DX (G nomenclature?), and looks very real to me. . .it would hands down WHOOP the 14-24 in viewing angle (114 degrees for the existing 14-24), but, who cares, most people shoot wide open during the day with these; I used the 14-24 in low light situations, but clearly primes are more fit for that.
I suspect pricing, especially with the 14-24 going up to $1600-1900 in most places, should fall a shade below, just above the 12-24 f/4 ($880). MY BEST GUESS: $1199.
Try $2500. This one won’t be cheap. This is an extreme optical design, likely optimized to resolve for the D3x across an FX frame.
+1
really, $2500??
I really think this is a step up from the tired old 12-24 f/4. . .probably same number of elements and layout, it should just be a hair higher. . .I think if they trump the 14-24mm in price, they’ll kill those sales and have to really justify this one to the “specialist”
given the recent release of the 35 1.8 for DX only, they want SOLID money RIGHT NOW, so price of entry, expanse of target audience are key business strategies. . .they probably saw the Sigma 10-24mm KILLING their 12-24 market space, and are going to go head to head with this fixed f/4 killer. .
THAT IS, if this picture is real. . .strategically, it makes sense though. ..
“would hands down WHOOP the 14-24 in viewing angle (114 degrees for the existing 14-24),”
converselly, the 18-24 range is nice to have and it is still very wide without distorting much. Such range is very desirable in landscapes. If this lens is real, it is not replacing the 14-24mm (which is not even 2 years old), just complementing it. Not to mention f2.8.
“I used the 14-24 in low light situations, but clearly primes are more fit for that.”
I wonder if you used it as much as you claim. Except for weight, the 14-24mm zoom has superior IQ to both the nikon 14mm prime and canon 14mmL PRIMES! AND it lets you zoom compose AND it is f2.8. So I’m not sure what you mean by “appropiate” in this context. But don’t let this owner tell you so. Just research.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html
You can find similar conclusions all over the web. It is no wonder the 14-24mm is often called the new standard for which all other wide angles zooms are judged (and even primes!)
The 14-24mm rarely leaves my D700 these days and I do not expect this new lens to match it in terms of IQ. But please nikon prove me wrong! I’d love that.
Yet, it will be a very good complement for when you need extreme super wide angle, and do not need the speed of a 2.8 lens. If it is not a fake, I see myself using it when my 14-24mm is not wide enough…if there is such a thing.
I was saving up for the 14-24… Now if this one would be real… WOW! Exactly what I need for my panoramic images (see my website), 10mm on FX!!!
But looking at the hood… The 10.5mm DX needs the hood sawn off in FX, but this hood seems a bit large to me for 10mm….
And if I superimpose the pic of the 10-18 over the 14-24, the body of the lens is EXACTLY the same size. Highly suspect.
Furthermore, the pic with the white background seems a genuine Nikon pic at first sight, but upon closer inspection there are some flaws. 1st, the lighting only comes from the left; all the other newer Nikon lenses have light from left and right. 2nd, there is a lot of white background bleed at the edges of the hood, while all the other newer Nikon lenses have a wel defined edge against the background. 3rd, there is a reflection of the light in the distance scale on the left. 4th, it has the body side lens cap on the bottom, all the other newer Nikon lenses have not.
Conclusion: a photoshopped home made picture of a 14-24.
I agree. But good photoshop work.
What looks flawed is the lens front protection, it’s petal-shaped and there’s V-shaped cuts between the two longer and the two shorter parts (sorry, hard to describe). When one looks at the first photo there seems to be more space between the golden ring and the bottom of one of the V-shapes than in the photo where the lens lies on the table.
Also the rounding of the hood close to the front rubber focus ring looks uneven. Plus some more things.
Mad Photoshop skills , fake for sure…
everybody, wake up and smell coffee.
do you REALLY NEED that wide?
a lot of people finds 14-24mm WA-A-A-A-AY too wide on FX. for DX users, that lens could be helpful with 15-27mm compared to 21-36mm ((from 14-24mm)).
do you WANT or NEED it?
Wide is in the eye of the beholder. Just like there are some that can’t get enough reach for wildlife shots, there are those that can’t get wide enough for landscape shots…so, while there may be many that could care less, there are many that would want it, especially if fx, since it would give you 10mm on fx and 15mm on dx…best of both worlds.
This is why I bought the Sigma 12-24mm (FX). I used to own a Sigma 10-20mm (DX) which I mounted on a 35mm body, just for fun. Surprisingly it covered quite a bit of the frame and I was hooked. These lenses are great for walking around in cities and other places where you really can’t back up (like in the mountains where I live). I could not work without an ultrawide, and if this is a rectilinear full frame lens, I may well have to get it (and sell the Sigma).
those who say the 14-24mm is too wide, probably are the ones who do not need or want one. how about that?
this lens would be a dream for the rest of us who do not share that view. Ultra wide on DX and mindblowing on FX. For landscape work, such optic offers so many new possibilities it is hard to imagine.
“a lot of people finds 14-24mm WA-A-A-A-AY too wide on FX”
Really? Have yet to meet one of these people. Not saying they don’t exist. I’ve just never personally met one (or even heard of one until now, for that fact).
Have to say that I mounted a 14-24 on my D700 last weekend and it just didn’t seem wide ENOUGH. But hey- that’s just me.
The “10″ mark really looks suspicious. But even more the blur on the hood and on the table, where the hood comes close to the table. This doesn’t look realistic to me, and, furthermore, the wood surface has more sharpness again farther away from there.
Is a 10-18mm f/4 for FX realistic at all, I mean, could it actually be built like this? Remember the front element of the old 13mm, and that one was only f/5.6
The top composite image with the 12-24 DX and the 14-24 FX has something to offer: both the other lenses are set to exactly infinity and have no reflection over the focus-scale window… would the nikon product imaging team make such a mistake?
So obviously a fake. If it was DX and f4 it wouldn’t need to be so large. If it was FX it would make no sense, given that that it covers a range very similar to the 14-24, which has only just been released. Besides, it is so obviously a manipulated 14-24, it is identical in every way apart from the hood. Show me two other Nikon zoom lenses that look so similar.
However, were it true, it might insinuate an f/1:4 18-105 or similar.
Canon’s strong point has always been the pro-sumer F1:4 lens range.
I find this lens very limiting for my use. I would love for them to come out with 20-85mm F/4 VR instead! I would pay 1000 bucks for that lens!
The lens element protruding the lens looks fake, I’d have said possible in Dx form but a real stretch in Fx. I find the 14-24 wide enough so no interest to me.
You should give Jeff-C some explicit credit for here especially since that photo of the three lenses is his stated work and you lifted it from his post on DPreview.
Nope, I got it from the Chinese site and I gave credit to it. I did not know that jeff-c put it up first on dpreview. How do you know which post came out first? Timestamps?
actually I just did the calculation and the post on the Chinese site came 3 minutes before dpreview… of course given the server’s timestamps are correct
gottcha. I was referring to the image where jeff-c pasted the Chinese photo together with two other lenses for comparison. But you’ve added jeff-c now, so all is good.
no problem – I have no problem giving credit to the source of a rumor, the problem is that often the source is hard to identify, so to be fair I will add also a link to the post on dpreview
I’ve came across this rumor a couple of months ago from very reliable source.
I was complaining about wide angle DX lenses offering from Nikon (12-24 was too expensive, and my only option was that unreliable Sigma 10-20 etc …) and I was told that I should wait because Nikon is preparing 10-something lens that will be more than competitive to Sigma (and Canon 10-22) at somewhat higher price than Sigma.
Somehow I understood that it will be DX lens and that it will be10-24 (I am still using DX cameras, call me old-fashioned but I find them very useful), but I guess I was wrong.
This one looks very real to me and it is definitely FX (look at a size of that thing front elements that are preventing using a front filters by the way), and at 10-18 FX it makes more sense (I will be able to use it on DX and FX format and it will be very nice complement to 14-24), so if the price will be as I have understood before I am definitely buying it. Ideal landscape lens …
if it’s real, but a fisheye zoom, not a rectilinear wide. That’s why the 10-12-14-16 zoom markings are evenly spaced (they wouldn’t be on a lens design similar to the 14-24, look at the pic)
I’d still rather see a 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 for FX
likewise. but who said they are not coming? Yet I agree that a lens like this must have sucked a lot of R&D time and money which could have been put to better use on refreshing the prime lineup. only time will tell.
Despite this is real or fake, would be great if Nikon starts building a f/4 Pro line (cheaper than f/2.8), just like Canon.
BTW: I still don’t clearly understand why the camera prices get higher in U.S. and some other countries (here, SouthAmerica they didn’t change)
The japan recesion is strong, but it doesn’t explain directly the raise in prices by itself.
I suppose it is related to currency exchange.
Anyone got a clear table or graph wich shows Yen vs Dollar ?
Here they didn’t change much to explain the raise you are seeing in U.S. or U.K.
In the past 2 months they changed just a bit.
your first question can be answered if you research where gray market lenses come from and why they are cheaper.
your second question is answered by looking at the plunge on the GBP and the soaring of the YEN and the weak dollar.
The dollar is not weak. In fact its value has increased since wall street bad weeks, months ago, because lot of investor sold their shares (thus reflecting in Dow Jones decrease, the shares’ value were/are (still) getting lower) to get cash as security action; they feel better having dollars than shares of companies that are financially unstable, etc. ..
(BTW, about 1st thing, I never refered to gray market lenses nor their price)
Actually, Yen to Dollar currency exchange rates DO explain the increase in prices.
In the 2007 fiscal year, Nikon pegged the dollar at 120.163 Yen. For 4th fiscal quarter 09, Nikon believes it will come in at 90 Yen, which is a 34% drop. Today, the official exchange rate is 91.955.
It’s even worse against the Pound, which is now .704 to the dollar. In February of 2007, it was .513, which is a 37% drop. Pound to Yen is a 44% drop over the same period.
As much as I’d love a 10-18mm FX lens, this is definitely a manipulated 14-24mm. Cylindrical surfaces are tremendously difficult to fake in Photoshop, and irregularities in the shape of the lens hood reveal this photo’s falseness. In the first picture, the hood is not perfectly aligned on the left side below the gold ring; in the much-criticized third picture, look at the faceted appearance on the far-left portion of the hood, again below the gold ring. Clone stamp artifacts, perhaps? Also look at the section of the hood closest to the focusing ring in the third pic. It’s clearly not perfectly circular, bulging especially prominently on the far right side of the lens. I commend the Photoshop skills of whoever made this, but they weren’t infallible enough.
If you could really see this Nikon must offer you a job at the QC.
“… and irregularities in the shape of the lens hood reveal this photo’s falseness. In the first picture, the hood is not perfectly aligned on the left side below the gold ring; in the much-criticized third picture, look at the faceted appearance on the far-left portion of the hood, again below the gold ring…”
JH is right, this is clearly visible in the table-top photo.
I have checked images second time, and compared them with 14-24 images and I am not so convinced any more.
This could be a fake.
Good job spotting that right away.
Now, if this is a fake, its an extremely good one. Look at the markings in the distance scale. They are at the same position in both pictures, and they are different from the markings a 14-24 has. Now, this is a lot of effort to fake that. And – why wouldn’t they just use the 14-24 distance scale which is much easier to acquire (you can take it from a photo), especially seeing that noone here seems to have noticed it?
Yeah, the first number past infinity reads “1.5″, on the 14-24 it says “1″ if I’m not mistaken. Could mean that it’s real, or the guy just pasted the scale from another lens…
Right. Why should a 10-18mm f/4 show a longer distance first number than the 14-24 f2.8? This is not plausible at all.
Because of greater DOF with a shorter lens? Huh?
I call fake – firstly, if you zoom in on the pictures they appear to show blurring effects around the 12 and the 10 – the rim of the lens disappears completely. Secondly, the 10 in both images looks different and perhaps most importantly, why would Nikon release a 10-18 FX lens when it already has an excellent 14-24 released but 17 months ago!? This would not be cheap so it can’t be economically viable, although it would be usable by both DX and FX owners!
on the last image where the lens lay on the table, check the wood…you can see there’s a ‘line’ where the wood pattern is not connected. it’s quite common in 3D world…
also check the gold wording…on the 14-24 it is beveled…on the 10-18 it’s just flat…
so it’s 3D for me but a good 3D.
That same line is common place in furniture with veneers and laminates where two sheets join together. The table in the photo is exactly how it looks in real life, so I am not sure whyit is that you think this indicates it is a fake. This is extremely common in cheaper furniture, kitchen countertops, and low-end flooring. The lens might be photoshopped or a fake, but the table in no way indicates this is the case.
The bottom lens cap on the first image looks rather suspect. Notice how it flattens out a bit. From a lighting point of view, the highlights are also a bit.
A strange focal length for Nikon to bring out, esp. on FX. Reasons:
1. No filter threads (but impossible with this focal length anyway), so some landscapers may be disappointed.
2. 17-35 AF-S needs a redesign badly to work on FX. Focus on this first, please.
3. 12-24 DX is in need of a redesign to make it wider for landscapers. This 10-18 would be great on DX but the lack of filter threads is a deal killer.
Still, if it were a real lens, this together with the 14-24 would be the ultra-wide kings.
Simon
-I think the 17-35 is history. Great lens if you got it.
-if this is true, you may get an 18-70 or something. Use that with your filters.
-cokin x-pro gives decent filters to the 14-24. it’s huge and crazy and you may get vignetting at 14mm. but hey, filter heads will be pleased.
-forget polaizers. they don’t work well with wide angles.
-for protection use your cap.
Do you really think we are talking about polarizer? how stupid! but with an ND 400 you can start shooting serious seaside lanscape…
China source. Fake, end of word.
I’m calling BS. There is pattern smudging/stretching below the zoom ring and at the outer edges of the integrated hood on the outside. And the end lens element would come close to protruding from the hood if it was so bulbous This would make it open to both damage and flare.
Also the rings inside the hood are at an odd angle on the outside edges. I’ve never seen a lens hood with a pattern of rings in it that isn’t symmetrically circular (lacking grooved rings inside, yes, but asymmetric, no). Also the outer rings don’t line up with the inner. The photochopper is observant, but doesn’t know a heck of a lot about cameras.
A lot of people want a lens like this. This is a gap in Nikon’s line. I think we won’t see a nice lens like this from Nikon, because it’s a deliberate decision from the marketing division. If you want wide, you drop the dough and go pro. Or buy 3rd party. They set the bar with a truly killer wide angle for FX. Now it’s time for primes and DX lenses that make them money on volume. Don’t expect a 70-200VR-II any time soon either. Not until after things recover.
Will the chopper please come forward?
wow, you sure sound like the expert who knows exactly what’s coming yet doesn’t tell….Just FYI lenses take years to develop. whatever you see this year has been in the pipleline for a long time. If nikon planned a 70-200mm update for this year and it is all but completed, it truly doesn’t matter what people think at this point. The lens will simply be released. Likewise with this lens.
You see you don’t just let millions of dollars in R&D sit there and collect dust. If anything releasing products makes you stay competitive for when a recovery comes, you don’t get caught with your pants down.
then again, if you understood all that, you’d know the recent DX lens wasn’t something nikon thought you may like because they read comments on dpreview during the christmas break.
Wow. That was = epic fail at trolling.
i just want a nice wide DX prime. 12mm? 14mm 2.8? that would be awsome.
something small i can put in a vest pocket and rear mount gel filter
If it es real it will most likely be a fisheye zoom. You decide if thats practical for landscape.
I wouldve prefered a compact 17-40 /4,0 FX as a major competitor offers… But you cant have it all.
Regards.
All Nikon fisheyes say FISHEYE NIKKOR on them – a label missing on this lens.
Good point…. I think this is a maybe, I can’t tell if it’s fake or not.
It absolutely, positively cannot be a fisheye. Why? The diagonal FOV would exceed 180 degrees, and this built-in hood would vignette. Badly. Also, Nikon fisheyes say “Fisheye” on them.
“this built-in hood would vignette”
I’m not a pixel-peeper so I can’t judge the Photoshoppedness, but the vignetting w/ the built-in hood is the first thing that popped into my mind.
Seems fake, but have to say that I’m hoping for it to be real
Great Photoshop work!
I call this real. It is part of the lens line for prosumers. The next lens to be published will be 18-70 F/4 and 70-200 F/4. I’ve been expecting this for a long time. Cheers~
It’s a gold banded lens…that’s all pro.
It’d be same level as 12-24 f/4, so it’s pro but not same build as f/2.8 series.
So no proof yet this is fake. But IMO, if coming, an f/4 zoom line should start at midrange, 24-120, for example, more public for that one. Let’s wait and see.
No need for a 10mm DX lens to have a front element that bubbles that much.
Have another beer….
Guys…this is a joke. At 10-18, this thing is going to suck in light…there is no need to limit it to f4.
Not entirely true – remember the last time Nikon did a range-topping ultrawide rectilinear lens, the 13mm? It was f/5.6 and had a front element so big it had its own postal code. Modern asph. designs have improved on this, but large apertures are still difficult to design into lenses pushing the boundaries of what’s optically possible.
There will be an announcement today, maybe not from Nikon.
U r right ! I see Fuji made an announcement today….wow, how did you know ?
Yes, yes, I’m a smart-arse.
*****Thanks to SM for the photo overlay!!*****
…and already 2803 votes – wow!
The real giveaway that it’s a fake is that an f/4 lens would not be that big.
Thom Hogan gives some hint on this post:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=31022121
Quote:
“Yes and no. DX would be equally served by a 24-105mm and 70-200mm f/4 lens. Thus, it’s really only at the wide end that DX suffers. I suspect that Nikon thinks the 14-24mm f/2.8 and an upcoming lens fixes your needs, especially since the 16-85mm DX is pretty good. ”
From the context of the thread, Thom might be giving hint at an up-coming pro f/4 wide angle lens.
“yes and no” – typical Thom
thom is getting less and less useful. it seems like these days he spends most of his time engaging trolls on dpreview and getting a little bit huffy and even rude. today he was disparaging someone’s photographic ability over there.
You may not like the way he writes on dpreview, but there’s no doubt that his predictions on new nikon products are quite accurate.
A circular fisheye lens wouldn’t have a petal hood.
It looks real – if it’s a fake, someone is wasting their considerable talent! It only makes sense to me if it’s FX format – the 12-24mm/f4 is still current, and this would steal sales from a lens that’s still in production
It’s fake. Will be DX
wow…
Import the shots into PS and crank up the saturation 100%. And then see what a real product image looks like. And see what this fake looks like.
dude, all I see are jpeg artifacts. I even see those in my own images of lenses. nice try but not ciggar.
Well, look closer. You should see that all real shots turn blue, but that the fake shot stays grey (meaning it’s completely colorless – something you don’t get when you do a color photograph), except in the areas that have been manipulated.
Look at the table guys mid lower-right … seems the table has been joined or something
joined tables…. you know they are not made of solid pieces of wood right?
that pattern is just painted or glued to the table. they come in all different colors and styles. go look at any cheap table and you’ll see this.
the pattern mostly continuous. even the cheap one. It’s a 3D rendering. check out the blur area. the blur seems strange because in the real world the blur effect is gradual…while this one is the same…
you can see also the gold wording is not beveled like others nikkor lens.
maybe. I’ve seen plenty of tables with broken patterns. that alone doesn’t prove that it is a fake.
blur analisys cannot be made by just observing and judging what looks ‘right’. Every lens has a different defocus area patterns. Some blurs that look photoshoped are actually just defocus properties of the glass used.
The wooden table that is…
It is a computer model of the real lens, made by Nikon, probably, and then used to generate all the excitement at the right time and check the reaction of the potential market. We could see that lens soon, or it could be something that was never made into a real thing. It serves the purpose either way. It could be disinformation targeted at the competitors also.
It actually looks like a Canon wide angle zoom with the red line removed and Nikon text added.
LOL!
Which cannon smartass?
off course!, it looks like a canon telephoto painted black AND then they added the golden line over the red line.
well guys he figured out. canon was teasing us. they knew we would never see this lens at canon.com
nothing to see here. move on move on.
it’s people like you and comments like these which give newbies a bad name.
it is a 14-24mm as en photoshopped ..if you blow it up 200% and print it out life sixe it is exactly the same dimensions as a 14-24mm. coincidence or photoshop ?
What we need is a 8-16 F/4.0 DX and a 24 f/1-4 FX
oh you guys are such idiots. okay look at 14-24mm, you notice the hood extends further beyond the golden ring for the zooming ability. okay, now look at this fake… no room for zooming ability and it’s not possible for the front glass to extend in or out.
im surprised no one noticed it.
£20 says it’s fake, period.
maybe that’s because the lens zooms out far enough that the front is right at the hood, or even beyond it. it would have to, if it’s really a 10mm rectilinear FX lens.
how can you make such silly statement since you can’t even see the front of the lens? In the 14-24mm, the front element is held by a retractable cylinder. The hod just wraps around this cylinder. The front element moves independantly and it could stick as far out as it needs. this is no different that any zoom lens with a hood ever made. why would you make such silly comment?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm/images/D3R_4636-cutaway-600.jpg
The Sigma 12-24 also works this way.
I think it is real. But I am getting more and more upset with all those
expensive slow zooms from the last years. I need a fast and sharp
wide angle prime. I should change from Sigma to Zeiss or directly
to Canon.
even if it’s real or not, i just love this site!! it keeps my hopes up that one day nikon will release some new or updated lenses.
Most zooms I see are never as uniform in the zoom at different focal lengths. Look at the 10/12/14/16/18 markings and how evenly spaced it is and compare it to a zoom you have now.
it is hard to tell if they are evenly spaced or if the difference is not observable because of the cylindrical distortion.
remember the 14-24 goes down by even numbers until it sticks the 15 in between the 14 and the 16.
if this lens went 12 11 10, it may look as expected then. it is hard to judge from the given angles.
would you ever seriously expect a product shot to be on someone’s tacky wooden desk?
normally when you prepare a brouchure you select from hundreds of images. there is noting to suggest these will be actually used, even if they are real.
Fake. Just look at the horizontal pattern inside the hood. The 2 side patterns are angled.
I can’t be DX if it has an N on it right?
By te way this lens is so fake..
Considering how many people purchase the Sigma 10-20 instead of the Nikon 12-24 due to that extra 2mm……then this would be a smart move by Nikon.
I wish so much it was real…..
this MUST be fake
and all the photos are made from photoshop
JUST LOOK AT THE LAST photo
and you’ll see thousands of marking that shows it’s been ps-ed
the wood pattern … the zoom ring … and even the zoom marking
did Nikon ever mark their lens evenly ?
(i mean 10mm, 12mm, 14mm, 16mm, and 18mm !)
I think a missing 11 between the 12 and the 10 is hardly grounds to call it bogus.
FAKE
look at the lens hood. if you take a close look at the ridges on the inner part they angle upwards where on the 14-24 they angle normally, circular.
That would be needed for the increased angle of view.
It maybe real but what is the point to have 10-18 the zoom range is so limited. I will not carry this rock with me and not to mention that the extra ordinary effort to maintain the curve element. 17-35 will be a better combo. If that is the case, Nikon will not risk to release this lens.
I am hoping Nikon will release an updated version of the dated 17-35.
the difference between 10mm and 18 ismm quite noticeable at these ultra wide angles. So limited is not the word I would use to describe it. On the contrary, if you are doing ultra wide angle photography, this lens gets you huge flexibility.
I don’t think you’ll see an update to the 17-35mm for a long time (if ever). Nikon strategy to the f2.8 line is 14-24-70-200. If this lens is real, you may get your wish, but in the f4 line. something like 10-18-?-200-400.
Alas, it is fake.
It has absolutely the same shape as 14-24 with slightly distorted petal hood.
I think that, for someone good with PS, it will require 2-3 days to make it, no point on doing this though unless we organize a contest on who could do it first.
I would love something like this, but unfortunately this one is not going to happen.
If I had a dollar for everybody who said the D700 was a photoshop fake and would never happen/wasn’t possible, I could bail out GM by now.
everyone hated on the D700 that much? I had no idea. . .well, I believe in the 10-18mm, and I’m going to hope that they’ll price it between the $900 12-24 f/4 and the now overpriced $1699 14-24mm. . . .
The “distorted pedal hood” would fit with the increased FOV of a 10-20mm lens. It probably doesn’t really matter to me if it is real – I can’t afford it this year anyway!
If it is real, and it is an FX lens (which the lack of DX marking would indicate), it will be the widest non-fisheye lens ever made for 35mm format. Previously this was the nikkor 13mm ƒ/5.6.
Also, if it is real, none of you here will be able to
1) Afford it
2) get one, they will probably only make a small number
previously, it was the 12-24/4.5-5.6 Sigma
from a marketing point of view:
DX: tokina is stealing a lot of market share with both, 12-24 and 11-16 lenses. Nikon’s have to do something if they want to keep their clientele. 10-18 would be complementary to the poor quality 12-24 lens, and could replace it for some super-wide maniacs. FX: should be fish eye, but could be sensational if it would cover full frame, the rest could be done in Capture NX2 – no distortion – and could also be used for film!. Since there are rumours on a tiny FX model (D 50 or similar), it would mean that DX will become obsolete. Could be possible sooner or later.
I say fake. If Nikon was to design this lens it would be a lot faster that f/4, it would be at least a f/2.8. I like the wider angle but would only buy it if it was faster. Why spend high dollars on an f/4.
I think it’s fake, look at the focal length markings, they are evenly spaced in a algebraic way rather than a logarithmic way, like real lenses.