Comments on: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 10-18mm f/4 G ED N?

By: john

john — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:44:06 +0000

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.

By: waykuhl

waykuhl — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:33:52 +0000

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.

By: getanalogue

getanalogue — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:55:28 +0000

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.

By: mio

mio — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:24:02 +0000

previously, it was the 12-24/4.5-5.6 Sigma

By: John

John — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:27:26 +0000

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

By: connor

connor — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:17:07 +0000

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.

By: shivas

shivas — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:59:28 +0000

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. . . .

By: PJS

PJS — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:51:13 +0000

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!

By: D700

D700 — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:47:05 +0000

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.

By: MB

MB — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:32:38 +0000

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.

By: PJS

PJS — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:57:11 +0000

That would be needed for the increased angle of view.

By: markings

markings — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:52:32 +0000

I think a missing 11 between the 12 and the 10 is hardly grounds to call it bogus.

By: keep hoping

keep hoping — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:48:25 +0000

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.

By: Calvin

Calvin — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:38:39 +0000

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.

By: mike

mike — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:32:01 +0000

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.

By: calvin

calvin — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:06:12 +0000

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 !)

By: Larry N.Bolch

Larry N.Bolch — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:27:16 +0000

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.

By: Nikonville

Nikonville — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:57:10 +0000

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…..

By: d4n131m3j14

d4n131m3j14 — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:42:33 +0000

By te way this lens is so fake..

By: d4n131m3j14

d4n131m3j14 — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:40:33 +0000

I can’t be DX if it has an N on it right?