Comments on: So, was it fake?

By: kern.justin

kern.justin — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:58:37 +0000

Lens spacings are determined by the rotation afforded to the lens barrel by turning the zoom ring. To space the “known” focal lengths evenly on a zoom is simply a matter of the ratio between the degree of rotation of the zoom ring and that of the lens barrel – there are kit lenses with a constant ratio and you therefore see the 18mm and 24mm focal lengths are right next to one another (AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED) and there are professional lenses that afford a greater degree of control over the focal length by spacing them more evenly (AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED). Therefore I’m not convinced that the zoom spacing is a piece of evidence one can use against this image.

I’m torn on the lens – on the one hand it could be a piece of hardware that came out of Nikon’s optical R&D not as a high volume seller but as a prototype. You might expect a prototype to utilize an available chassis (hence the similarity to the form factor of the 14-24). On the other hand, the lens looks rather finished and therefore the distortions in the image and the similar form between this and the 12-24 are troubling. One thing I can say for sure is that Nikon is an optical company that makes camera bodies and whatever lenses are up its sleeves are to be an exciting addition!

By: Micah

Micah — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:53:06 +0000

Impossible for you. Go shoot some more. Try and reproduce it maybe. You’ll get it eventually.

By: Micah

Micah — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:51:33 +0000

Amen. Are people still on about this?

By: Jon Paul

Jon Paul — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:53:52 +0000

I don’t really care either way, but did the Chinese site say anything about the other picture? nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/203312_1234769002.jpg

Sweet legendary sofa!

By: Zoetmb

Zoetmb — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:12:07 +0000

I’m not saying it’s real, but some of the things they complain about, like the wood grain in the table, are not legit criticisms in my opinion. That simply looks like a cheap formica fake-wood pattern table that has a seam. So maybe the criticism is fake (or simply wrong.)

The only thing that bothers me are those artifacts along the top edge of the lens (where three of the arrow are pointing.)

Time will tell. I’ve been wrong a lot lately (I didn’t believe the 35mm DX was real) so since I earlier voted that this was real, it’s probably fake.

By: UF

UF — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:03:16 +0000

One would expect it’s real because the usual suspects on the photo sites aren’t talking about it because of their non-disclosure agreements.

It’s a damn good fake if it is.

“Finally get the legendary sofa, and ha ha
Recent hole was almost filled” – Food for thought.

By: Lance

Lance — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:06:46 +0000

Or PS just to remove any other data tracability of the image?

By: Lance

Lance — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:05:34 +0000

Hmm…

By: NikonMan

NikonMan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:47:46 +0000

Something no-one has considered re the focus planes in th table photo . . .

if I took a photo of a lens (under NDA) and was to leak it, I would photoshop out any parts of the desk that would allow identification as my desk!
I can seee how a quick PS job to obscure who leaked it could produce ALL the faults that we see in this photo.

Technically speaking this lens IS possible
1: it would be an expensive lens
2: it needs that huge size at f4 to allow it to be rectilinear and cover FX
3: it is NOT part of an f4 range – just that f2.8 would make the lens so much harder to build (with quality) this lens, if it exists is a top of the range pro lens with build quality and optical quality to make Canon et-al take note

By: Aleksey

Aleksey — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:34:45 +0000

Like a said before, it is a computer model of some lense which may or may not go in production. Personaly, I belive we will see it some day. May be it will be fish to rectangular zoom or maybe it will be DX. The only thing we know for sure about it , is the size of it’s rear cup. I suggest that somebody get busy and calculate its relative sizes based on these and see if it plausible. Even if sizes are indeed off, it could still be fake picture of something real made before that something was actualy build. Hence all the errors in sizes and markings and so on.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:19:12 +0000

Do you know something we don’t?

By: MB

MB — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:02:10 +0000

So, was it fake? Yes!
Was it a good work? Well yes, images were great; they gave us a day of joy when we took a first glimpse on them and than a day of sorrow after we examined them thoroughly.
For those of you, who really loved this lens, don’t be sad, Nikon will release something similar very soon now, and it will be affordable. Yes!

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:34:54 +0000

If I were Nikon and I was worried about a product leak, I would commission a fake photo to throw people off the scent

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:25:48 +0000

I still think it’s real. 50% of us will be laughing at the other 50% when it’s revealed if this is fake or not. Quite a few people on my local Craigslist thought it was real as I’ve never seen so many 12-24 DX and 14-24s for sale at once. This is too good to be fake. The wood? C’mon people clearly it’s a wood veneer that’s been done poorly. Why someone would take a photo of a yet to be released lens at the veneer joint is puzzling. They either didn’t think about it or wanted to mess with people and put a lot of thought into placing it here. I don’t think this lens is outside of Nikon’s ability. Yes Sigma has a 12-24 full frame that doesn’t get great reviews, but that is consistent with Sigma… Great ideas but always pulling up short in the final product. If Nikon can command a $2000 price tag, they can engineer whatever they want.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:57:48 +0000

+1 for you!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:46:59 +0000

It is not because the seam in the wood desktop, it is the trace of Photoshop manipulations around the lens. Look carefully around the lens where the arrows point at, you can see typical blurs resulted from stamp tool.

You can’t see these traces easily in a picture full of colors. But they will show if you tweak the contrast in different color channel. And such thing would never show in a real photo.

The person draw these arrows said very clear in his post, he is not sure if the lens is real, however the picture is likely a fake.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:42:13 +0000

Fuel a rumor ? On a rumor site ? Every post does that….

People can believe what they want, but I feel certain if people pay attention to the many reasons given in the many posts about these shots both here and on other sites, and study the images, they’ll start to see lots of little problems that just wouldn’t be there if the photos were straight out of a camera.

But hey, if anyone here wants to maintain that they can’t be fake and every reason is rubbish, well, you can lead a horse to water….

By: acarodp

acarodp — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:34:14 +0000

I’m really surprised to see people do not get this, bu if this is fake, the focal plane in the table image is actually one of the most brilliant part of the work. If you think at the way the lens is seen from a diagonal angle, you realize, I think, that the parts which look in focus are exactly the ones that should. And this was hard to get right, because, as your post proves, their placement is not obvious.
On the other hand, everybody seems to believe this is a 3D render, and 3D render can simulate OOF very well, so if it is a 3D render fake, you would EXPECT the OOF rendition to be the proper one.

So I stand by my first onservation: if it is a fake, it was done really well by some guy who has some good talent and the proper tools. And we cannot really hope to find a proof with such small images.

By: the reason is

the reason is — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:06:50 +0000

you see it is arguments like that which make no sense that fuel the rummor. It is impossible to look at the blur and table and judge the lens as fake or not. I can take pictures of my 14-24, that if you didn’t know it was real, you could look at the blur and pass an “expert” judgement callig it fake. That’s because blur analysis is a myth rather than an actual science when people just stare at something and say “looks right/wrong”. In my office there are no less than 200 tables with laminated printed patters that suddenly break in the middle of the table. just like the one seen.

The fact of the mater remains, besides the close resemblance to the 14-24, there isn’t a single conclusive proof that it is fake. Unlike with other fakes, people find the original image and post it next to the doctored one. Since they haven’t found one, and there aren’t any glaring signs of photoshop manipulation, they are now claiming 3D rendering.

IMO that’s just an excuse of an analysis rather than objective study.

By: not necessarily

not necessarily — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:53:31 +0000

It doesn’t really have to be larger. Have you seen the sigma?. People seem to forget the sigma IS 12mm and they throw the 13mm nikon made in 1979.

to put it simple: lens technology HAS come a long way. If nikon made a 13mm prime today it would be much smaller than the 1979 design and produce better images. It all comes down to optical design and manufacturing techniques of 2009 vs 1979. Today manufacturing glass with fancy curves is not as expensive as in 1979. So you can end up with smaller lenses volume wise.