< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

2 more (Nikon AF-S Nikkor 10-24mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED DX)

More images of the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 10-24mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED DX lens available here.

nikon-af-s-nikkor-10-24mm-135-45g-ed-dx2

nikon-af-s-nikkor-10-24mm-135-45g-ed-dx

Source

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Joe

    Looks like it’s real! Woohoo?

    • MB

      Yes it is real, finally.
      Told you so some time ago…
      Now we should expect D5000 and D3000 …

      • Tom

        The second photo looks fake; the white writing is not set parallel to the focus ring. Lens might be real, but that shot looks very dodgy.

        • MB

          It seams like it was taken with mobile phone, and yes it is ugly.
          But the lens is real and that is all that matters.

  • WoutK89

    And I was right about the 77 mm filter thread. I will definitely buy one of these :-) I was looking at all the alternatives, but they won’t give me the same feel and thought as a Nikkor will ever give me. So thx Nikon if this one is available soon.

  • http://vyperphotos.com Vyper

    I am looking forward to a comparison to the new Tamron and the older Sigma 10mm zooms and possibly a comparison to the 11-16 Tokina.

  • Eli

    This has me excited, because it will probably be paired with a new camera body. It wouldn’t make too much sense for it to be released with a D40 replacement (most entry level camera users, like myself, start out with an 18-XX lens), but the D40 is in the most need for an update. I’d love to see a D300 replacement too, to tempt me away from the D700.

    • http://www.fotograf-stuttgart.com Fotograf

      Well D40 is the last which needs update. It is camera with CCD, perfect high ISO imagery and sync time.

      • Jeff

        Perfect sync yes. High ISO? no.

  • Caprea

    Well, ok, there it is, it’s a 10-24mm 1:3.5-4.5 G DX lens with a 77mm filter thread. Now, since he (she) got the lens, couldn’t them please post some shots with it? I don’t care much about cosmetic details anymore, I want to see how good or bad the lens is.

  • shivas

    WAIT, is everyone forgetting we saw this same 10-24 awhile ago PS’ed into the 14-24 body?

    That means that “hoax” or “leak” then was right!

    Which also means we’ll be getting some juicy bodies soon!!!

    I am still disappointed at how slow the lens is, but at least it accepts filters, will out shine the 12-24 f/4 (which I thought was crap), and give a little competition to Sigma’s new 10-20 f/3.5.

    • Jeff

      NO. You are thinking of a 10-18 f/4 FX lens that was a 3D render. I don’t see how you made the jump that because these lens appears real (I too think it is) that what was obviously fake, since no one has ever even made a 10mm prime for FX that wasn’t a circular fisheye lens, and all of a sudden here comes one in a zoom. Such BS

      • Maxime

        Aw, you beat me, that’ll teach me reading all those comments! :P

      • http://micahmedia.com Micah

        Hey Jeff, go check the comments in the previous post. We’re all waiting to see your work online.

        • Jeff

          ok, since ‘rich’ college students have websites I’ll be sure to send you a link….

          • http://micahmedia.com Micah

            Huh? If this is a joke, I don’t get it. Just like I didn’t get your previous sarcasm.

            If you’re claiming I’m a rich college student, well you missed the boat there. If you’re claiming you’re a poor college student can can’t get any pics online, well you lost me there too.

            It sounded like you were trying to claim you have an FX camera and a 14-24. How does a poor college student own that gear and claim poverty?

            It costs me $84 a year to have a website. That’s chump change compared to the cheapest FX body and certainly compared to any piece of Nikon branded gear. Flickr is free. All the social networking sites have free image hosting. Who can’t afford free?

            Man, I’m not picking on you, but I just don’t get where you’re coming from. I’m just trying to understand. Cut down on the sarcasm and ribbing and say what you mean.

            Otherwise this discourse is running something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ona-RhLfRfc

          • Jeff

            Monty-Python much appreciated. :P

    • Maxime

      Wasn’t it a 10-18 f4?

    • Tom

      You think the pro-grade 12-24 is crap ? I take it you’ve never owned one.

      • RumpelHund

        Got a 12-24/4 at my D80 in past days and happily traded it in for the D700 since I was never really happy with it: way too slow (usually use 1.4 and 1.8 lenses, so f4 looks like night) and sharpness was not any way as good as my other nikons. Would have preferred a 12mm faster and lighter fixed focal length.

        The shop took it with a sigh and at very low price (some 300euros) since they had three used ones already without anyone interested.
        Competition’s wideangle-dx-zooms go wider, are faster and sharper in all tests (tamron/tokina or something that kind).

        I guess nikon reacted on this development with this new wider and a little faster lens. Now selling a 12-24 will become impossible.

        BTW: Who uses something except the widest view of these wide-angle- zooms anyway? Why not fixed length instead of these heavy, dark and expensive zooms.
        To get a tighter frame takes less than a meter, so who zoomes these at all?

      • http://micahmedia.com Micah

        The 12-24 has a nice build, but the IQ was sub-par on the ones I’ve laid paws on. Overpriced and didn’t compare well to the 10-20 Sigma I had (and even that could’ve been improved on). Would it get the job done? Maybe, but a heavy expensive lens that isn’t all that sharp qualifies as a dog in my book. A big heavy expensive lens like the 17-55 on the other hand is a thing of beauty because the image quality is so damned good. That sucker is sharp at all but the smallest apertures.

        It’s not so bad that it would get in the way of taking a stunning picture. If you own one and it works for you, cheers. But I was quite disappointed that a lens of a third party manufacturer could outperform Nikon gear at a third of the price.

        • Tom

          Flare and ghosting. The 12-24 is the only ultra-wide zoom that hasn’t left me with hours of fruitless PP. Time is money.

          It’s true they have become the “unwanted” ultra-wide new, but that simply means they are a second-hand bargain.

  • vahid

    ITS FAKE!!!
    thats a 24-120

    t e f f f f…

  • http://nilshot.com Zach

    I think these kinds of lenses are great for “serious hobbyists”. But for somebody like me, who wants to go pro, lenses are a long term investment that inevitably heads towards buying an FX-class camera.

    Can you shoot weddings with a D300-class camera and get great results? Definitely. But I sure wouldn’t want to spend my entire career that way.

    On the other hand, if the higher end DX cameras reach the D3x/5D mkii/A900 megapixel range in the next few years, using a DX lens on them won’t be as big of an issue because you’ll still be left with a respectable 10-12 megapixel photo.

    Looks like at least Canon is pushing in that direction with the new 15 MP rebel.

    • Willis

      Personally, If I were making the transition to FX, I’d first buy some decent Pro glass. That’ means saving up for the 24-70. Then I’d buy a D700. So I’m out $4k so far. Then I’d probably pony up another 2k for the 70-200. I’d use the 70-200 on my old DX body for the extra reach (aparently its not all that sharp on FX corners anyway), and leave the 24-70 on my D700.

      I doubt I’d wind up in many situations where I needed the 70-200 & a wide angle at the same time, so I’d switch it out with the new Nikon, or the Tokina 11-16 (which I own and love) on my DX body.

      After spending the 6k above, I might start to think about saving up for the FX wide zoom… maybe. I still need a good Macro lens, so that would probably take precedent.

      Of course, by the time I can manage to scratch together 8K for photo equipment, the whole game will probably have changed LOL.

    • http://micahmedia.com Micah

      I was using a D2x for weddings and decided to move up to a d700. After comparing raw files from them, I decided against it. For the price of a d700 I got a d300 and a d90. (2100 total for both so less than a d700 really). This is my solution for today, because I’m shooting right now.

      Looking at your site, you’ve got a good eye. Heck, maybe even two. And you’re working with an a700. Are you changing systems? If so, why? Do you feel like the gear is holding you back or is it just GAS? (gear acquisition syndrome)

      A couple months back I ran across landscape I shot on a d70 with a 180/2.8. Man, so sharp! And at 20×30 it still looks damn good. Makes me wonder why I upgraded. Then I remember that I had the money and I wanted a big camera to impress clients. Clients don’t know cameras. They just see a big camera and are impressed. I coulda gotten a 3rd party grip for the d70 and clients would’ve been none the wiser. Hell, for the money I coulda bought two d200′s with grips. Live and learn.

      Now I’ve got two cameras with live view, better high ISO and auto ISO with flash. Was is worth it?

    • Pells

      I own a D700, a 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. Not listing it to sound cool, but the bottom line is I see a SERIOUS need for D300, and being PRO doesn’t mean full frame. I took a workshop with very well known adirondack photographer who only shoots with a D300 and 18-200 most of the time (when he isn’t using prime lenses). For weddings, sure, the d700 would be fine. But you don’t need it. If you want to shoot in the 14-18mm range then yeah you can get the D700, but with this new lens and the D300 or even D2X you would be fine. PRO and FX are not the same thing.

  • Jamie

    Cool. Looks like this lens will be something to replace my Sigma 10-20 (which is an awesome lens BTW). Just have to see what the IQ is like.

    • Jamie

      Dammit! Just looked at the other photos of this lens in the previous blog post.

      It’s fake.

      Dammit. :(

  • anony

    IT’S FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE!

  • Anonymous

    didn’t anyone forget the 10-24mm f/4 that got “leaked” like last month?

    EVERYONE fell for it… we got just a 35mm 1.8G AF-S DX instead.

    so, let’s not fall for this one until nikon says it’s real via an announcement.

    to me, it looks like someone cut off the front part from original 12-24mm and put on the 24-120mm lens then fixed the golden logo (DX, nikon, 10-24mm, etc) then add the focal length numbers (10, 12, 15, etc) in photoshop… REALLY good photoshop job.

    kudos to this photoshopper

    • North75

      The lens a few months ago was a 10-18….
      I’m not buying the photoshop explanations… too many views to fake. This lens has details that aren’t on other lenses. At least not in this combo…it would be an awful amount of work to fake.

      • North75

        Oh, and make sure you look at the photos on the source chinese webpage before judging the pics… for some reason they look different here, making them look somewhat fake.

  • jsa

    It’s just a fake, poorly presented by nikon marketing, to make you think its sneaky camera phone snaps.

    The purpose of the marketing exercise is to prevent wide buyers getting the new sigma f3.5, or buying the tokina 11-16, fixed on paper aperture, f2.8. Nikon hope to have the 9-18mm F2 DX VR out in about 10 years and hope we all wait instead of buying one of the other two.

    Cheers

    John

    • North75

      If you want to say its a fake as in a mockup… then that could be possible. Not sure if Nikon would do something like that… but its not another lens that was photoshopped.

    • Jeff

      F/2, really?, in 10 yeas they won’t bother making any decent DX glass, certainly not an f/2 zoom for DX.

      • jsa

        Yeah I’m being really silly.

        The decent Nikkor DX only glass is really limited right now, never mind wait 10 years, but at least the longer FX glass works fine on DX.

        Nikon made the claim the D300 was the pro DX body.

        The only thing FX glass doesn’t cover for DX is the wide end. Nikon need to do a really wide fast pro DX lens.

        I mostly shoot the long end but a nice wide comes in handy. I ended up with the 11-16 compromise, but am not that impressed with the error in the aperture.

        Cheers

        John

  • Henry Nikon Fan

    Fake or not, does not matter to me. I will not buy any more DX lenses.

    I do not think that DX is dead, I just think that the main future of DX will be consumer cameras and ultimately not semi-pro or pro level cameras. These will be FX.

    Based on this I have sold my DX lenses and moved over to all Full Frame lenses in anticipation of this.

    DX is great and will be around indifinately, but not at the higher end levels.

    With regards to this lens it looks nice if it is real, but why would I want another variable aperture zoom lens. It is though at a different range than all of the other 18-whatever DX lenses, but we do have the AF-S DX 12-24mm F/4 lens already. If this lens is considerably cheaper than that lens then it makes sense. I do question that though based on the pricing of the AF-S DX VR 18-200mm lens compared to the AF-S DX VR 16-85mm lens. These two are almost the same price.

    • Nikkorian

      The higher end level lenses for DX will be supplied not by Nikon but by Sigma, Tokina!!

  • Dan

    It looks like a Photoshopped 12-24 F4 to me, because the 18 and 20 in the zoom ring have been bunched up together to make room for the 10mm focal length. Wide gap in the 12 and 15 range but it gets bunched up in the 18 and 20?
    The 12-24 had a smaller gap between focal length 18 and 20 (though not beside each other) but the gaps between 20-24, 12-15 and 15-18 were very similarly spaced.
    The angle of perspective between the 24 in the zoom ring and the M/A in the AF switch also don’t match.
    And of course the width digits in the zoom ring.

    • Shia

      I noticed the same thing. Looks like a bad photoshop to me.

  • http://nikonkrab.multiply.com/ HDZ

    Test.

  • Dennis

    Does anyone find it odd that this lens is made in China?

    I know of some fixed focal length Nikon lens that are made in China, but I don’t know of any Nikon consumer zooms that are made in China. I thought they are made in Thailand.

    Dennis

    • made in

      some are made in red china, some in thailand, some in japan. Their lowest-end stuff seems to come from china since they can price it even lower that way. The thai lenses seem to be in the mid-end, and the japanese lenses at the top cream.

      Just to be safe don’t lick it, let it touch your children and under no circumstances should you let your pets play with it.

  • Crabby

    This is confusing. The Nikkor 12-24mm DX is a “pro” lens, based on the gold stripe around the lens at its front and its price. If this lens if real, it’s lower quality and somewhat wider range.

    I’m also confused why Nikon would put its efforts into the wide end. So many of us have been waiting for a revised 300mm f/4 and 80-400mm for so very long. (It appears that making a 400mm f/4 is impossible for Nikon; I’ve thrown in the towel on that much needed lens.) Ultimately, the reason that pros keep with DX bodies is for the reach at the long end.

    • low

      the 12-24mm remains a pro DX lens. This is just a cheap ass variable apperture slow wide for uncle vinnie and grandma. It’s a great strategy to follow during recessions to keep the cow fat and producing milk.

      As much as I’d like to see new quality glass from nikon this year, I think we’ll have to settle for low expectations. maybe 2010 will bring something that they didn’t get out of the trash bin at some engineer’s desk, unlike this lens.

  • getanalogue

    Hey folks, calm down, it’s fake. Look at the focal length indicators 24, 20 and even 18 and 10 with non-matching positions as well as wrong perspective. Might be a PSed version of a 12-24. It’s fake and not even a good one. Don’t wait for this one, just get the Tokina 11-16. It’s so sharp and fast. Don’t hesitate, but take pictures!

  • http://www.google.com Orlando_Blue

    I don’t know, that “10″ sure looks little odd…

    Then again, maybe the machine that writes numbers on the lens is odd?

  • http://www.google.com Orlando_Blue

    I’m pretty much satisfied with my Sigma 10-20…

  • Calvin

    I think it is simply out of mind to produce this lens… we have 10-20 f4-5.6 from sigma which obviously cheaper than nikkor and sigma is coming out with a 10-20 f3.5. Frankly, I will not even give a look at the lens.

    So if nikon have the same thinking as me, I bet they will launch this lens in this time.

    On the DX and FX choice… the DX may eventually compete with 4/3 systems with mirror-less camera… who knows!

    I will definitely going for FX.

  • Hey-nonny-mouse

    Looks real to me. The distance scale is different to the 12-24 and it looks like the front of the lens extends unlike in the 12-24 (but what you’d expect in a cheaper model). The zoom grip is wider than in the 12-24. Maybe easy enough to photoshop some of those things, but I doubt the distance scale would be easy to do, especially in the closeup shot.

    (though I do think the focus length indicators look a bit dodgy – maybe it’s a pre-production model)

  • Dweeb

    Looking at this again, made in China? That’s a far more complex lense than sourced there previously. And what would happen to the 12-24? I wonder if this is a cheapy created to stop sales going to third party lens makers.

    • Jason

      I hope so. Those other wides are too pricey for a cheapskate like myself.

  • DarthDuster

    I smell nikon af-s nikkor 15-35mm f/2.8G coming around in the corner . . .

    • Mike

      With a 14-24, what’s the point?

  • North75

    What’s wrong with making an amateur grade wide angle zoom?
    I would be interested in getting one. I was interested in the 12-24 but its too expensive to justify at the moment. I guess a lot will depend on how they price it.

    Yeah, you could get a third party lens, but why shouldn’t Nikon try to compete in that segment. The 35 f1.8 is much cheaper than than the Sigma 30mm. I bet that Nikon has sold quite a few of the 35′s already. (while taking sales from Sigma) Why wouldn’t they keep up that strategy.
    I suspect that new DX lenses from now on will be amateur grade. Pro grade will all be designed to cover FX, since that is where there top end bodies are..

    • Henry Nikon Fan

      I agree with you. Below is from my previous post:

      I do not think that DX is dead, I just think that the main future of DX will be consumer cameras and ultimately not semi-pro or pro level cameras. These will be FX.

      Based on this I have sold my DX lenses and moved over to all Full Frame lenses in anticipation of this.

      DX is great and will be around indifinately, but not at the higher end levels.

      With regards to this lens it looks nice if it is real, but why would I want another variable aperture zoom lens. It is though at a different range than all of the other 18-whatever DX lenses, but we do have the AF-S DX 12-24mm F/4 lens already. If this lens is considerably cheaper than that lens then it makes sense. I do question that though based on the pricing of the AF-S DX VR 18-200mm lens compared to the AF-S DX VR 16-85mm lens. These two are almost the same price.

      • BlackNoise

        When Black Silicon arrives then DX, 4/3, APS-C and other compacts will be the better choice among the camera makers. Due to low noise/ high ISO that will be equivalent to FX.

  • photogirl

    Why DX!!?? Nikon comes out with 3 FX cameras, and have brought out hardly anything for them. Every new lens released is DX – geez!! Nikon, I want a 30mm 1.2 FX!!!

    • him

      i want a 24mm f1.2 fx!!!

      they gotta update the primes sometime until then ill wait

      wit the patience of god

      no blasphemy

  • reader
  • kim

    nope, not tempting; the rings are positioned the wrong way round; i’m staying with my marvellous 12-24mm constant f4

  • kim

    the rings are good, my error

  • rob

    Think about it,

    Pro lenses…

    14-24 FX covered with an amazing new lens
    24-70 FX covered with an amazing new lens
    70-200 FX covered with an amazing old lens
    200-400 FX covered with an amazing amazing lens
    then 500mm, 600mm, 800mm all FX
    that and, 105mm macro, 105 & 135 DC lenses.

    They are not going to make any sexy new stuff for some years. They are going to make cheap DX stuff. Pro market is covered, they dont need to work on it much more at the moment. Maybe a new 70-200mm, but other than that expect a lot of DX stuff

  • aFrIcanSH

    But some people haven’t been SO satisfied with the 70-200, there are some primes from the AF-D era which would need some decent (no-so-necessary) updates with the new AF-S and Nano coating (take the 85mm f1.4, 105mm f2, 135mm f2 for examples, as well as POSSIBLY new wide angle primes) and some semi-pro teleprimes like 300mm f4 VR and 400mm f5.6 VR?though these 2 aren’t that important)

    DX wise there are heaps of lenses. 18-105, 16-85, 18-70 as well as the 55-200, the 18-55′s and 35mm f1.8, 12-24,10.5 fisheye, the 70-300 on DX and isn’t that expensive relative to pro glass, and there’s the 50mm f1.4G (FX but meh). I guess fine, nikon releases the 10-24 to cover the wideangle market since the 12-24 is rather expensive, but it only works if the 10-24 is cheap enough for people to buy.

  • ___

    All the people asking for super-fast pro FX primes should realize that the “pro” market (that’s the one where people make more money with their gear than they spend on it…) does not use primes a whole lot.

    • cs

      really??

      wow.

  • aFrIcanSH

    actually they’re asking for primes because canon has a larger range than they do.

  • rob

    the market is driven by what sells. the reason you dont have all afs primes, and a new 70-200mm is because there is not enough of a market for it. simple.

    nikon does not make things for fun, it makes things to sell

    nikon could make all that stuff, but they would not make money from it.

    • aFrIcanSH

      think about the PC-E Nikkors then considering it’s not for the mass market.

  • rob

    it may not be for the mass market. but it still has a market. its simple business.

    like a luxury car, its not mass market. but there is always a customer for stuff like that.

    i think you need to learn a little about how things sell and why they sell

  • hendrik

    i think nikon should re-think about their strategy, or think about one if they dont have any. Most people would agree with me with this kind of solution:
    1. DX for longer reach (create power zoom such as 80-400 in compact and economical package).
    2. FX for super wide (create super wide angle zoom such as 8-14mm f/4 or super wide fisheyes)

    • Jason

      Terrible idea. People want a camera that can do it all.

  • Desinderlase

    If nikon updates all their lenses now, what are they going to sell after few years?

    btw, Nikon already have best FX wide, and good enough compact tele.

  • Back to top