More images of the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 10-24mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED DX lens available here.
whao i am just planning an fx…
Nice! Looks like a good year for DX.
nikon’s new lens, canon’s new camera + flashgun, tamron and tokina new lenses,
they all missed PMA for a week or so
Nikon is dumping DX lenses on us like crazy! This only confirms that the real pros are moving to FX (or back to film)
No shit, who in their right mind would take this hunk of junk over a 14-24 f/2.8?
Do you have a 14-24/2.8?
Let me check…
The best wide angle lens in the world, barring only the zeiss 21mm Distagon. Do I love wide angle shooting: YES. Does the lens cost less than $2k: YES. Do I have an FX sensor: YES.
Sensing a pattern yet?
Do I know anything about you? NO. Do you have a website…?
The 14-24 is indeed excellent and does do what it does better than anything else on the market. The “best wide angle lens in the world” is kinda a unqualified statement.
I for one would take “this hunk of junk” over a 14-24, because I’m not shooting a d3x…yet. I’m shooting a pair of dx bodies. I can get more resolution out of them than a d3/d700. When there’s smaller Nikon with a 24mp sensor, then a 14-24 will be more attractive to me.
Even if a d700x came out tommorow, I’d be interested in this lens. I like hiking with my d90.
Please post a link to some work Jeff.
We’re still waiting for a website, Mr Professional . . . .
The Zuiko 7-14 it’s a better wide lens.
but then you’d have to shoot olympus 😉
I love my 14-24mm
Never said I was pro. Actually the 14-24 “best wide-angle lens in the world” is a semi-qualified comment. I neglected the qualifiers out of laziness, allow me to correct that now. Its best at the 14mm end and losses quality as it progresses to the longer end of the focal length range. However, at 14mm there is no lens for a 35mm system (which I am taking as the category, so I am not considering medium and large format lenses, which are in their own classes) with a superior maximum f-stop including primes. Also at 14mm and progressing until about 20mm the lens is the as sharp as or sharper than all other lenses. Dxo comparisons, MTF, and semi-controlled, as well as real world tests all conclude that. It also has slightly less distortion that every other 14mm lens (which is partially a product of how recently it was designed, as that has been improving greatly in the last few years). It also has ridiculously sharp corners for a wide angle lens, they really don’t drop much at all from the center of the frame. Combine with that the wonderful color reproduction and contrast due to Nikon’s new coatings, including nanocrystals, and you get something which is only out sharped and contrasted by the zeiss 21mm distagon, which is almost 4 times the price for a prime of the same maximum aperture. It is also worth noting that the 21mm is just outside of the ‘business end’ of the 14-24, which really is the 14-20mm range. The 14-24 is also is extremely well built, completely sealed, and has AF, which is nice.
As I said before I am not a Pro, though I do make a little money on the side doing this. the 14-24, conveniently 28-70/2.8 is not terribly expensive, cost me almost all of the money I made through high school, and the D700 was a late graduation present. Before that I was a slide film shooter on my F100. So I do not like DX, and while I have admittedly limited experience, I tested a D300 and 12-24 from my local shop and was very unimpressed with DX wide-angle glass. I was not overjoyed with the 17-55/2.8 considering its cost, though it is a solid performer.
looking back on the original comment I commented on the “Nikon is dumping DX lenses on us like crazy! This only confirms that the real pros are moving to FX (or back to film)” comment by Joe. I realize that he was being a bit coy, which I missed. (Sorry, I’m an engineering student, interpersonal communication isn’t my strong suit). I wished merely to point out that the 14-24/2.8 is an outstanding lens, and that I do not believe that this 10-24 will approach half of its image quality, and while I am very aware that the photographer takes the picture not the camera (or lens, in this case), that lenses are investments, that pay back as often as you need them to for 10 years or longer, and I would hope that professional, or serious amateurs, like myself, would appreciate that and pick the stellar glass (14-24/2.8) over its lackluster counterparts (12-24/4 and 10-24/3.5-4.5)
Did not mean to offend
Also about the weight issue you brought up. I weigh 220 pounds, so 35mm and analagous cameras and lenses don’t bother me until you get to the 500 /4.0 or larger lenses, and I frankly prefer heavier lenses, I find they balance better.
No offense taken. Just didn’t get what you were trying to say. Slightly clearer now.
My point exactly. Nikon are dumping DX lenses on us like crazy because they know that the gullible ones will be lapping them up! When in a year or two FX is the standard (or we’ve all gone back to film, it really is possible) people won’t even be able to give away this lens let alone sell it!
Be smart, save and get some decent lenses that are future proof.
Nothing’s future-proof in disposable society such as hours. Pity the 14-24 f/2.8 won’t take a filter. It’s something any landscape/scenic shooter can’t live without.
DX is here to stay for many more years in the entry-level segment, and no one’s going back to film. Get your head out of the sand.
I think the FX-only crowd need to learn a few manners. I am fortunate enough to be able to buy pretty much any camera I want, I could by a ‘blad or a Red if I wanted to.
But I use a D300 and a mostly DX lens set for a number of reasons.
One is cost, a full D3+magic 3 lens set is $10,000 plus. I would rather go for a DX rig for $5,000 and have $5000 over for a super-tele or a 200-400 zoom.
Being able to buy expensive toys does not make you a better photographer. I have met plenty of professionals who use D100, D200, D300. I work in high technology and I have met quite a few folk who bought a D3 because the salesperson told them that it was the best and they know absolutely nothing about it.
But a bigger one is weight. I have just been playing round with the 50mm and the difference in weight over the 18-200 is almost like having a different camera. The Canon crowd keep chuntering on about lightweight constant aperture zooms. Well the Nikon DX range beats them soundly. Even when I go for a FX body I am going to have a DX setup as well. And I can’t imagine buying the D3 or D3X which strikes me like buying a D700 with a brick glued on.
Another reason why I would not go FX now is that only the 14-24mm zoom interests me. The falloff of the 70-200 is maybe not too serious, but its clearly a mechanical vignetting issue that will be fixed sooner rather than later, so why drop $1600? And the 80-400 is clearly overdue an AFS overhaul, the autofocus speed is too slow and cannot be fixed on a lens of that size without in-lens motor. And if you do shoot long a DX body is like having a lossless teleconverter built in.
So this looks like a potentially very interesting lens. The 12-24 was probably the weakest lens in the nikon lineup. If the 10-24 is a home run and costs $1000 or less I will definitely buy it.
DX is clearly here for quite a time. One consequence of the higher resolutions coming is that a DX lens on a D3X is almost like a DX lens on a D300. When I do move to FX it will be to a camera that is 24MP or better and there will be plenty of times when a 12-24 lens that only offers half the pixels will be preferable to the somewhat fragile 12-24 with the ‘scratch me’ front element hanging out.
Seriously, if someone can afford to go FX at current prices they can afford $1000 on a lens that maybe is redundant at some point. Thats what EBay is for.
[quote] with the ’scratch me’ front element hanging out. [/quote]
I agree with PHB. I also choose to stay with my D300 and not eager to jump into FX because I like the reach when used with the 200-400mm vr. For landscape I actually shoot 8×10, so moving (up) into FX won’t help me getting better pictures. I predict in 2 years the 30+ megapixel medium backs will be cheap enough to use in 4×5 cameras for stitching. So for the time being a 10-24mm nikon will be nice to carry alone travel photography.
Ken, you there?
This could be my everyday lens… awesome find.
Well, they did say that the 35mm f/1.8 wasn’t going to be the only lens announcement this year. And if this is a release date of 4/2, then it may lend some credence to an new body release or announcement around the same time.
Well, it looks like Nikon is keeping its secrets much better, since there were no rumors of this lens.
Please explain, Joe, how you get (logically, that is), from statement one to statement two. Explanation of unstated but necessary assumptions would also be helpful.
Joe was taking a sarcastic jab at those who continually proclaim DX is dead.
or joe is actually ken rockwell and the joke is on us! lol
I’m not Ken Rockwell… my reasoning is simple: Nikon knows their target market for DX is now the real amateurs – they’re starting to churn out lenses which I’m sure loads of people will happily buy up. At the beginning of DX it was the pros they were trying to convert who would not have been impressed with the kind of stuff being flogged to everyone today (non-constant aperture, come on). Now Nikon know DX is an amateur-only line they’re happy to fill it up with anything they can make from recycled glass bottles and beer cans!
I’d say that instead of buying the hundreds of new DX lenses that are coming out this year made from recycled glass bottles you should save your money and buy some proper glass (like the 14-24mm or the 24-70) which will still be useful once FX is the standard.
high pixel density sensor in a pro body is for amateur only? you sure about that?
you don’t shoot much, do you…
thanks anyway, ken.
On the contrary it seems to be you who doesn’t shoot much! Haven’t you ever cried yourself to sleep at night thinking about that cropped image sensor you have in your DX body? Have you never thought about the possibilities of a full frame sensor? I’m not saying I’m not guilty myself sitting here with my D300 but at least I’m not pre ordering every offering from Nikon to their new-found market! Save and get something good – it’ll be worth it, I promise!
You’re an idiot Joe. Really, you are. You make it seem like the only people who will buy anything DX are only mediocore at photography. Has it ever occurred to you that some people simply can not afford an FX camera? You really must have a distorted view of photography if you think that someones image making ability is a direct result of how much they spent on their equipment.
OK. I’m putting the bait back, Ken. You’re lame and your reasoning is pure Rockwellian.
I quite obviously don’t think the only people who buy anything DX are mediocre at photography – as I said I have a D300. However, I’m saying that those who are excited about the fact Nikon is suddenly going DX crazy don’t see why and should step back and think before placing their preorders – you’re being used to grab money from a format that will be obsolete within the next two years max.
Joe, anyplace where one could see your work? Would love to see some results of your super-lenses!
I don’t do any ‘work’. Photography for me is fun. And sadly I don’t have any super lenses as of yet! But I’m certainly saving my money for them instead of the latest DX offering!
Not everyone has $1000 to spend on a pro-level lens Ken. There are millions of aspiring amateurs with just a few hundred in their pocket. Try to think of them too when you make your pompous comments, will you?
I have a feeling the sensor sizes will actually trend downward in the long run (in addition to upward). Simply because of the size. That 14-24 lens is huge and always will be. The amateur market is trending smaller and smaller. Small will never go out of style, just like large never will either. In fact it could be argued that medium format will eventually become the new pro standard, once the costs come down.
In the meantime I’d much rather have a lens that can do 10mm on DX rather than a mere 14mm. You can always sell later and recuperate most of the cost. And you can quote me on this: They will NEVER market FX to the amateurs and soccer moms.
Not trying to be mean or anything here Joe, but your reply was sort of where I was getting at, you say photo is about fun, you own a D300 and don’t do any “work”, and keep yappin’ about FX!? The DX/FX debate is one thing, but what do you REALLY need? Are your “talent level with your gear” so to speak? And lets not forget that FX will also call for a update in hardware as well…unless you already have a “FX” computer to handle the increased filesizes? When your so harsh in your statements about DX I just thought it would be fun to see what you shoot, so I was sort of hoping for a Flickr-link or something to some inspireing pics…but I guess not…maybe when you get the FX lenses u’ll get some “work” out there to show us ;))
IMHO, I think Joe is completely right about DX being a dying format. Why is everyone so uptight about this and attacking Joe? Nikon, Canon and Sony have all 35mm equivalent sized sensors as their top of the line cameras–and yes, I use both DX and FX (D700). Heck, even Leica is going MFD–the S2. The amateur market will follow the pro market, and the pro market is pointing to FX/full-frame. I think Joe is saying–if you buy DX lenses, you may be looking at a substantial hit on resale, and this may not be the best strategy. As for the cost of FX lenses, there are plenty of lenses that will cover FX–gosh, you can pick up a used 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 Nikkor for under $100.
The supposed advantages of DX–cropping, telephoto effect, smaller lenses–all marketing BS. Regarding the supposed telephoto effect with DX, what did nature photographers use when they shot film before DX/APS and the so called telephoto effect/advantage? Rhetorical question, of course.
And why is it that when someone states an opinion not of the masses, he/she is attacked–let’s please stay on topic and have sensible discussions.
No, there will always be a market segment for which a DX body is preferred over an FX even if the two cost the same for equivalent pixels etc.
Anyone care to suggest what the advantage of having a fast ultra-wide prime might be? Not depth of field, thats for sure. Not keeping the shutter speed fast enough to go hand held either.
The blather about ‘recycled glass’ suggests this is a troll. No Nikon lens contains recycled glass, never has, never will. The glass volumes are so small that it would not make sense. Nikon maybe use a few hundred tons of glass a year. Or what Pilkington churn out every hour or so.
Nikon are certainly making FX their flagship line for milking rich poseurs of as much money as possible. And certain types of pro will definitely use the FX range, especially pros who don’t buy their gear themselves.
But that does not mean that you can only get pro results with FX equipment. Every single Nikon DSLR available today is better than the best 35mm camera/film available to Ansel Adams.
And much of what is defined as ‘pro’ level equipment is a matter of marketing, not science. There is no reason that a constant aperture design is going to be necessarily better than a variable aperture design. It is just that the VA design allows for a longer zoom range in an equivalent format.
Canon would not have produced this lens. They would have instead cut down the f/2.8 design to produce an f/4. That is a cheap way to design lenses, but the lenses that result are considerably inferior to a scratch designed constant aperture or variable aperture design.
Nikon seem to be avoiding producing f/4 versions of their f/2.8 designs. Instead they design VA designs from scratch. Seems like a better deal to me. If they make the camera appear to be less envy inducing, I could not care less.
I was just playing with you…
I used to work for warehouseexpress, and I have no idea as to price or date. But having said that the new picture does look really good.
Sorry about that guys, I just wanted to see how easy you would eat this up.
Svan (not my real name!)
that’s why I asked you for a screenshot of the listing and price, but then I found the new pictures…
I hope that with the introduction of this lens there’s gonna be a new body – either a cheap one or D400.
i’m happy i have been holding off buying the tokina 11-16.., i look forward to this 10-24 new lens from nikkor. hopefully it performs as good as or better than the 11-16.
How could this possibly be “as good as or better than” the optically sharp and constant aperture Tokina 11-16? This thing’ll have to come out at ~$300 to compete because the variable aperture can’t compete against the constant f2.8. Anyone paying more for the Nikon 10-24 than one could buy the 11-16 for would need to have their head examined, IMO.
Or maybe they just need a built-in focus motor ?
so this time nikon not releasing a gold ring lens for the dx.
so whats next from nikon, dx 55-150 f/2.8?
Would be interesting to see how well it would compare to Tokina 11-16 (aside from aperture on this one) and Sigma 10-20.
well it’s slow as all hell!!
Sounds like a newer 12-24 f/4, I’m not impressed. . .and I’m also biased since I’m drooling and waiting for my Tokina f/2.8.
Only plus: it can AF on the D40/D60 bodies.
The tokina is faster and can’t. . .and this Nikon is just slightly wider with a better zoom range.
slow? who are you kidding?
today’s DSLR’s are capable of high ISO’s, you can boost the ISO by 2-3 stops and it will perform like 2.8 lens (shutter speed wise, no sexy bokeh or sharpness).
I shoot live music a lot, and this lens would be too slow for that in most cases, even with today’s high ISOs. That’s why I’m happy to own the Tokina 11-16. But this would be a great lens in all other environments, I think.
You must have front row tickets to be using an ultrawide.
The difference between f2.8 and 3.5 is gonna make you miss a shot? More likely the difference between 10 an 11 mm (in favor of the purported Nikon) or 16 and 24mm (Nikon wins, again) will control whether you get the shot or not. Just handhold more carefully or go up 1/2 – 1 stop in ISO, you’ll be fine. And you won’t miss the end of the sticks, or have to crop out all that background.
I’d have preferred (and paid for) a constant f2.8, but this still looks pretty good to me if it’s sufficiently sharp.
Oh, yeah, and the CA will probably be much better on this lens.
Faster is really irrelevant. At such short focal length it’s easily handholdable. After all, you’re not going to get subject isolation with such a large DOF! And if you’re doing landscape or architecture you’re on a tripod anyway so max aperture is irrelevant then, too.
Yeah, rick’s case is out of the ordinary. Most people use lenses like this for daytime landscapes, for which a narrow aperture is often preferred. As long as it’s sharp and high-quality the speed shouldn’t matter too much. If you really need speed the best thing you can do is save up for the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor, but in many cases that’s just not possible, so the Tokina is a great substitute.
When is this coming out? Sign me up!
okay ladies and gentlemen, once nikon announce this lens…
DO NOT COMPARE IT WITH THE 14-24mm F/2.8!!
they both fall into a class of their own.
Yes, please don’t compare it to the 14-24….. this lens will take a FILTER i am guessing (anyone want to guess the size of the filter, it looks like it’s larger than a 72mm)
yes 14-24 is the PWN class
and the 10-24 is in the PWN3D class
Oooh, filters, since polarizers look right on Ultra wides? And seriosuly what other filters get used? ND filters thats it. And when I need to use an ND for a cool long exposure shot I typically don’t need 14mm, and sharpness is not going to be supreme because of the filter itself. Conveniently eBay brought me a 17-35 for just such occassions.
It looks like the same build as the 18-70 and 16-85. Optics will probably be consistent. Hmm. I like the range, not crazy about the aperture, but could live with it if it’s sharper than the Tokina.
Do you think this is for real? When do you think Nikno will announce it?
Would probably be a 77mm filtersize then?
I guess nobody watched the details of this lens, look closely to the 4.5 G and then compare these with the other 4 and 5, you see a big different! For me it’s very clear this is a FAKE photo shopped lens!
If those are fake shots, what lens are the end views taken from? The front and back ends look different than the 12-24.
I personally think its real.
The front looks just like the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 to me.
definitely not – I have the Tokina and they are different, if you don’t believe me I can post a picture for comparison.
That’s what I get for not carrying my gear with me at all times, and not looking for a reference photo online. 😉
Please, god, let it have 7 diaphragm blades!
Why whats wrong with the 4 and the 5?
Compare the 3.5 with the 4.5, the second 5 is different then the first 5. Also, if you look at the 10 its different then the 24, it looks much smaller. Pffffff, it’s difficult to explain but i still think its fake
If you look at the “G”, it is the same “G” that is on the new 35mm DX lens. Also, I think the issue with the second 5 is more of a noise/jpeg artifact than an edit. Doesnt mean its not fake….b/c honestly this is the BEST fake I have ever seen if so.
Doesn’t it seem strange that someone who has access to this lens would have such a crappy picture of it? If I were a Nikon insider I would hope to be able to take a better picture! Heck, my cell phone would make a nicer image…
And please guys, dont get all excited about using a filter on this lens. It WILL vignette, and probably terribly, just like the Sigma 10-20mm and most other DX lenses. There is no point in using a CPL for landscape shots because you will always have uneven polarization over the frame with such a wide lens (try taking an image of the sky with your 18-55 kit lens at 18mm with a CPL if you dont know what I am talking about, then imagine using a 10mm lens…). And really, if we are so worried about sharpness compared with another lens, would you really put a UV filter on it??? On digital, UV filters are gimmicks as long as you are responsible with your expensive toys…
let the bashing begin in 4, 3, 2, 1…
I’d throw on a Nikon Clear Filter, no vignetting, and protects the lens – I ordered one with my Tokina 11-16 for safe measure. . . .but you’re right, on a WA, UV filters add 1.5 stops and cause all sorts of funk. . .I had a bad experience with a Nikkor 12-24 f/4 because of the obnoxious filter. . .
Yeah, a UV/clear to protect the front element is nice. And what about ND filters? Circular grads? There are still reasons to use filters with digital.
Anyone think they may pair the introduction with a D400? Nikon like to print brochures hawking the newest lens on a new body. The D300 has the 18-200 promoted at the time. Looks like a real big filter 96 or the like. Anyway thanks for this Nikon, 3 days after I bought a 14-24.
18-200 came out with D200, not D300
and i hope there will ne no more DX lenses, i want small FX 50-150 f4.
Anyone else have any more proof to substanciate this?
Hey, I want it!! lol
just what everybody doesn’t need, another wide angle with crappy variable apperture zoom. when they could instead be updating their primes….Just what was wrong with the excellent 12-24 and 14-24 lineup that merited an update?
nikon’s new slogain:
Nikon: At the heart of the incomprehensible.
I quite agree but there’s no stopping these people who want to send Nikon their hard earned money!
I though will be saving up for my 14-24mm. Guess who is the smart one eh?!
I don’t agree at all about DX dying. I try to buy full frame lenses for my D300 because, even though DX lenses are supposed to have better center sharpness, I like edge to edge consistency. I don’t have plans for FX. A DX sensor gives me a 50 percent boost in range, which makes the expensive end tele range much cheaper and lighter. I have only one DX lens, and the reason I have it is the 14-24mm costs more than a house payment.
Having said all that, I would prefer Nikon concentrate on FX lenses, because that’s what I use. I would like to see a 14-24mm f4 for FX. I would buy that.
Well, what they DO need is a small, affordable DX lens that can auto focus on the D40-60. I’m not sure how affordable this lens is though.
The pictures are real, the product will be launch soon. Many new (or revised) lens will come this year. Please do not ask for more info now. Wait for official announcement, will be other products soon. By the way DX will continue for many years, at last 4 years from now.
like more primes?
I am a prime whore – bought the 35 and 50 G’s this year ($600 gone!) . . . . if there are some more wide angle primes, I’ll cancel my Tokina 11-16 order!!
Hey guy who posted above me ^^^^
Can you prove anything you just said? I could also say the same thing, what good is it if you can even give a little info on if its realy real.
What you said was just so vague…that it just might work..
Looks a lot like the old 18-35mm to me.
I have already the 14-24mm but if this one is real, I am buying one for sure for my D90… Although I am moving in the coming 2 years to FX (when the D800 goes out) and buying some FX lenses, this lens is in my short list for sure if it’s so sharp and has little distortion (I hate distortion, and if it’s not that sharp, why to bother and pay more while there is already the Tamron 10-24mm available?).
If this rumor is true, well done Nikon! I hope the next lens this year will be the update of the 70-200mm 2.8…
Hmm, not a constant aperture through the zoom range, and made in china. I think this is a more budget-friendly version of the 12-24 DX f/4, which I think I’ll keep. But it’s nice to see Nikon expanding its DX line-up. Entry-level users will certainly appreciate the wider reach offered by this latest creation.
Why is the front element so tiny?
And the same question applies for the 60mm AFS. Why is the front element so tiny?
Won’t this seriously reduce potential image quality?
Nice…I wish it came out 3 years eariler….so instead of the Sigma, I would have gotten this. As for DX vs FX? Its always the same arguments year after year. Its like the Manual focus vs Autofocus debate in the 90s — before…it was like…your pictures will be “non professional” if you use autofocus. Today…you’ll be hard pressed to find a DSLR that has Manual focus split mirrors.
You can buy pretty nice aftermarket split image focusing screen. I picked one up for my d2x. Then I realized that even with fast lenses and a screen optimized for them, the d2x could focus in lower light than I could see in. I returned the focus screen and haven’t looked back.
Here’s what makes me believe it IS real (just for those who are calling it fake):
Look at the zoom ring. See how it’s “textured” with rubber or whatever you want to call that? Well, look even more closely. Notice that the “texture” is basically made up of rows of little rectangles all the way around the ring. Each row has 4 rectangular bumps. If i’m not making any sense, look at this picture: http://i42.tinypic.com/1ghh5e.jpg
I just looked through all of Nikon’s current zoom lenses, and I didn’t see any other lens with 4 “rectangles” per “row.” It’s a very subtle thing obviously, but I think that would be very difficult to photoshop.
So, a 17-35 for APS-C shooters. This one is going to be VERY popular.
The variable aperture leaves me a bit cold here, though you never know what Nikon can do with modern lens designs. I’ll be waiting to see how the new Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 turns out before I make any choices here.
As for the ‘DX will die any day now’ crowd, have you ever thought of the advantages of DX making it a viable alternative for advanced amatures, for years to come? The first is prince, which is in the longer term related to lens size. Surprisingly bright, light, sharp lenses are possible that would be too expensive on full-frame for most. Having the 35mm dx showed me just how true this is. It’s true that the pros are moving to FX and also that medium format may make a comeback, but there are many years of life left in DX.
My Sigma 10-20 was pretty sharp. I only sold it because I thought I was going FX. The 16-85VR is damned sharp. Both of these are variable aperture. Variable aperture doesn’t equate to shitty image quality anymore. In fact, there isn’t statistic that clues you in image quality anymore. Price, manufacturer, size, build, elements, fancy coatings…all of these are pretty meaningless these days. The Canon 17-40L is a dog in my opinion. So is the Nikon 12-24 dx.
Unfortunately, I think we’ll have to wait and see how this new lens actually shoots to judge it.
look, the body of lens is slightly similar to 18-70/3.5-4.5
I don’t think I’m believing it, but if I did believe it, this lens will be at least $1000. The 12-24 is currently selling for $900. This lens is faster on the wide end (although slower on the tele end). It’s slightly wider. Nikon has been raising prices on newer lenses. Why would it be less expensive than the 12-24? And why would Nikon replace the 12-24? It’s still in stock which implies that it’s still being manufactured. They certainly don’t need both.
12-24 was hampered with a high price tag, this could be a compromise. 10.5 hard to push (deal used for me), 12-24 hard to push (again I got lucky on a great used deal). Need to cut out tokina/sigs/etc out that market since seems the used market more lively than new lol.
If they do what they did with the 35mm 1.8 and go with the newer build process (50G was expensive, but got the 35 out for much cheaper and they are built similar) , could see a price drop.
Nikon is keeping both the F2 and 1.8 out. Could see them having these 2 out as well. How many 18-55 ish zooms does nikon have out now? Non-vr + v, 18-55’s, 18-70, 17-55, 6 lens all in the same region there alone off the top of my head..
My bad, meant 50mm, 35 on the brain. Got the G and D still rolling of the assembly lines lol
Im going FX for the speed anyway and will probably use this for area shots and group shots for events with my D300.
The weather sealing is greate since I live in the tropics but I shoot mostly in low light and the Tokina’s constant 2.8 is quite enticing.
Anyone care to help me out on this dilema?
A welcome lens that should replace the venerable 12-24 f4, and good competition for to the Tokina 11-16, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 10-24.
I do have the 12-24 myself and it could do better in the corners between the 12-14mm range (even when stopped down to f11). Hopefully the new 10-24 is a notch (or two) better.
Variable aperture is not a problem for most users, esp at this focal length. Made in China? Also, not a problem. Some of you guys need to get over it.
Why all the slamming against DX? What if the 10-24 DX actually could cover FX from 14mm onwards? Then you’d have a great alternative to the 14-24 that can take filters and didn’t cost a fortune. Future proof.
I look forward to getting one.
To comment on Joe and Thank You’s discussion….
Why should any format be the one of the future? What we learn in recent years in any market, be it cars or cell phones, is that with advancing production knowledge and consumer numbers, the offering will differentiate even more. Look at it this way: At first there was the APS-C added to the existing full frame, then there was 4/3, now micro-4/3. And it seems there will be more ABOVE the FX, even from Nikon. So none will die, each fulfills its purpose. with APS-C your are still able to get nice out-of-focus blur, and the cameras are much lighter than the FX ones – so there’s a market. And it will grow!! Look at China, India… It’ll take its time but it’s there.
I don’t know much about lens design, but why would this lens have such a large filter thread when the front element is not that large?
I seems pretty strange to me, since the viewing angle at 10mm is not really that large.
the large filter is to allow the use of a filter without vignetting when zoom is at its widest.
Woah bad discription… let me try again..
With the angle of view of the 10mm lens the depth of a filter ring would be recorded in the corners of the frame (showing as vignetting), By using a larger diameter filter, the lens designers can move the filter ring out of the angle of view of the lens without the need for special ultra thin filter rings.
this can be seen (to a lesser extent) on the 12-24DX as well
Yes, I understand the vignetting issue, but in the case of 12-24 the front element looks larger and deeper, so it makes more sense to have a large filter thread.
Anyway, I’m sure Nikon did the math right on this, maybe I’m just being cheap 🙂
It’s due to the exta width you get from the 10mm v’s 12mm.
2mm may not seem like much, but the difference is the same as the difference between 18mm and 14mm on FX / film
The smaller front element of the 10-24 is partally due to the reduced aperature at 24mm, there will also likely be distortion differences between the two lenses (amoung other differences)
add all these together and you get quite a shift in the ratio of filter vs front element sizes
10mm & 12mm on DX is the same as 18mm & 15mm on FX not 18 &14
Since when did owning an FX camera mean you have a bigger dick? Just curious. The images I capture with a D300 and DX-format lenses are as good as anybody’s, period. It’s distressing to realize how many FX owners are screaming weenies.
I agree with Tom… I feel that nikon have a good collection of lenses for DX body but lack of FX lens… e.g. 70-200, 17-35, decade old (adv.) fisheye are due for renewal but not launch yet. This is a great reason why I still hold by my purchase of FX gear. Without those lenses, there is no reason for me to invest on FX.
Hope nikon heard this comment and get up his ass to move those updated lenses to the market.
I’ll buy this one instead of Sigma 10-20 for sure if it’s real
Looks like an interesting lens. Oh and for the FX players out there with all that attitude….lets you and I go shooting together me with my piddley DX D300, and you with your FX and go shoot some landscapes. Lets find out if it is the FX or the person handling the camera that makes MORE of a diffrence. I am in the Pacific NW area, so drop me a line if you want and lets see if your mouth is writing checks your ass can’t cash….you might be a photographic genius…or not, but the truth would be revealed.
Very well done, but I’m a little suspicious about the “10” on the nameplate. Otherwise pretty good.
Dx is simply a bigger market.
Why do people automatically assume FX has all the advantages.
Try finding the equal of the 18-200 zoom (That would be 27-300) < $800
Or the 18-105 (= 27-155) < $400
Or the Sigma 10-20 (= 15-30) < $500
The 1.5x pays of in trying to get to 500mm.
I could never sell my wife on a $4000 prime much less an $8000
As long as your budget is < 5K I think a DX setup wins for a complete
People should think of DX and FX as two seperate formats that happen to be
Nikon has to remain profitable to do all the R&D that give FX people the 14-24FX.
I know I wont want to pay for a 14-24 FX ($2K) to use on a DX. 3/4 of what I pay for I can use.
I would take the 10-24DX (which is almost as wide) and could be built for $600.
Now what they will choose to sell it for is another matter. I will save the extra $1400
to put towards a 70-400 afs when it comes out.
Why I will take it over the Tokina 11-16 or Sigma 10-20? The Quality control on those is
not quite up to nikon. Which means you have to hope for a “good one”.
I don’t quite get this attitude that because I shoot FX, that I’m some macho poser a-hole who thinks DX shooters are plebs. I shoot FX because I shoot a lot in low light, without a tripod, so shooting a D700 makes sense, y’know?
Anyways, my guess is that this is in for the D90 kinda end of the market, I’d guess priced kinda similarly to the old-ish 18-35/3.5-4.5 FX zoom – the 12-24 always seemed a bit crazily high-priced in my opinion. I think that ultimately, FX will filter down to the D80/90 “advanced amateur” kinda stage, although not for a long time yet. I think buying DX might be throwing away cash to a certain extent, but if you’re never intending to upgrade to one of the higher-end bodies, I don’t see the harm in it. I guess on the same front though, the vast majority of “soccer mom” D40/60 users are pretty unlikely to be buying any other lenses once they’ve got their basic 18-55 kit guy on there.
Still, seeing all the DX stuff coming out is a bit frustrating – I’m still waiting on Nikon to finally get their fingers out and bring out some updated wide primes to match up with what Canon have on offer!
Well Ross, seeing how you haven’t replied yet to this thread till now I am assuming that the comments don’t apply to you. I know I was responding to an FX user who just summarily trashed all DX as junk.
So we have one of two scenarios here. Either you don’t understand that the comments weren’t directed toward you, or you have a chip on your shoulder. :~)
My work stands on its own two feet, and I shoot landscapes which by many peoples standards SHOULD be shot with FF. I actually prefer DX with one limitation which is physics which allows only so many MegaPixels to fit in a DX sized chip. If I end up going FF it will only be to get a D700x for the extra MP. Not because of the format.
I am currently debating going FF vs. Medium Format Digital for my large prints my customers want. But till then my DX unit has no disadvantage to FF of the same MP.
Enter your email for daily blog updates: