If you remember this previous post about the skipped Nikon lenses IDs, you have probably noticed that one of the missing numbers (#2181) got filled by the new Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX lens. The question is: what is lens #2182 going to be?
The future home of lens #2182
Some clarifications on the ID schema Nikon is using, since some readers got confused:
this link will lead you to the 10-24 lens (#2181):
this link will lead you to the 35 f1.8 lens even if the text in the URL has the 10-24 lens (#2183):
Only the id is important, not the text after it - of course Nikon can change this at any time.
You can even try this:
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2183/NikonRumors-is-great.html
lol!
Related posts:
64 Comments
AF-S 85 1.4G of course. everybody knews that!
your source is?
me, my desire and my self. and couple others
Hear hear…
this is it…the moment we’ve all been waiting for!!
hopefully a 35mm f1.4
$1600 85mm f/1.2G non-DX to compete with canon’s 85mm 1.2L. Or they can just make it into a $1000 85mm 1.2 DX to cut costs.
DX versions of telephoto lenses are not going to be any cheaper.
The nearest you might get is a 60mm f/1.4 lens with creamy bokeh equivalent to a 90mm f/1.4 on a DX body.
The only way a lens aimed at the DX market is going to be cheaper is if they use a hybrid aspherical lens, that is a spherical glass lens with a bit of plastic glued on.
Wide angle lenses are cheaper in DX format because it takes a big front element to get FX frame coverage. That is not an issue with telephoto lenses except on macro lenses at short focal lengths.
Nice to know about the model numbers…. but aren’t you just saying that Nikon is going to release a new lens with this?
Who’d have thought that?
is there more information to this? 2181 and 2183 had been DX lenses…. maybe it will also be DX… but then I don’t really know what DX lens I’d be missing right now (apart from that they’re all too expensive anyway)
I know … It’s easy ..
Look at what the actual link says …
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2182/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-35mm-f%252F1.8G.html
As you can see it says that 2182 is a AF-S DX NIKKOR 35MM F 1.8 G …
NO! It says 17-55 2.8 VR:
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2182/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-17-55mm-VR%25F2.8G.html
it will say whatever lens you had displayed before you changed the number – the text after the number is not present yet – that’s why it displayed the last lens you had in your browser.
well, not quite…
ok let’s try this:
this link will lead you to the 10-24 lens:
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2181/AF-S-DX-Zoom-NIKKOR-10-24mm-f%252F3.5-4.5G-ED.html
this link will lead you to the 35 f1.8 lens even if the text in the URL has the 10-24 lens:
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2183/AF-S-DX-Zoom-NIKKOR-10-24mm-f%252F3.5-4.5G-ED.html
Only the id is important, not the text after it – I have spent too much time with those URLs…. of course Nikon can change this at any time.
You can even try this:
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2183/NikonRumors-is-great.html
LOL!
exactly that is what i meant by “not quite”. you don’t necessarily have to come from a valid lens’es web site, you can really put anything there
And I know the follow-up too – a breakthough 70-200 2.8 DX variant:
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2184/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-50-150mm-VR%25F2.8G.html
This will also prompt Sigma to update their excellente version of this kind with an OS system.
What?
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2184/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-12-200mm-VR%25F1.2G.html
lol — If I could carry it, I’d buy it — It has a filter size of about 7 inches or 180 mm. I’d be satisfied with this one as 2.8!! All I need, really :-p
lol
They could have possibly ditched it altogether.
FX likes :
85mm 1.8 G
85mm 1.4 G
70-200 2.8 VR II
DX maybes
35mm 1.4
or one of the other prime rumors
yes I think a new 2.8 70-200, without vignetting and cheaper, is overdue
but also for DX a 50-150 VR 2.8!!
If there is a 70-200VRII it most certainly will not be cheaper than the current 70-200VR.
Nikkor 11-250/2,8 VR IMBA
EIEIO
My wish is wide angle primes:
24mm f/1.4
for me, i only want a s10. why nikon stop improving the s10 series?
I hope a 180 2.8 AF-S VR. That lens really needs an update to AF-S for manual/automatic focus switching.
I won’t mind a telephoto prime as well. AF-S 200mm f/2.8 ??? With or without VR, i’ll take it. As long as they can give us a relatively light but solid built unit.
It’s the new 80-400mm AF-S VR II.
yes! yes! yes!
with f/4
I would love a new 85mm prime (fx of course). I just hope Nikon stops wasting my time by making new DX lenses.
definitely it is a
– 200mm f2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR Nano
or
– 300mm f4 ED-IF AF-S VR Nano
When Nikon? When?
Hopefully no DX-cra and a new standard zoom for FF; 24-105/4 AFS VR may’be?
I couldn’t agree more bring one on
it is the af-s vr 200m f3.5 micro-nikkor that is currently in test
Oh please oh please yes!
All the lenses in the range seem to be DX so its probably another DX lens
Would be nice to have the 28mm F1.8 or F1.4 dx
or the 50-150 F2.8 VR Dx
I like a new VR version of the AF-S 300mm f4 or an AF-S version of the 80-400 mm VR. Pi$$ on the update for the 70-200mm….it’s an awesome lens, those who complain about soft corners are idiots. Quit worrying about the damn corners only non-serious photographers worry about. Pros don’t care about it, why shoud you!
Hear hear! The 70-200 is about isolation and great bokeh, not icredi-sharpness. However, it is still sharp if used properly.
The disagreeing whiners should show some mushy images. I can show sharp ones to refute them. At least on DX and film.
AF-S 200mm/2.8 micro VR
My wish: either a new AFS G 85 1.4 or a much wanted AFS VR 24-105 4.0.
Hopefully it’s a midrange FX telephoto! With the problems with the 70-200 (superb DX lens, not really an FX lens due to the corners), 80-400 (very old lens, slow AF, soft at long focal lengths), AND 300 f4 (no VR), there is a jump from the 70-300 VR (a $550 lens) to the 300 f2.8 (a $4500 lens) and 200-400 f4 VR (a $6000 lens) among FX telephotos worth their prices (at least to me, to be worth $1500+, a lens HAS to have VR and survive the D3x, even in the corners). There’s a significant market for a good $1500-$2500 FX tele, which could be:
70-200 f2.8 AF-S VRII really FX (replacing existing “DX” lens)
70-200 f4 AF-S VRII (Canon’s version is great)
100-300 f4 AF-S VRII (Sigma has a sharp one, but it’s not stabilized)
(70-100)-400 AF-S VRII (Sony has a nice one, both Nikon and Canon are old)
or even a fixed 300 mm f4 AF-S VR
Concerning your “70-200 f4 AF-S VRII (Canon’s version is great)”, Dan:
Because of size I would only buy an FX lens for an FX camera. Now the only advantages of an FX camera are — comparing the same output resolution — a better sensitivity (less noise or higher iso) AND a smaller depth of field at the same EQUIVALENT focal length and aperture NUMBER. Standard aperture for fast zoom lenses in DX format is 2.8, which EQUALS, at the same EQUIVALENT focal length, the f/4.0 in FX format concerning depth of field AND sensitivity. So what would one need an f/4 FX zoom lens for, then??
I can think of two reasons here, which are both, for my taste, not strong enough to spend thousands and thousands of dollars for an FX system in excess of DX:
1.) I know the FX sensors are — excluding size effects — more sensitive because of design, by maybe half an f-stop (50%). The same design will trickle down the line to DX a couple years later though.
2.) Going to really high resolution: Optics (I suppose physics as well as current lenses) seem to impose some kind of cutoff at a certain resolution. I hear it STARTS SHOWING at around 15 MPx for a DX sensor, which would equal 30 MPx FX. Telling from the resolution compact cameras put out with much smaller optics, this limit seems to be pushable though. As with sensor sensitivity, it might take a couple years until we see those current FX 25MPx at DX level… (hopefully not though, or maybe in “D500x” version only).
These two (luxurious = superfluous) points aside, DOF is the only reason left to go FX, and in that case, the f/2.8 zoom IS the reason to go there and you would want no f/4, right?
And even for the DOF, one might stay DX, and buy a couple of nice primes with aperture number <2.8.
FX is for the pros. those who demand the best of the best and have the means to pay for it. FX sensors will always stay ahead of DX ones in the all important areas of high iso, range, and resolution. The pro market will never move to DX, it would be a step backwards.
Nikon’s ammateur DX line is there for a reason so that those who can’t afford it can still take decent images. Keep justyfing DX all you want. Neither canon nor nikon will make any sort of huge leaps with the small sensor and will keep gearing all their pro-line towards full frame. This isn’t going to change, ever.
You’re right. But also, a “pro” is a very diverse creature. First of all, a pro has to calculate income against investment. And most of them will have to calculate tightly more and more. That is not so for amateurs, they spend what they have left over, they fancy, they buy. In this regard, the change invoked by digital sensors will go on: Pro, amateur and hobby photographer, they will all access all price segments. The products will diversify. Why not put a full frame sensor into an otherwise crippled body, like D40. Why not put a DX sensor into a compact but otherwise “pro” body like D3.
Bullshit.
I have seen more amateurs toting D3s than I have seen pros. And the amateurs I have seen touting them have often been the type that think buying an expensive camera makes you a great photographer. Talking trash about non-pro cameras does not make you a pro photographer, it just makes you insecure.
I have never once found a successful professional photographer who had to look down on amateur gear. Recently a photographer came round to take my picture for a story they were running about me in the Boston Globe (they didn’t run it in the end). Her gear was a D200 and a 24-70.
My film era Nikon glass is all FX (well duh) and the primes were pro-grade. I just checked them out against my 10-24 DX which beat them soundly. Any zoom that can beat a pro-grade prime is pro grade.
I get rather fed up with all this FX format weenie measurement. It is pretty clear that at least 80% of the announcements this year will be targeted at DX format. And the remaining 20% will be telephotos that work on both formats. There will be no D700x until the D400 has been released. The 70-200 zoom might get a refresh to stop the vignetting/falloff issue on FX frame, but thats the only FX-specific release that is likely. There might possibly be a wide angle prime, but the old ones never sold too well in the past so they are only likely to be a priority if the 35 f/1.8 DX sells well.
As for 15MP being the limit of the DX format, you are wrong. The quantum limit to the sensor size is given by the wavelength of light and is about 160 MP. The compact cameras have already hit that limit with their piddly sensors which is why few compacts go beyond 12MP. Lenses are an issue, for sure. But some current lenses are easily good for 50MP sensors in the center of the frame on FX and 25 on DX.
Or, if you have a FX body… I shoot a D3x, but I’m out far enough from the road that I don’t relish carrying the current FX telephoto options (calling the 70-200 a DX lens because of the corners). A 6 lb lens also means a heavier tripod, a bigger bag, etc… – taking my 10 lbs of camera gear much closer to 20-25. A super-sharp 70-200 f4 would give me a lightweight longer lens that only added a couple of pounds to my pack. Right now, FX shooters don’t have a fully modern lens option (AF-S, VR, corner performance commensurate with price) between the little 70-300 VR and the 200-400 howitzer.
DOF is the only reason? It seems obvious that you never had the change to work with FF.
You even didn’t mention the use of true wide-angle.
The difference between DX and FX is awesome once you made the step.
Or someone at NikonUSA figured out what you porch monkeys were up to and decided to goof with you. As a data system designer, I would have done the same thing, just to jerk your collective chains. Skipping a meaningless ID — which maps to a row in a database table, not a product ID — means absolutely nothing.
That said, I’m somewhat impressed with the degree of detail to which you guys are combing the Nikon website. A testament to having nothing else to do? I thought camera aficionado would have been out shooting pictures and not attempting to forced-browse every imaginable URL of a manufacturer’s website…
I guess you did not read the first post – two ID were empty back in February:
http://nikonrumors.com/2009/02/15/missing-nikon-lens-model-numbers.aspx
one got filled by the 10-24 lens, the second one is still empty – this is not a joke.
if you worked as a data system designer for a company worth it’s soul and you start messing around with part numbers just to play around with people, I’d expect your cubicle cleaned and empty by the time the day is over.
Yes, in my world folk do do that type of thing. When MI6 bugged a Soviet embassy they labeled their microphones 1,4,5 and 7 so that if one was found the Soviets would rip the embassy apart looking for the others, and 2, 3 and 6.
But part of the game here is that Nikon has a vested interest in keeping a certain level of interest in future products. So outright deception is not in their interest.
It is pretty obvious that Nikon has at least one more lens coming out this year. In fact we can expect a few as part of the program is to replace all non-AFS lenses with AFS equivalents. It will be a long time before the focusing motor is gone from the D300/D700 equivalent bodies, perhaps that will never happen on the flagship Dn model. But Nikon are serving notice that the motor will go from all non-pro models.
I would suggest that the lenses likely to be at the top of the AFS upgrade list are the 80-400 zoom and the 85mm f/1.4 prime.
Any other lenses that come out are likely to be new designs targeted at the DX lineup. The reason for this is simple. Nikon takes years to design lenses and put them into production. The FX format is still only a little over two years old and it is unlikely Nikon would have made plans for further lenses targeted at the FX format until after the D3 launched.
Since the all-new 10-24 has just launched, I think it rather more likely that the next lens out will be a refresh rather than an entirely new design. And recent launches have all been at the wide end to normal, so telephoto has been missed out.
So my bet would be a new 80-400AFS. The cream machine will get a refresh in due course, but the 80-400 needs it more. Though given the reason for Nikon’s sentimental attachment to that particular lens, they might well keep it in their lineup after the replacement.
Thanks to NR admin for combing the Nikon site while we’re shooting!
Someone give me my 35/1.2
canon makes some 1.2′s. no need to wait!
WHO CARES ABOUT DX LENSES??????????
Nikon, as DX lenses make a lot of money for them! Consumers as they provide lower cost alternatives that are “good enough” for many uses!
and in one sense better: lighter and more compact.
I also think it’s a new 85mm, makes sense. Most likely 1.8 AF-S, but will it have VR.
I can’t see a replacement for the 85mm f/1.8. I can see a cheapo lens at 60mm aimed at the DX-ers as a dedicated portrait lens. But any replacement for the 85mm would have to be for the cream machine.
The reason why it appears that there is meaningless text in the URLs is because that text is used to support search engine optimization. I went through this myself some years ago and we did exactly the same thing Nikon has done: have both links via the product number and text to support the search engines.
I’m the person who wrote the original post about the skipped number, but I will admit that it appears that Nikon has skipped numbers in the past. I don’t have a record of every single lens product number for discontinued lenses, but from what I do have, it appears that they may have skipped 2165, 2167, 2169, 2157, 2152, 2153, 2138, etc.
I found quite a few gaps when I went back over the last 30 or IDs, so maybe they just put gaps in there because they don’t like the number or something is assigned a number in development then dumped and they don’t reuse the number.