< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

New Nikon lens(es) in December?

Over a year ago I received a report about a new, upcoming lens (it was the AF-S 50mm f/1.4). The lens was listed as "new" in a photo store in Germany before it was announced. This is the first post I wrote and the second one just few days later. After a month the AF-S 50mm f/1.4 lens was official and available in stores. The point of this intro is that some German stores get updates in their inventory system before an official announcement.

What do we have today? This is the translated report from a dslr-forum.de member:

He went to large electronics store and asked for the price of the AF-DC 135mm f/2. When the clerk came back he was told that they can't order the old one any more. But there seems to be one announced for December, tagged as "new". Price was 1399 Euro, 200 above the current. He also says that he will go back there next week to get more information, and report back.

nikon-135-f2-AF

Nikon AF-DC 135mm f/2

Déjà vu? I have no other indications/rumors about another Nikon announcement in 2009, but if there is one, I guess it will be during the first week of December and we will be talking about new glass.

The same lens (AF-DC 135mm f/2) was reported as discontinued in Canada few months ago.

Nikon currently has a lot on their hands: D3s, 70-200mm f/2.8, 85mm f/3.5 - all are scheduled to be available in stores at the end of this month (November). So far this year Nikon has released 4 DSLRs and 5 lenses.

Quick check on the availability of the AF-DC 135mm f/2 lens in the three major US stores: Amazon, Adorama and B&H are all out of stock.

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

    Finally an FX prime!!!!! Lets us all hope it’s an improvement over the previous version.

    • Anonymous

      haha you say that like this is a fact…… :D

  • Twoomy

    While I enjoy my old 135 f/2 and would love to see an updated version, there are definitely more important things for Nikon to work on. An updated 85 1.4, a good walk-around FX zoom, etc. I would be very surprised to see a new 135 f/2 come out soon, but what the heck, every other lens announcement this year has been a surprise to me!

    • Nau

      “a good walk-around FX zoom’ – plz plz plz give me give me give me

      • JamesT

        What about the Nikon 24-70? Seems perfect for me? 24, 35, 85, and 135 are the only lenses left before Nikon has all the best lenses on the market.

        • Adam

          yup, but what I guess Nau meant was something like a 24-105mm f/4 right?

          • zeeGerman

            I even dream of a 24-120mm f/4 VR…

          • Anonymous1

            Hear hear, a 24 – 120 mm VR zoom, please! I don’t even care whether it is f/4 or f/2 or whatever. There is nothing in this range from Nikon at all. Well, nothing usable, anyway.

        • Nau

          -70 just doesnt do it for me … 24-85 is the only one I can hope for at this stage

          using old version of it as travel lens but its jsut not performing well enf to be all around lens

    • Anonymous

      your version of important can be different than Nikons

      • PHB

        According to the photosynthesis site, about 3600 135 DC lenses have sold since 2006. Fewer 105 DCs have sold.

        My guess is that the lenses are made in batches of 2000 or 4000 and that the reason for the timing of this upgrade is simply that they have run out of stock and need to add AFS.

        Now that may be a minor upgrade or given the lackluster sales, something more substantial, like removing the DC feature, adding VR or increasing the aperture.

        I am somewhat puzzled by the DC feature, is it an adjustment that makes sense? Would it be better to have great bokeh than an adjustable scale from bad to good? Yes, I get that you can put the great bokeh in front of the focal point rather than behind. Is that an adjustment that is actually useful in the field to more than a couple of photographers? The sales data strongly suggests not.

        Clearly any replacement is going to be an FX lens, that almost comes for free. My guess would be that either the new lens will be essentially the same as the old one or it will be a VR lens, optimized for great bokeh behind the subject, with an aperture of f/1.8 or f/1.4.

        Another possibility is that the lens is not replaced at all and just drops out of the catalog like the 28mm f/1.4 did. That seems unlikely. At the time the 28mm was dropped it was effectively obsolete. The Nikon world was DX and there was no guarantee that the FX format would even launch. Without FX cameras the market for second hand 28mm f/1.4 would not be at a quarter current money. I don’t think that logic applies to the 135 DC.

        135mm is a standard lens for use in portraiture. While zooms are popular for field work, there are a lot of pro photography studios where the lighting and camera are fixed and the only thing that changeth is the subject. If all you ever do is to take head shots of lawyers and bankers for prospectuses, this is the length you want.

        • blah

          > I am somewhat puzzled by the DC feature, is it an adjustment that makes sense? Would it be better to have great bokeh than an adjustable scale from bad to good?

          Do you imagine that there’s an all-purpose “great” setting on the lens for all circumstances? You seem much smarter than Nikon’s engineers.

          Also, why does my camera have P/S/A/M modes? They should just have P for ‘Professional’.

          • PHB

            Don’t get me wrong, the ability to control bokeh really does demonstrate amazing skill on the part of the Nikon engineers.

            But I still don’t see what is so wrong with having a design that gives good bokeh behind the focal point and use the aperture setting to decide how much depth of field you want.

            If DC is so great, then why aren’t sales stronger? I am pretty sure that an f/1.4 prime would sell rather more than a DC replacement at f/2.

          • Zograf

            It is not the bokeh, it is the defocusing what makes this lens great (or interesting). That’s why it is called defocusing control not bokeh control. Defocusing gives a dreamy like image which is impossible with a diffuse filter or, post processing..
            Defocusing is under, or overcompensation of spherical abberation leading to the side effect of doughnut shape or bell shape bokeh.

            In 1936 Zeiss engineers created a landmark in lens design – the “Olympic” Sonnar. By choosing carefully spherical abberation compensation in such a way the lens had constant image quality at f/2.8 down to f/8, f/11. What is special for this design is Zeiss engineers had chosen to optimise the wide open performance of this lens, thus creating as a side effect the gorgeous bokeh the Sonnar gives.

            DC Nikkors are about spherical abberation control giving additional creativity these lenses are used for (e.g. portraiture), one side effect of which is the bokeh.

          • PHB

            @Zograph

            All the articles I have read on the use of the lens tell me that it IS about the bokeh. Bokeh is the look of out of focus areas, that is what defocus control is about.

            You control the size of the circles of confusion with the aperture, just as you do on every other lens. The difference is that you can choose whether you have the poor bokeh in front and the good behind or vice versa.

            Most lenses have bad or poor bokeh throughout. Some have neutral. A tiny number have great bokeh, almost always behind the focal point.

            The party trick with this lens is that you can have great bokeh in front of and behind the focal point by setting the good bokeh to the foreground and shooting against an already diffuse backdrop.

            There is however one other way that you can do the same thing without an expensive lens at all. But it requires a lot of custom software. You take two sets of shots. The first is a shot of your subject in focus with a wide aperture as per normal. Then you capture the entire scene with a narrow aperture (multiple shots if necessary). This is the reference frame.

            Then in software you take the shots and use the reference frame to isolate the in-focus portions of the shot and subtract them out onto another layer. Finally you fuzz up the reference frame using filter with perfect bokeh and add it to the picture under the focus layer.

    • http://ml.cs.colorado.edu/~ben/gallery fugue137

      Yikes! The thought of walking around with an FX camera is scary, even with a fixie. You must be strong indeed…

      • Anonymous

        huh?

        • Worminator

          He means that a D700 is too large and heavy to be comfortable to carry in casual situations, and adding a large and heavy zoom lens would make it even worse.

          walkaround : implying casual photography mixed up with other leisure activity, that carrying 2kg of camera might make less enjoyable…

  • Miklos

    By the way, I checked the price of the 135/2 DC at B&H on Saturday, November 21 and was surprised to see that they had the US version in stock. I set my alarm for 6PM EST (that’s when they open on Saturdays) and immediately ordered one. Then check back an hour later it was out-of -stock again. This was my lucky day.
    I was happy to get this discontinued version as I can use it on both my d700 and fm3a.

  • GlobalGuy

    Good rumor!

    I am waiting for this lens. The $5,000 200/f2.0 just is not in reach. And anyway, the money might be better spent on the 300/2.8 or the 200-400, depending on your need. Nikon needs to help its customers out and get a solid 135/2.0 out again. The 105/2.8 macro just does not cut it and is always going to be a compromise, not really great for distance, not really great for close up, not really great for portraits — just pretty okay at all of them. Cmon, we need serious lenses that know what they are supposed to be used for. The upgrade on the 70-200 might have been wise politically, but Nikon still needs to get its other lenses into gear.

    We are about to enter into yet another generation of AFS camera bodies and Nikon still doesnt have the full lineup of AFS prime lenses. Its time for the specialty lenses to start coming out. Enough with the generics. Lets get the lens line up to snuff, and not just the lenses at $1700 or over. I’m talking $700-1500 range.

    I would have GLADLY paid another $100 on the 50/1.4 if only they had made the front element slightly bigger and stopped it from being a front-end dust vacuum. Nikon needs to stop cutting corners on its lenses on the semi-to-pro level.

    A solid 135/2.0 back in the line is one step forward. They shouldn’t take lenses away without replacing them within a year! Its been too long now. And where is the 28/1.4! I really hope its not a 35 or 24. 28 or 30 please!

    • zeeGerman

      About the 28mm, wasn’t the even a patent for the 24mm f/1.4 already? It also makes more sense, as the 24mm f/2 was a real cash cow, back in the day. Also Canon has one, if that means anything.

      My guess is that we will see the 24mm f/1.4 pretty soon, with a price tag between 1700 and 2000 Dollars. A year later we might get a budget 28mm f/2 maybe 1.8, which would be fine with me.

      • http://ml.cs.colorado.edu/~ben/gallery fugue137

        $2000? Say it isn’t so! Why so much more expensive than the 50mm f/1.4? Are the optics that much harder to get right? Or is it just expected to be super-ultra-pro-level durable?

        • Mike

          The further away you get from 50mm, the more goes into a lens to correct it’s optics. The more expensive it gets. Add in apertures of 1.4 and it adds up to alot of glass too.

        • zeeGerman

          In addition to what Mike said, a 24mm f/1.4 is not nearly as often sold as a 50mm f/1.4. What means that R&D needs to be covered by a much smaller number of lenses. Plus, as lenses are produced in batches, they also need to calculate what it costs them to have the stock for quite some time (prefinancing production and actual storage).

          • http://micahmedia.com Micah

            I suspect some of these great primes are produced to be sold close to or at cost (which still is quite high).

            A term those unfamiliar with sales might not know is something called a “loss leader“. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out some of these expensive short run primes are loss leaders. They’re sold to attract people to the system, not for a profit. I suspect profits on the 50/1.4 are probably around 50% before they even get to the dealers. Something like the 70-200 is probably not a big money maker. Same with the excellent 18-200. The 18-200 probably made Nikon money in spite of low markup.

            But this is all speculation. My point is that, Nikon probably doesn’t push to get these lenses made because they don’t directly generate the revenue a d5000 + 18-105 will, and not just because profit is high on those items, I suspect it’s low on some of the really high end stuff.

            I wonder how much profit is in the 200/2VR? 13 elements and 7 are ginormous. Even as pricey as it is, I wouldn’t be surprised if it really cost that much to make.

          • PHB

            I agree with the sentiments, but the 18-200 has sold 1.7 million and sells for $500-$600. I would suggest that it is far and away the biggest revenue maker, just as the D90 is the biggest earning camera body.

            The most money is usually to be made at the sweet spot where you get big enough economies of scale to make money but can still charge a premium.

            Oddly enough, cheap lenses tend to have far fewer manufacturing defects than small volume, hand built lenses. There will always be someone looking at the 18-200 and working out if they can tweak it a little by applying the latest manufacturing technique.

            Nikon has sold about 4000 DC lenses since 2006. That is $5 million retail, If we assume that the raw materials and manufacturing costs $200 per lens and that the factory gate price is half that of the retail, that leaves $400 per lens to recoup the design costs, $1.6 million total.

            I very much doubt that there is any profit after the design costs are sunk. But it might well be worth someone’s while to take the AF design and work out how to fit an AFS motor.

  • Dave

    I’ve heard from multiple good sources that there will be a lens announcement in early December, announcing a wide angle prime so at least the timing would coincide.

  • Chris

    i am going to order the 70-200mm. which website do you guys recommend? thanks.

    • Anonymous

      umm can you say totally unrelated????

      • mnm

        “totally unrelated”

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      I pre-ordered mine at J&R – this time I figured everyone will be getting theirs from Adorama and B&H and the wait could be longer. I just talked to J&R today – they will be getting them on the 28 this month and they told me they will have enough to ship to all existing pre-orders.

  • Crabby

    What ever happened to revising the 80-400mm and adding VR to the 300mm f/4? How many 135mm DC’s–new or old type–does Nikon sell in a year?

    • Anonymous

      my guess would be it isn’t their most popular lens….

      • PHB

        They have sold about 3500 of the current revision introduced in 2006. Thats about 1,00 a year. Not a huge number, but still roughly a million bucks worth a year.

        The 105 DC sells in lower numbers, about 600 a year.

        Given that the major cost in low volume lens production is setup and calibration of the equipment, making the glass, &ct. and the fact that a asingle pallet load would hold about a thousand lenses, my guess would be that they made their last production run in 2006, have sold the inventory and are now introducing a revised version with AFS.

        Whatever production line these come off is certainly not going to be remotely suitable for producing high volume zooms, or zooms of any sort for that matter. So this is hardly going to interfere with the 80-400 replacement.

        I expect we will see every AF lens replaced by an AFS version the next time a batch is manufactured, at least for tele lenses. For wides, it might make more sense to bring out a low cost DX lens than upgrade the existing FX one – like they did with the 35mm.

    • Derek

      I love my 300mm f/4. Slap a teleconverter on it, and its basically the poor-man’s (relatively-speaking) super-telephoto. Of course having VR on it would be quite nice at times that I can’t use insane shutter speeds, like shooting prop planes at air shows.

      • BillyBobJohnson

        I love my 200/2.

  • Alex

    Does it come in a kit with the D700x ?

    • low

      no sorry. although, i think adorama might do a bundle with the d700x. id give them a call first thing tomorrow morning.

  • http://fotografstuttgart.de Fotograf Stuttgart

    why? 105DC maybe but 135? Those 5 users of them can keep DC. Unless it is 1.4 then yawn. Too long and too short at the same time.

    • zeeGerman

      Hmm, I would rather say drop the 105mm, which is too close to the 85mm f/1.4 and too far from the 200mm f/2.

      • WoutK89

        And Nikon will probably tell you, if you need 105mm, go with the micro Nikkor.

        • http://fotografstuttgart.de Fotograf Stuttgart

          micro is by far not same class as 105DC or 85 1.4 and is only 2.8. Too slow for 105mm

          • WoutK89

            I think you didnt read well, I said Nikon will say if you NEED 105 now, they will tell you to go with the micro, I am not implying they serve the same purpose.

  • Mircea

    AFS 70-200/4
    AFS 300/4 VR
    AFS 24-120/4 VR or 24-105/4 VR
    A cheaper version for 24-70/2.8
    D700s or a D700xs with 16mp and fullhd
    All the best.
    M.

    • WoutK89

      AFS 70-200/4, not gonna happen soon
      AFS 300/4 VR, might happen
      cheaper version of 24-70/2.8, you mean a 24-85/2.8-4 or something like that? No way Nikon will make a 24-70 with an f/4 aperture, just like the 70-200.

      • http://www.mgmeider.com Marcos

        You would be surprised how many professionals will embrace a 70-200 f/4.
        If Nikon comes out with it, I would ceirtainly get one. Art Wolfe for example uses it extensively with his Canon’s. I think it would be a smart move from Nikon if they finally decided to make one.
        Wel… I’ll keep dreaming.

        • WoutK89

          I am not saying there will not be one, but seeing what Nikon has done so far, I dont think their mind is set on such a lens now.

        • PHB

          Nikon has to come out with a lower cost range of FX lenses if it is going to go further downmarket with the FX bodies. An f/4 range of zooms in 2011 would make a lot of sense.

          Can’t see them as being likely any earlier as you might as well get a DX body and a shorter f/2.8 lens than get an FX body and put an f/4 on it.

          I also find it somewhat amusing to see so many people complain about plastic lenses and then ask for lighter ones.

          Nikon and Canon both cater to the audiophile type market as much as the pro-photographers. At a company retreat I met another manager who had a D3 round his neck. It was clearly just a fashion accessory.

          If you want lighter weight gear then go for the DX sensor. You will give up an effective f-stop regardless. On the DX gear you will buy f/2.8 lenses and get less response from the sensor. On FX gear you will get more response from the sensor but have to buy f/4 lenses to save the weight.

          Of the two approaches, I would say that at the moment the smarter one is to invest in f/2.8 glass, not FX bodies.

    • WoutK89

      And to add, until Nikon makes a budget FX body, there will probably be no budget FX updates on lenses. They want to serve the Pro’s first as much as possible.

      Lenses updated for FX:
      14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 400, 500, 600, PC-E 24-45-85, (60 micro, 105VR micro, 50/1.4, don’t blame me for 105VR, it was announced before FX was known to public)

      • PHB

        Looking back at past lenses suggests that a professional grade FX 24-100 f/2.8 would be of equivalent weight but rather more use than a 70-200 f/4.

        You could put that lens on a DX body and get much of the reach of a 70-200. And paired with a 10-24 and a 100-500 you have support for pretty much the entire range and speed that is practical in a handheld zoom.

        And you could move from that setup to an FX setup by simply buying a 14-24 f/2.8. (Or you could even just use the 10-24 or a 12-24 as they will work at 14mm full frame).

        If I was making the decisions here, I would be looking to ease the buying choices of DX-ers who are thinking they might go FX at a future date as a much higher priority than catering to FX shooters.

  • Mircea

    AFS 80 (100) -400/4 VR and a good damn quality of image.

    • Neil

      That’s called the 200-400 f/4 VR lens. What you specified would be >$6000.

      • WoutK89

        And probably very heavy as well

        • BillyBobJohnson

          Half-a-cow heavy.

  • mnm

    Why would they replace only one of the 105 and 135 and keep the other? B&H and Adorama both have the 105 in stock (as of 1.20am ET 11/23). The 135 comes and goes from B&H as others have mentioned in this thread and as I have also seen.

    Looking from Nikons point of view, it makes no fiscal sense to expend resources on R&D for the DC lenses right now even if it has been a long time coming. All the lenses that have come out this year are volume-based lenses. If we assume profit margin per lens is the same across all lens types, it makes sense that Nikon will, at least in this economic climate, release high volume lenses.

    Having said that, the amount of time required to develop a lens is extensive, so if this project started a half decade ago during the ‘good times’ then it is possible we may see a replacement, but I think it is more likely that when things turn sour, Nikon shifts its resources (and rightfully so) towards the lenses that will provide cashflow and lots of it.

    My two cents.

  • longtimenikonshooter

    where is AFS 100-500mm?

    • WoutK89

      In your dreams, good night :-)

  • WoutK89

    Looking at the current price for the 135/2.0 is not the way to go, you need to look at the introduction price, which is according to a Dutch site a little over 1500 euro. And if Nikon follows the trent they started, then this lens will not be any cheaper at the start, my guess, 1600 euro. As far as cheaper, maybe they have ditched the DC and made it a normal prime.

    • zeeGerman

      Yeah, I hope they ditched the DC feature, and kept VR out of it, to keep the price low. Only thing I wish for, is that they felt challenged by Zeiss and make it the equivalent to the Sonnar 135mm f/1.8 ZA.

      • WoutK89

        I dont know how the lens is known in the system of this german shop, but if it says 2.0, I am afraid they didnt bother to make that slightly bigger aperture. Although that probably means a bigger filter size. Old version had 72mm, aperture is ~67,5mm wide open. New version would have for f/1.8 an aperture wide open of 75mm, resulting in 77 or 82mm thread

        • zeeGerman

          The original post doesn’t say anything about the aperture, unfortunately.
          You’re right about the filter. The Zeiss has 77mm filter thread, but that would actually swing my way.
          But I “fear” that it will be a f/2, as the old one was really good optically, razor sharp, beautiful bokeh.
          My guess is an improved lens hood, as it was really crappy, AF-S for better focus.

  • afterdarkernikon

    What is wrong with the existing 135DC?
    I have one and it is a superb lens.

    Why to release this new one. fast Prime lens will be much more sense than this one.

    • David

      I agree, the current 135mm DC is sharp sharp sharp. HOWEVER, the AF of the 135mm DC can experience shift problems. Nikon has acknolwedged to me personally in a letter that the AF on the 135mm lens does not work as well with the newer DSLRs (whereas the AF-S provides much faster, accurate focus with the newer DSLRs). The AF problem is espcially acute when you are shooting in the dark (such as shooting a concert). But when it is in focus, the image is amazing. The truth is, like many of the great lenses Nikon makes, this lens is better than many of the photographers who own it (myself included). Until I can shoot beyond the limits of this lens, upgrading doesn’t make sense. Then again, my camera equipment purchases rarely made sense . . .

  • David

    And I want that AF-S 24mm f/1.4! Even better, a AF-S 21mm f/1.4 to challenge the Summilux 21mm from Leica. Such a lens would be my dream lens for general (i.e., not macro) underwater photography without strobes.

    • matt2001

      I second the motion for AF-S 24mm f/1.4 :D

  • LGo

    While the Nikkor 135mm f/2.0 DC performs exceptionally well, a new version with VR and nano coating, plus faster, quieter and more accurate focusing capability even in marginal light conditions will be more welcome. An owner of this lens who also owns a D3x commented that a new version of this lens will be needed if Nikon finally releases a 36-megapixel body to maintain its current performance with 12mp bodies. I am not sure whether he means that the current 135mm f/2.0 DC is hitting its limit at 24mp. But if Nikon is releasing a new version of the 135mm f/2.0, I am not one to complain as I queue up for the first units that will be available early next year!

    • nir.e

      pixel density wise, shooting dx is like shooting about 30mp on fx body, the 135dc performs very well on either

      • David

        I Agree the 135mm is plenty sharp for 24MP. No idea whether it would adequately resolve for 30+MP but I highly doubt Nikon is worried about that with this particular lens. If resolving power is the motivator for updating lenses, the 135mm DC is at the very end of the line, hanging out with the 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 400mm f/2.8 (both of which I have). Lenses that would benefit from updates to increase resolving power IMO are the D series of the 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm lenses; these lenses were workhorses at one point but are falling behind the zoom competitors. But with the excellent 14-24mm and 24-70mm I am not sure whether it makes much sense to devote much attention to the f/2.8 primes in that range. This is why a AF-S 24mm f/1.4 makes sense, because it brings to the table what the zooms cannot — ownership of the night. A replacement for the 17-35mm is also due for those of us who are sick of having to choose better sharpness (i.e., 14-24mm) or the ability to use GNDs (with the 17-35mm).

  • Jivee

    I concur with a AF-S 24mm f/1.4

  • http://bonzo.com Bonzo

    If they make it I will buy it, BUT
    I would like 200mm/2.8 even more!

    • WoutK89

      it will be more likely for Nikon to update the 80-400 first, a 200/2.8 would compete with their zoom lens that was just announced.

      • http://bonzo.com Bonzo

        I am sick tired of lugging 1.5kg 70-200! Aaarrrgghhh! :)

        I hope there is some indoor championship soon, so they make 200/2.8 for those reporters with FX cameras… :)

        • WoutK89

          They already have the 200/2.0 and 300/2.8 (400/2.8 is often used as well). They dont mind having this big hefty lens, because they are pretty much static with a monopod. IF they release anything like it, I think the 180/2.8 will be first to come then :-)

  • Canon Fangirly

    If Nikon updates that lens I will buy at least five of it. The current version is one of the lenses we use the most.

  • Yahweh

    Please don’t be G

  • JR

    35 1.4/or2 please.

  • http://www.cesarkoot.nl Cesar

    Placing this rumour is just… mean…

  • Alex

    what about BODIES????? (sorry I had to do it) :-)

  • zzddrr

    4 DSLRs in 09? Huh? I would call them 2 plastic crap (D3000/5000) and 2 with botox (D300s/3s). Still Nikon only offers 1 camera that is more than 12MP since September 2004.

    I guess no need to complain.

  • Anonymous

    Regarding the subject of this post and (about) 33% of the comments: A 135 f/2 (AF-S or not, VR or not, DC or not) would be nice and probably sell in numbers an order of magnitude above the current one if the price was to be kept reasonable (i.e., drop the DC feature), but that’s just guessing.

    and for the other 66% of the comments:
    – I don’t know what I want but I want it now!.
    – It would seem that AF-S (despite being and older feature) is the new VR
    – On film times, most of the ‘walk-around’ zooms from Nikon were cheap lenses, and I mean cheap in construction and quality. Today, Nikon wants you to go DX if you want to ‘walk around’ (although the opposite is not true, there are some very fine lenses for DX). I myself love DX and find it great.

  • shivas

    smart update. . .I think the newer dslrs with their updated AF’s that are MUCH faster require re=tooling the older lenses electronics “to keep up”. . I also remember something about the D300s utilizing the newer lenses more efficiently for faster 3-D tracking??

    I mean, if you have ever used a new nikon body with the tracking versus a D200 or older, it’s amazing how FAST the AF snaps on to the eyes of a human, for instance. . .that sort of gimmickry and recognition, especially in a hit or miss lens like the 135/2 which IS MADE for portraiture, is essential. . .I see the 85 1.4 being released at the same time, in 2’s. . ..

  • Astrophotographer

    I’m reminded of the NR post a while back showing gaps in the catalog numbers:

    http://nikonrumors.com/2009/08/09/an-updated-list-of-not-yet-released-nikon-lenses-based-on-product-numbers.aspx

    Since then the 85 f3.5 has filled in one of those numbers. I think more are coming soon.

    • WoutK89

      or never coming at all :-P

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_wrath_of_khan/ TWoK

    While this is one of the MANY lenses that needs an update. NIKON NEEDS FAST WIDES!

    • http://www.cesarkoot.nl Cesar

      No YOU need em, Nikon doesn’t “need” them.

  • http://www.cesarkoot.nl Cesar

    By the way, Nikon, drop the DC feature if it lowers the price. Who needs it anyway?

  • http://thomaslesterphotography.com Thomas

    Please… let’s get the lenses that are missing from line up before we refresh any more lenses. a 24 f1.4 and a 35 f1.4. are desperately needed. Then, refresh the 135 f2 and the 85 f1.4.

    • David

      A 21mm f/1.4 would be awesome.

  • Nikon man

    read thom hogan’s latest update. he hints toward a possible new DC lens soon.

  • Nikon man

    He said he knows of a about a half dozen lenses that are expected over the next 9 months or so. Reading between the lines, these seem to be the following:

    24/1.4
    35/1.4
    85/1.4 update
    DC update
    80-400 replacement

  • Back to top