I got a word that Nikon will release eight (8) new lenses in 2010 (I will rate this rumor @ 80% probability). If true, this will be the most lenses Nikon has ever released in an year (at least in recent history):
2009 – 7 lenses (ok, one is a teleconverter – click on image for larger view):
2008 – 7 lenses:
2007 – 7 lenses:
2006 – 3 lenses
2006 – 5 lenses
2004 – 2 lenses
2003 – 2 lenses (you can see the full list of released lenses by years here).
So what are those new eight lenses going to be (continue to read after the break)?
The first batch of new lenses is expected to be released in February-March of 2010 (probably February for PMA) and it will include the 24mm f/1.4 which was initially scheduled for October, 2009 and then postponed till Q1 of 2010. A new 85mm f/1.4 and maybe a 35mm f/1.4 are also expected, although I got one report denying the 35mm f/1.4 option (meaning only a new 24mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 in Q1 of 2010). The 24mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 lenses are supposedly already in Nikon internal systems/databases.
A member of dpreview claims to have information about 80-400mm replacement that should be “Sigma-style but Nikon quality”. I was told that this lens will be replaced with a new AF-S 100-500mm f/4-5.6 IF-ED VR lens next year.
I even heard some talk of a Nikon equivalent to the Canon’s 28-300mm lens.
Another option is the refresh of the current Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4 ED-IF (currently out of stock @ Amazon and Adorama and I could not find it at all @ B&H). Some online retailers have already started to list this new lens on their websites, but this of course could be by mistake: see here (Nikkor F 300mm f/4.5 IF ED listed as New) and at the bottom of this page (lens listed as Nikon AF-S 300mm F4 VR – current model doesn’t have VR).
My last three guesses are for a Nikkor AF DC 135mm f/2.0D, Nikkor AF Micro 200mm f/4D IF-ED replacements and maybe a new Nikkor AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR.
Related posts:
217 Comments
I think we can expect primes… A lot of them should be updated and they haven’t released many non-exotic-telephotos-primes in the past few years.
I want a set of 1.4 primes:
24
28
35
New version of the 105 and 135 f/2…
ahum, 1.4 primes costing $2000, that’s pretty exotic still, just not super duper tele. I would rather see them make f/2 versions to keep it smaller/lighter/cheaper in price.
+1
I guess that the 105 and 135 will indeed be f2.0 as they are now. Also Nikon will probably target the professionals with full frame primes (and must compete with Canon/Sony), hence f1.4 for the wide angles does not seem all that wrong…
Given the existing DX 35mm f/1.8, its unlikely that a new FX 35mm Nikkor would be f/2 or slower – purely from a marketing perspective. An AF-S 35mm f/1.4 would be a lot more likely.
I hope so, if it puts more AIS 35mm f/1.4 onto the market at low prices
+1 on 1.4 primes.
+1000
1.4 primes
There 1.4 primes certainly need to be updated, but I hope they don’t forget the affordable options such as the 85mm 1.8 is also in need of an AF-S makeover.
If it were up to me I’d revamp all their old primes between 24 and 135mm’s. Then re-release the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 for good measure (or better yet replace it with a constant f/4 version). Why in the world did they remove that lens in the first place leaving only a 3.5-5.6 and an older AF 2.8-4 version in the line up for affordable standard FX zooms?
That’s a very good point. Maybe they’ll be revamping all of the 1.4 and 1.8 prime versions… we can only hope. However, I’m pretty content with my existing 1.8 lineup and really don’t have much of a need to replace or “upgrade” them. Although, if new ones came out… I would buy them… because I have no self control!
Personally, I would like a 105mm and 135mm F2 makeover… without the DC controls.
The fact that they’ve chosen to marketing the new 85mm f/3.5 macro an “ideal choice for close-up, nature, *portrait and general photography*” makes me think Nikon isn’t going to deliver another “consumer-level” prime at this focal length anytime soon. I hope to be proven wrong though.
I hope you’re wrong too f/3.5 is not what I would consider a portrait lens unless you’re shooting a 150mm f/3.5 medium format. They need to at least produce an 85/2.5 for a low cost portrait AF-S lens. Preferably just an AF-S version of the 85/1.8 though. It’s already a wonderful lens, just not a silent one.
1) AF-S 24mm f/1.4
2) AF-S 35mm f/1.4
3) AF-S 85mm f/1.4 VR II
4) AF-S 135mm f/2 VR II
5) AF-S 180mm f/2.8 VR II
6) AF-S 200mm f/4 macro VR II
&
2 more consumers’ lenses ???
2 other zoom lenses rather.
Yes. 17-35mm and 24-120mm VR II.
Couldn’t agree with you more, so tired of cheap slow zoom lenses… aaand no more Made in China or Thailand crap please…
I know people like primes, but I need to take a lot of pictures in a short time, so I’d like to see a
24-70 f2.8 VR2
or a
17-35 f2.8 VR2
or a
17-55 f2.8 VR2 DX
These shouldn’t be too hard to make, seeing as the have the optics already done.
Ok, admin, in case you missed it, I’m going to lay out why you won’t see a cheap rehash of the 300/4 ed-if: first off, it would have to be an improvement to warrant a remake, and the cheapest improvement would be a ring motor. Well, they already did that, the current AF-s 300/4, which is still listed as current on Nikon’s site. The 300/4 ed-if did not go for $600 when it was new. The current AF-s goes for about $1500.
They aren’t going to make a new one without a ring motor.
So you’re looking at a new lens for more than $1500, and it’s not a super popular lens for any other reason than performance for it’s price. And it’s performance is met or exceeded by other lenses or lens/TC combos already available with much more popular lenses. (70-300AF-s, 80-200/2.2+TC, etc.)
I’m sure we will see an new 300/4 some day. But it will not be for a couple years. I’d ignore any rumor about it that doesn’t actually include pictures.
I think adding VR and “improving the price”, is enough to warrant an rehash of the 300/f4. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have seen a new f2.8 VRII either.
And the 300/2.8VRII took less time to develop, the 300/4.0VRII wil have to become G, get VRII, and probably get the A/m switch too. If they are really on a roll, they even make a better tripod foot, since people seem to not like it very much.
Adding VR to the 300 f/4 is a pretty obvious upgrade and might well explain the decision to upgrade the f/2.8.
If they add VR it has to be VRII. But the $6000 lens has to be at least as agile as the cheaper model so it needs to be upgraded as well. I would imagine that the bulk of the engineering work to add VRII was done at the same time that the 400, 500 and 600 were redesigned.
I would not be certain that the 135mm replacement will be DC. The DC lenses have sold pretty poorly. Refreshing the teles makes sense, but I would expect VR to be a higher priority for most. If they can deliver VR plus great bokeh behind the focal point I suspect that will be enough for most.
I agree that the 24mm, 35mm and 100-500 make sense, but there is no way that Nikon would only be issuing FX lenses costing over $1500 each.
I suggest that it is much more likely that Nikon has three more DX lenses on the way. I would suggest that more primes priced at $200 like the 35mm are rather more likely. In 2009 Nikon released more DX lenses than FX lenses.
Agree with your theory on the 300 F4 – hopefully we’ll see it in 2010!
“but there is no way that Nikon would only be issuing FX lenses costing over $1500 each.
I suggest that it is much more likely that Nikon has three more DX lenses on the way.”
My goodness…let’s hope the 80-400 and 300 F/4 replacements don’t turn out to be DX lenses!
I think it highly unlikely that a tele and an ultra tele would be targetted at any other market segment than DX. If you want long reach you use a DX camera if you have sense.
Fortunately for FX users, once you go beyond 100 mm the cost of making an FX lens and a DX lens are pretty much identical.
But given the launch of a 100-500 lens, it would make most sense for Nikon to pair it with the launch of a 24-100ish DX zoom for circa $900. Then the DX shooter can go from 10 to 500mm in three lenses: 10-24/24-100/100-500. Only the last of them needs to be a real brute to carry.
Canon has an f/4 lens that is 24-105 in FX frame, If Nikon was going to copy Canon it would be the lens that makes most sense to copy. It might well be that DX owners looking to buy pricey lenses other than ultrawides are going to want the insurance of FX capability.
But if you want a camera that gives good range coverage on a minimal set of lightweight lenses, the DX format is going to be much more satisfactory than an FX sensor and f/4 lenses.
Oh yes, and added Nano of course
One doesn’t simply “add VR’ to a lens!
VR works by shifting an internal element. They need to design the lens around the ability to shift that one element and maintain image quality. That one element has to be lightweight AND have coverage WITH resolution left over for the shift. That means a whole new optical formula, and probably not a tweaked one like the 50/1.4G. I repeat, you don’t just “add VR”, it takes a whole new optical design. One for each lens. You can’t bulk design high quality lenses. Even in the the computer age. Optics are a much more complex science than you think.
So you aren’t going to see a 300/4G VR for less than 1500 either. Maybe 1800 in a couple years.
I totally hear you with your desire for this lens, but you’re dreaming.
If you really want a 300/f4, buy one today! Check KEH and Amazon. They’re available. Nothing stopping you. If you’re afraid of a new one coming out sometime soon, don’t be!
If you must have VR, get the 70-300VR. It’s a stop slower, but it still has good isolation at 300, and it’s really quite sharp. And it will surely retain it’s value better than the 300/4. Either of these get you to 300mm today, if that’s what you need. Just pick up a lens and shoot!
I’ve used the 300 f4 and I own a 70-300 VR. The IQ of the 300 f4 is better. Not to mention I can put TCs on the 300 f4.
I understand that a 300 f4 VR AF-S would be a complete redesign of the lens, and there is no chance the price would be the same (probably closer to $2000), but I still want one.
from 2004 and down there are lenses missing like 24-85 and 24-120.
Canon 28-300 and not 80-300
updated fx lenses and new dx lenses in the last two years.
hmm, good i am with dx
Hmm speak like yoda we are, fast wide dx prime i need. would be nice 12 to 14mm 2,8 wide
I agree with the 24-85 provided that it is a fixed f4 with a build quality nearer the 24-70 f2.8 than my 24-85 f3.5-4.5. This is the one lens that is really needed to partner the D700.
I think Nikon sould hit a home run with a 21-85mm f/4 for FF. The 16-85 DX is already pretty good, just cut at bottom, increase diameter a bit for FF coverage, voilá!
It’d be my everyday lens on the coming D800/D700x/D700s, whatever comes next.
“increase diameter a bit for FF”???
Seriously, FX is more than twice as large as DX. There is no standard zoom, FX or DX or 4/3 or what ever that starts below 24mm (or 24mm equivalent).
And 21 is not enough to be the widest lens, so you need a WA zoom anyway. So you better start at 24 and have the long end somewhere between 85 and 105 to have it sharp and compact and not too costly, IMO (-:
But you are completely right that Nikon need a compact high grade standard zoom for the D700. And whatever successors may come.
Adding the 24 and 35 means that I can fully replicate my current Canon kit of lenses. I’m not sure if that is good news or bad news. 2010 could be a VERY expensive year for me.
N version with fast focus of the 80-400 with VR2 please…
I’d get one, whether 80-400 or 100-500. A 300 (or 400) AF-S f4 with VR would work as well. If Nikon doesn’t get off their rear soon I may just end up with a 70-200 f2.8 and the new TC-20 III.
I hope 70-200 and new TC-20III will be great solution as i miss only that TC2 and have TC1.7, but vote also for 300or400f4 or 100-500.
I am also thinking of pairing the TC-20III with the 70-200 as a 140-400 lens.
May be that is why Nikon does not consider the 80-400 a priority.
100-500 now starts to make sense.
The 70-200 2.8 VR (not the new one) with the 1.7TC is crap. I used the combination twice in 4 years and was horribly disappointed both times. The TC just sat in my bag until I got a 300 2.8. Don’t plan on using teleconverters with zooms. You’ll just be massively disappointed.
Works great with the 1.7 converter. Just did some controlled tests – better than my 12 million pixels corner to corner even wide open..
2x may be just fractionally too much.
N version of the 100-500 with VRII please, Nikon needs a xx-500 zoom
The “Nikon Nikkor F 300mm f/4.5″ and “Nikon Nikkor F 300mm f/4.5 IF ED” are old manual lenses, apparently both have been added to the website recently, that’s why they have got the label “new”.
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#300
I do not know why there is an F included in the lens name, maybe it shall indicate the F-mount.
i just got word that 2010 is the year of all 8 primes…..jk you wish.
yes, 2010 will be very expensive year.. i didn’t have even new 70-200 yet and there will be 24 f1.4, 100-500 and probably d700 sucessor.. i have to feed my clay pig properly
Any chances of DX versions of the 24/1.4, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4? I mean kind of what happened with the AF-S 50/1.4 and AF-S 35/1.8?
I probably won’t be able to afford any of the F1.4 primes but their DX counterparts like an 16/2.8 and 58/1.8 would go straight into my bag
I’m with you Mike.
58/1.8? I rather buy the 60/2.8 micro.
16/2.8? Too slow, make it f/2.0 or faster and I am in.
24/2.0 or faster for DX, and yes, bingo.
At 16mm DX / 24mm FX I find F2.8 plenty fast. Faster would of course be better but probably cause a surge in both price and size/weight. I’m however thinking of something akin to the 35/1.8 dimensions with 52mm filters and a price below $400.
The 58mm would be the DX equivalent to the classic portrait length of 85mm FX. I would love for it to be F1.4 but again, same rules apply as with the 16mm.
As for the third lens you mention, a 24mm DX lens would be great (just as well as a DX 90/2.0). BUT as already mentioned by others Nikon has way to go before their lens lineup covers every photographers needs and I think FX is more important in this regard as that’s where the PR, image and big margins are! So I’d rather Nikon sticks with the one development process = two lenses pattern and the rumor states the 35/1.4 (and with it the DX 24/?) is out. Besides WA prime is where Nikon lacks bad from my point of view…
The 24/1.4 FX will be way out of my league, so I need something slower and probably smaller at the same time. I am willing to pay 400 euro for it, like the 50/1.4G, but only if the optics and build are good, I’d like weather seal, metal mount and distance scale window.
Have to say that the 24 1.4, 16-35 VR are most intriguing to me. 100-500 sounds great too as it will bring 500 mm to us mere mortals.
500mm Nikkor that is
Let’s not forget Nikon took 50 manual focus lenses off the market a few years ago and replaced them with – nothing. • Let’s not forget Nikon have been producing G lenses for several years and yet most of their FX lenses are still not G capable. • And lets’ not forget Nikon have been derelict in matching Canon’s 300 ƒ4 IS lenses for several years while they try to get milage out of the old 300. • And let’s not forget Nikon are still producing a single axis shift PC-E lense and will be for a very long time, well behind Canon’s 17. • And let’s not forget Nikon are now asking a thousand bucks for lenses made in China.
That’s my short list.
And finally let’s not forget that Nikon are Nikon and still think it’s 1972 and will do what they bloody well please irregardless of their customers.
irregardless is not a word. Just say “regardless”, means same thing
i thought that “china made” reflected in DX 35mm f1.8 price, but don’t know about others as all my other lens are made in japan and my d300 in thailand.. what more expensive china made lens do you know please?
The 35mm f/1.8 is cheap because it uses a hybrid element instead of polishing to get the aspherical component.
Place of manufacture may make a difference, but I suspect not as much as is imagined. Nikon are building plants in China because they want to sell to the Chinese market.
the d300 is made in thailand??? wtf ???
What rock have you been hiding under?
Yes, at least mine is. It has from botom of the camera written Nikon Corp. Japan Made in Thailand. It was bought in UK.
Old news, bro
um, so is the D200
what is G capable?
G is limitation, not a feature!
G means costs saved on an aperture ring, its all electronic nowadays
Would love some new non-G fast primes, that can be used on my D700 and FM3A. In fact i would love a compact full frame rugged body, a la FM/FE series, with manual focus and non G pancakes and/or superfast primes… kind of affordable leica M (rangefinder or not), and M43 killer
And better weather sealing.
I wish F4 F4 F4 F4 F4 F4 F4 ……. and 8 F4 Lenses
28-300 VRII would be very nice
Tamron is the only option at this point.
Nikon made 18-200 for DX, why not have something like this for FX ?
Because it would weigh a ton?
Be still my heart (thump-thump….thump-thump).
I should like a 24-85 f.4 continous , very useful.
Personally, I have thought that an AFS 18-135 FX, VRII, N, F/4 would sell like wildfire. Make it sharp, fast focusing, and reliable and all we FX users would buy one.
I plan to buy at least one body and two lenses next year. That is one that I would love to have though. I don’t see it coming though. Nikon does need a good walk around FX lens though, we all know this.
Just my thoughts.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holy Days
No, it would not sell at all. Because it would be extremely big and heavy and costly.
AFAIK, there is not a single FX standard zoom out there that starts below 24mm, and no DX or 4/3 equivalent either. There is a reason for that: today’s optics cannot handle the problems involved. Try again in 2030 (-:
Perhaps I don’t understand why it would be that much heavier. Canon makes the 24-105 standard zoom. Nikon makes a 14-24 f2.8 wide zoom, Canon makes an 16-35 f2.8 zoom, both FF. Why would it be that much heavier?
I have an engineering background and I don’t see why it has to be that big or that heavy. Please define extremely big and heavy.
Not being hard to get along with, just trying to understand your statement from an engineering perspective. Please feel free to be technical.
Thanks for the information.
What I can tell, 24-105/4.0 is of a usable size, “portable”.
When you make it wider and longer (18mm instead of 24 and 135 instead of 105) and keep the aperture at f/4, you will lose on either or both portable and optical performance.
On DX you can see what the 18-135 is like, so take that, and make it f/4 in the long end and you will see what will happen.
Thanks for your comments but I don’t think you see the point. Yes, it will weigh a little more. Given. Yes, it will be a little bigger. Portable, yes, still quite portable. Some of us carry around a lot more than that.
Yes, it is Very possible to go wider. Yes, it is very possible to do that and maintain optical quality. Look at the 14-24mm. Awesome lens.
Portable. Okay, I leave out int he morning and I carry a D3x with a 70-200, I carry a D3 and a 14-24mm. I carry a 24-70 along for kicks. This weighs in at 13 pounds.
If I remove the 24-70 at 2 pounds and the 14-24 at 2.3 pounds for a total of 4.3 pounds. I think an 18-135 F/4 wouldn’t weigh 5 or 6 pounds here.
I don’t think my back would mind that much.
If we can go 14mm wide on the 14-24 at F2.8, why can’t we go to 18mm at F/4?
So are you saying this lens is going to have Extremely bad optics and weigh 14 pounds?
Just saying, you cant have this lens at f/4 at 135mm, and still have good optical quality throughout the entire zoom range, that would take a huge amount of expensive glass. Dont compare a “super” zoom with the 14-24 , yes we can go wide, but I meant it in the total range of the lens.
Yes, there are good 16-35 and 24-105s. But combining them into one 18-105 lens wouldn’t be that easy because of their different construction. At the wide end you need strongly curved elements, whereas the tele end wants them to be comperativly flat.
Sure, you could compensate by using only a tiny section of strongly curved element when being set to longer focal lengths, but there all kinds of flaws show up, either from physical limits or manufactoring tolerances. You’d end up with a hulk of a lens that can’t accept filters while lagging behind in optical quality.
I just want a *good* 24-135 (or even 105) mm VRII FX zoom. There is nothing like that in the current Nikon range.
35mm f1.4 Please Nikon!! Also, some constant f4 lenses would be nice eg 16-85mm or similar as f4 on DX
hi admin, what about 200-400 f4 update please? it’s from 2004 and it’s brother 70-200 from 2003 was just updated.. no word about it yet?
thanks a lot
200-400, VRII, Nano and A/m switch, thats all it takes
and VR II
What did I say?
24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, and 85mm 1.4 all FX would be a death blow to Canon. What is Nikon waiting for?
your money on all three at once, and, if you bring out all the goods at once, no one will talk about it after 3 months any more, you need to keep the fire burning!
I don’t think that’s true.
Having a full array of fast primes available makes the Nikon system much more attractive. There presence in the catalog (or in a roadmap, if Nikon would ever release one) would probably generate more sales than would a succession of surprise product announcements.
Nikon needs to get this stuff announced as soon as they can ship in volume. As the last few years have shown, they don’t seem to pay particular attention to PMA, Photokina, the Olympics, etc. for product announcements – or even for Christmas in the case of pro gear (it’s not as though the 300mm AF-S VR II was destined to be somebody’s stocking-stuffer).
It won’t get old…. I still find myself thinking about Canon lenses and I haven’t shot Canon for years…
the 300mm AF-S VR II would give me a stocking stuffer
A “stocking” suffer or or “shocking” stuffer?
Alex
35mm 1.4
300mm f/4.0 VRII Nano
135mm f/2.0 VRII
Make these and I marry a Japanese.
35mm 1.4
300mm f/4.0 VRII Nano
135mm f/2.0 VRII
Make these and I marry a Japanese.
I belive your counts are incorrect. Based on availability (and not announce dates), my records show that Nikon released the followng:
2000 4 (18-35, 24-85, 80-400, 14)
2001 9 (70-300 4.0-5.6G, 300 4.0, TC-14EII, TC-20EII, 28-80G, 300 2.8 NonVR, 500 4.0 non VR, 400 2.8 non VR, 600 4.0 non VR)
2002 3 (28-100, 24-85, 50 1.8)
2003 5 (24-120, 70-200 VR old, 10.5 fisheye, 12-24DX, 28-200G)
2004 5 (200-400, 200 2.0, 17-55DX, 18-70DX, TC17-EII)
2005 4 (300 2.8 N, 18-200 old vers, 55-200 G ED, 18-55 DX G ED)
2006 4 (70-300 VR, 18-55 G ED II, 105 micro, 18-135DX)
2007 5 (14-24, 24-70, 400, 18-55VR, 55-200VR)
2008 9 (50 AF-S, 500, 600, 16-85DX, 18-105DX, 60 AF-S micro, 24TS, 45TS, 85TS)
2009 5 (18-200DX rev, 10-24DX, 85mm DX micro, 35DX, 70-200II)
So if I’m correct, Nikon released 9 in 2008 (and they also released 9 in 1993, 1994 and 2001), so 8 would not be a record. But IMO, in this economy, Nikon is not releasing 8 lenses in 2010, even though I count the new 300 and the new teleconverter as 2010 lenses, so they would only have to release six additional.
ZoetMB, I was using Nikon USA press center section as a source:
http://press.nikonusa.com/gallery/category.php?c=nikon/Lenses/
I think they have missed some lenses.
Economy, shmonomy.
Nikon is more likely to introduce lens variants in a weak economy when the factories are at below capacity than in a strong economy when they are at full stretch production-wise.
The Japanese economy was in a recession for a decade, they can’t afford to wait for the end of the current recession.
3 f4 zooms (wide, standard, tele),
3 f1.4 primes (24, 35, 85),
the 300 f4 VR,
and the 100-500 f4-5.6 VR,
makes 8. And a perfect world. Come on, Nikon, you can do it (-:
I bet they will come with the 16mm FX fisheye upgrade!
Actually, that would really be my number 9. Which I would buy, along with the f4 zooms, and the 100-500, while I would not buy the primes I mentioned.
Why would that need an upgrade? VR? oO
they need a 200 macro as well, for a perfect world…
It depends on how big the 100-500mm is before I buy it. If it’s the size of the sigma 150-500mm then I’ll get it.
A 28-300mm Nikon is something I would like also. I have the Tamron and like it, but faster AF and a better build would be awesome.
The new primes would be great also.
I don’t know about these predictions…
Your list reads as a list of what Nikon SHOULD release, and the lenses I would personally like to see, almost in the exact order I would like to see them. It’s just too good to be true.
I agree with half of what you have listed, but I’m pretty sure that the other half will be some bullsh** DX zooms that we don’t need.
so that BS DX 16-55/2.0, you would not want it?
dB, so far I have received tips for the 24mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4 and the 100-500 lenses – the rest is just speculation on my part based on previous posts.
WoutK89… Yeah i want a DX16-55/2.0! Then I again, I don’t have DX camera, so it wouldn’t help me.
I’m just saying that every lens listed here is pretty much exactly what most people think Nikon should release, but they often release a few lenses that nobody saw coming and most don’t think are necessary.
Admin, I sure hope you’re right…. although my wallet would disagree.
Very unexciting Nikon! Besides the 85mm f/1.4, I can’t foresee any reason I’d buy any of the other lenses mentioned.
You do know it is a RUMOR still?
have you ever shot with 135mm f/2? it blows 85mm f/1.4 away by a mile IMHo. i am waiting for 135mm f/2 update.
Love my 135mm f2. What an excellent lens! My only problem w/ it is the abysmal focusing. Blech
Some proper AF-S hardware inside would make it an absolute *dream* on the D700 (and not to say that VRII would hurt 
)
Maybe Nikon might shock you all and just buy out Sigma lol
My dream lens would be a upgraded 200mm f/4 Macro with Nano and VR II that would even be slightly smaller & lighter than the current 200 Macro.
As for a 16mm fisheye upgrade……..the only upgrade I can see would be Nano, but what would be truly sweet is if they could engineer it and the 14-24 to take screw on front filters. Now I’d sell the wife to have that:^)
Wow, I’m really hoping to see the 35mm 1.4 soon so that I can replace my DX 35mm which has bad front focusing, weird yellow discoloration at times, and not so sharp….a disappointment. I’ll hope and hope that it will be announced in Feb-March!!
if it produces weird yellow colorations SOMETIMES, isnt it the white balance thats off, and not the lens?
Nope, it only happens at certain angles (mostly low angles), but it’s difficult to confirm what angles they are…
Admin, I understand you have a tip that denies the exisitence of the 35 f/1.4.
However, that will cause a hole in the lineup. It will be awkward to have that big a gap between a 24mm and a 50mm.
I think he meant Q1 release/announcement
I think the 35mm 1.4 will be released later – Nikon has filed a patent for it already
The old 35mm f/2 is still there in the meantime. Yes, a new AF-S version would be better, but that is one of their faster primes currently, and they have already satisfied the DX crowd with the 35mm f/1.8, so it makes sense that this is the last to be updated.
New!! 300 F/4 will be here before end FEB 2010
24mm and 85mm 1.4s in FEB
What I expect
24/1.8 AF-S FX (cheaper and lighter than 1.4)
35/2 AF-S FX (enough for me)
85/1.4 AF-S FX (love the D but why not a new one without AC)
135/1.8 AF-S FX or 135/2 (need need need !!)
and a zoom like 24-105 or 24-135 2.8 (I can sell my 24-70 if it’s worth it!)
haha, this one is even better
24-135/2.8, really not gonna happen before they come with the D7
what is with this fascination with f/4 zooms. do people want it just because canon makes them?
if you want DOF, then go f/2.8 pro stuff. if you dont want so much weight then go primes.
otherwise 3.5-5.6 is proven to be much cheaper to make and only means 1 bump in iso
even f/2.8-f/4 makes more sense to me than a flat f/4.
I would have bought the 16-85 VR if it had been an f/2.8-4. But with it being at f/3.5-5.6 I decided to go with the Tamron 17-50 VC f/2.8 instead.
I think the problem is Nikon’s designations of lenses. Constant aperture f/4 seems to message that it is a Prosumer lens (Pro Quality, but reduced price for the masses) even though Nikon does not have an official Consumer vs. Prosumer vs. Pro designation scheme for its lenses. When Nikon puts out a variable aperture lens without some kind of Prosumer designation, it is hard to differentiate online and in catalogs the consumer lenses from the Prosumer lenses (Case in point, I think there is a lot of discussion and comparison of the 16-85 vs the 18-105, with the 16-85 probably being considered a slow Prosumer and the 18-105 being squarely in consumer). If they came out with some sort of designation, I think the public would be more willing to buy the fast variable apertures over the constant f/4. But the f/3.5-5.6 should be avoided at the Prosumer and Pro levels unless absolutely necessary (it seems to make sense for the rumored 100-500 lens).
So you are saying that you really want the camera as a fashion accessory rather than a tool and would like a lens that looks nice and expensive like the f/2.8s are but is lighter and somewhat less expensive?
Nikon has never made prosumer gear and probably never will. They make professional cameras for the masses and have done since the F-Photomic.
Nikons term for their expensive gear would be ’specialized’.
i see your point but as for me it’s not right for all applications: 200-400 f4 is really great lens to have..
I already preordered all 8
Thank you for your order Anonymous. Make the check payable to: NikoDoby
and don’t worry about the total amount. Just leave it blank and I’ll fill it in for ya!
2010 the year of FX?
wasn’t 2007 the year of FX?
Every year is the year of FX, then Nikon unveils its lenses and it stops being so
i don’t think I could afford any of those lenses, UNLESS, they do a 24 1.8 35/2 update instead of making them 1.4. . .
would really like a 50-150/2.8 VR DX.
Me too… But Nikon have to hurry because I’m about to buy a Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 or a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8.
I also think that the Nikkor 16mm AF f/2.8 fisheye lens may be in the plans for replacement.
according to bhphoto.com this lens is temporary out of stock and no restocking dates have been addressed. This sounds normal, as i also thought, but as i was looking around the 135mm f/2.0D DC lens and the 200mm f/4.0D lens as well as a select few of other lenses all had the same message
coincidence?
You mean like the super teles being temporary out of stock most of the time? Will they already be replaced, updated to the A/M switch?
There may be some kind of update, im not sure though. If those lenses were just out of stock they would say “out of stock” like some other lenses on Bhphoto.com have. but the memo said temporarily out stock with no made plans for replacement. maybe thier planning for a VRII update or something.
i know i sure wouldn’t mind having a wider fisheye with possibly a lower f/stop and nano coating.
200/4 Micro AFS VRII N. Yes??? About time… All the other Micros have been updated…
nikon should just make what everyone is on this board is crying for…
24mm f4
35mm f4
please make this nikon!
hehe, that would make no sense at all to produce, but very funny
I’d consider buying both of them if they were
- sharp and contrasty edge-to-edge even on 24MP FX bodies
- free of CA
- flare resistant
- lightweight
- cheap, as in about 200-300 EUR
They would be ideal landscape lenses.
1) 85/1.4 AF-S ‘N’
DX
2) 105/2.0 DC AF-S ‘N’ (VR – may or may not)
3) 16-35 or 17-40 f/4.0 AF-S
4) 200/4 MICRO 1:1 AF-S VR ‘N’
5) 300/4 AF-S VR ‘N’
6) FX Wide Primes 1 or 2
7) DX
Did you mean, keep the DC feature in that lens, or is it a typo?
So exciting, but curious historically how long does it normally take from the announcement until inventory hits the stores for shipping?
8 new 18-XX DX zooms
18-70/2.8-4.0 VRII?
With all the rumors for so long, I really expect (hope) the 80-400 / 100-500 or whatever it ends up to be, will be announced prior to PMA (end of Feb, 2010) and available in the summer at the latest. I would also expect a 300 F4 VR II in a similar timeframe, for many of the same reasons.
If 100-500mm ever comes out, that should replace 200-400/4 instead of 80-400. 200-400 and 80-400 are in completely different camps. 80-400 replace must not be as heavy as 200-400, and must not be as expensive as 200-400.
Look at what Sigma makes, its possible to keep it within 80-400 proportions. So why would this rumored 100-500 be like the 200-400?
The 400/5,6 does fine with the commen 77mm filter thread.
A 500/5,6 needs at least a 90mm front lens, with filters topping out at 86mm you’d need a drop in solution and perhaps the protective glass sheat, making the whole think look like more similar to the super teles instead of the more commen lenses. Simply from a humans try to find patterns-point of view.
The Sigma 150-500/6,3 at least takes the same filters as the 100-300/4 or the Bigma
I think Nikon will find a way
It’s all rumors, keep dreaming, in dreams anything is possible.
Let’s just hope they will at least have a 80-400 Upgrade up their sleeves.
If 500/5.6 is feasible at the current size of 80-400/5.6, we need to re-write physics text book first.
Maybe it is less than f/5.6 at the top end.
With modern high ISO sensors a lens that was f/5.6 at 400mm and went to 500 with some loss of light would atill be worth having.
Problem would be that the autofocus modules are designed for f/5.6.
Yes, 100-500 and 200-400 are really totaly different lens and so then 100-500 as 5x zoom can’t anyhow replace 200-400 f4 which is 2x zoom i think. There is another level of compromise and quality in that optics.
Re the question asking why f4 zooms keep being asked for, I’m one of the people doing it, is in my case simply answered. Om my D700 the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 is my most used lens and, like a previous poster, I totally fail to see why Nikon stopped producing it; but its build quality is definitely in the prosumer class. I do not want the bulk and weight of the 24-70 f2.8, but I do want a similar build quality, going to f4 means a smaller lens and going to 85mm cures the problem of the 24-70 being too short a focal length at the long end.
Another thing often overlooked when asking for extended range zoom lenses is that for the highest optical quality, approximately 3:1 zoom ranges for the middling focal lengths and 2:1 for wide and tele is about the practical limit. Hence the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and 200-400 in the present ‘top of the range’ Nikon lineup. Not trolling, but when Canon introduced their 24-105 f4 they proved this, as numerous tests have shown that between 24 & 35 the edge performance of the 24-105 suffers. I never understood why Canon made it that particular range anyway; as they already had the 17-40 and they could have introduced a 35-105 of far better optical quality and sold two lenses instead of one.
I had that 24-105 f4 on a 5D until I moved to Nikon a few months ago, and my sample was very good wide open at the short end, and excellent right to the edges at f5.6. It suffered a bit at the long end though.
This one, and the compact 70-200 f4 IS, are the lenses I am really missing in Nikonland.
I really wish for an update to the 85mm f1.4 with an 85mm f1.4 AFS G
that would be really nice for us in fashion photography
So, Chris P, youd be happy if nikon to make a 24-85mm lens which is pro quality but without the weight and cost of the 24-70. so a AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 with revised better build quality would make you a happy camper. still no need for the ‘magical’ f4
what i see is noobs chanting ‘f4 f4 f4′ because they cant afford a f/2.8 zoom and think zoom lenses must have a constant aperture to be adequate
No I would not be happy with a 24-85 f3.5-4.5 of better build quality, and it is not because I think that zooms need to be a constant aperture to be adequate. It is because for the highest optical quality a constant aperture is necessary, as in order to obtain the constant maximum aperture, the lens design must be better corrected. If this were not so then Nikon’s top lenses would also be of variable aperture.
Oh please Nikon, please please pretty please… present us with a 16-35 or a 17-40 or something… New primes are all good and well but some people just need some flexibility on the wide end!!
But havent constant aperture doesnt mean the lens will be instantly good. 17-40L for example isnt quite ‘pro’ image quality. sigma could have eletronically crippled the 18-70 f2.8-4 to be constant f/4 if they wanted. but the 2.8 end is beneficial.
just like the 3.5 end of your 3.5-4.5. there also have been very high quality and/or professional zoom lenses which arent constant aperture such as the 80-400vr
ah… but fixed aperture zoom lenses are a blessing when you’re changing FL on the fly and using manual exposure.
How about 1.2?
?Nikon no tiene juevos?
I guess there will be a competitor to the Sigma 50-150 2.8 with VR. I think it will complete the DX line-up well and sell very good.
I agree. But before the DX lineup is complete I would also like a 17-55mm f/2.8 with VR and more affordable than the current version without VR. Tamron has just released an 18-50mm f/2.8 with VR (OC) – I am very tempted.
+1 for 1.4 primes.
Just when I thought I was over this NAS problem!
16-35 f/4…now your talking my language.
For us mortals who don’t want to dish out the cash for the 14/24 f/2.8.
Other than size, a 16-35/4 would (for me) have some other very significant benefits over the 14-24/2.8:
- possibility to use filters
- more useful focal length range
- lighter weight (to use it on mountain tours)
- hopefully more flare resistant
Even at the same price, I would go for a 16-35/4 over a 14-24/2.8 assuming they had both outstanding optical quality
eh, 4 of them will be again some 18-XX(X) zooms
I call farce. How many times have you said this, this is a juicy rumor but I’ll believe it when I see it. Hell I’ll sell my 5d2’s and be a D3 shooter, but this will likely never happen, Nikon loves their zoom lenses too much.
I think that it’s likely that of the 8 new releases for 2010, Nikon will simply released a VR II version of it long lenses, namely:
FX
200mm f2G IF-ED AF-S VR II
400mm f2.8G ED AF-S VR II
500mm f4G ED AF-S VR II
600mm f4G ED AF-S VR II
200-400mm f4G IF-ED AF-S VR
If this is the plan, I hope that Nikon will release more than 8 lenses in 2010, and also release the following:
24mm f/1.4G AF-S VR II
85mm f/1.4G AF-S VR II
135mm f/1.4G AF-S VR II
16-35mm f/2.8G AF-S
24-120mm f/4.0G AF-S VR II
100-500mm AF-S VR II
In my wish list are the following lenses which I will surely buy:
24-120mm f/4.0G AF-S VR II
- even if I own the 24-70mm AF-S and the 24-85mm AF-S
70-200mm f/4.0G AF-S VR II
- even if I own the 70-200mm f/2.8G in both the VR and VR II version
400,500 and 600 are already VRII
Also, no VRII in any 24mm 1.4, its just not needed and leaves room for future upgrades if they decide that 24mm needs VR somehow.
16-35/2.8, the rumor was f/4, which is more logical than 2.8 (14-24 & 24-70 are already here, they dont need another 1500+ lens in this range)
It takes just a little bit of sense to know and predict
“(14-24 & 24-70 are already here, they dont need another 1500+ lens in this range)”
The 14-24mm is no replacement for a 17-35mm (or a 16-35mm) for a lot of photojournlism. 17-35 is a much better range for “people” pj work. I use a D300 and the 12-24mm hardly leaves it, a similar focal range as the 17-35. I think many others think the same. Cheers
Did you read what I said in front of that what you quoted? I said, it will not be 2.8, but 4.0 according to the rumor! So I am not saying the lens will not exist, nor that the 14-24/24-70 have been the replacement to the older 17-35 lens.
No worries. I agree the rumour was for a f4 lens. I was more commenting on the “they dont need another 1500+ lens in this range”, in that the 17-35 still has a place in this line-up. Sorry for not explaining myself properly
Cheers
@ WoutK89
Thanks for the correction re 400, 500 and 600. They are indeed VRII and I am glad as these would now be excluded from the expected new release next year.
Re 24mm, indeed, VR is not needed here. Copy and paste sometimes lead to simple mistakes. Re 16-35mm, it does not matter whether this lens will be f/2.8 or f/4.0. I have a 14-24mm and a 17-35mm but will pull the trigger on a new 16-35mm if this is as good as the 14-24mm but capable of taking a filter.
So it seems like these are the 8-lenses may release next year:
24mm f/1.4G AF-S
85mm f/1.4G AF-S VR II
135mm f/1.4G AF-S VR II
16-35mm f/2.8G AF-S
24-120mm f/4.0G AF-S VR II
100-500mm AF-S VR II
200mm f2G IF-ED AF-S VR II
200-400mm f4G IF-ED AF-S VR
I am however fairly certain that Nikon will also release new DX lenses next year. Hopefully, these will be in addition to what are listed above.
I forget to mention 1 on your list
(PS probably same price too)
135/1.4, that will be about as huge as the 200/2.0 is if you want sharpness from the lowest aperture
Again, a copy and paste error.
It should read as
Nikon 135mm f/2.0 AF-S VR II
I had the 135mm f/2.0 DC but sold it recently in anticipation of Nikon’s release of the new version.
By the way, you can make a good living as a proof-reader! =)
Since you brought it up, though most unlikely, if Nikon makes one, I would not mind getting a Nikon 135mm f/1.4 for the price and heft of a Nikon 200mm f/2.0!
With all the telephoto lenses you do list, an obvious one that is not there is the 300 F4. I really hope Nikon does finally upgrade that lens as well, adding VR II, Nano, and hopefully a better tripod mount!
His entire list incomplete or based on wrong information
did every one just give up on the 9mm DX prime. I think i have decited to stay DX to help keep the IQ in older non Nano coated lens but this lens or a 12mm prime would go along way to helping me put FX aside at least until i can afford a 500mm AF-s with nano coating.
Your best bet (at least for the foreseeable future) is the Tokina 11-16 2.8 Pretty much a prime, and as close to 9mm as you’ll probably ever get with f/2.8 on crop… (Aside from fisheye, that is…)
=Matt=
I dont like zooms, minimum focusing distance is never minimum on the wide end… the tokina is on a short list of lens that are optional. but still nikon will be putting out more DX prime lens at some point (not sure if i have the time to wait for them)
and as they did a 50 1.4 then shrunk it down for the 35 1.8 DX and the same for the 105 (or 60) to 85 f3.5 one can hope that a 12mm will come then a new 20mm FX, a 9mm / fx14mm.
and i agree on your post below, I will think about the 24/35 f1.4 when and if it comes to pass.
I wish people would shut up about f/2 primes. That’s what got us surpassed by Canon in the portrait photography business in the first place. all this 35 f/2 nonsense. Have ANY of you f/2 lovers tried the Canon 35 1.4 L? The bokeh is OMG…
Actually, it’s less about the exact aperture, and more about the amount of glass they’re willing to put into the lens, period. Compare for example the NIkon 50 1.4, Sigma 50 1.4 and Canon 50 1.2… The Nikon is tiny, and has decent but certainly NOT perfect bokeh. The Sigma is fat, tons of glass, yet still f/1.4, AND YET it has great bokeh because of the extra glass (and aspherical, etc. etc.) In fact, the Sigma 50 1.4 is about equally as much glass as the Canon 50 1.2.
Either way, I’m sick of Nikon being almost completely absent from the f/1.X prime game. I shoot portraits and weddings and I really like the Canon bokeh. I’m sure it has a tiny bit to do with the size of the lens mount and the extra size that affords larger glass elements… But I know that Nikon has made great 50 1.2’s in the past, and a 35 1.4, 28 1.4, etc… Oh well. Maybe I’ll just buy a 50 1.2 AIS…
=Matt=
Is the quality of the Sigma 50 1.4 really better than the Nikon 50 1.4? I’ve always been afraid to shoot anything but Nikon glass.
im curious what everyone here that wants to buy the 24/1.4 uses it for. Or more specifically what will it do for you that the 14-24 wont do well. Yes it gives you 2 stops but for what kind of photography do you need to see in the dark at wide-angles? I get (and own) a fast normal and fast short tele. I just dont see myself really needing a super fast wideangle.
A 24mm 1.4 would equate to a fast 36 on DX. I use a 12-24mm and a 24 2.8 on the D300 for night shooting. I mostly shoot street and club work between about 10pm and 3am on the weekends. Using the 24 I’m often handholding at 1/15th sec at 1600,
So a couple of extra stops would be great! I’d sacrifice dof for better sharpness. Even if I change to the D700 I would still like a 35mm 1.4 for the same work. And flash (unless I use slow-synch) only ruins the atmosphere.
Cheers
I don’t consider the 300mm, f2.8 VRII and the 18-200mm VRII lens to be new lenses. No optic has ever changed only VR gets stronger and the price gets heftier. So in 2009, they produced only 4 lenses, and only 70-200mm F2.8 VRII is an FX lens. What they need to work on now is canon’s f4 zoom equivalent of 24-105mm f4 and16-35mm f4 at a reasonable price. 14-24mm is good, but it is too specialized.
The 16-35 and 24-105 are both too mushy for high-res uses (for my taste/in my experience). The 14-24 never fails to produce good results (me on the other hand…) I have Nikon gear, and can rent or borrow either–Nikon still gets me where I want to go with much less work.
Nikon could use a 24-portrait length equivalent lens, but if it’s anything like their current one or the Canon 24-105 or 28-135, then it’s pointless. All those lenses give poor IQ in the corners on FX and they’re too low res for DX.
Nikon may be banking on selling a bunch of current 24-120 (mostly) as kit lenses to test for demand and maybe even fund a replacement. But it’s got a deserved reputation as a soft lens, so I hope that’s not the case.
I have a 30 year old manual 35 – 105 mm lens and it’s perfectly sharp and a great lens. But my D700 does not meter correctly with it, so if Nikon released a pro mid-range zoom, I would certainly buy it. But not the current terrible 24-120.
I DON’T BELIEVE IN ANY 16-35 RUMOR ANYMORE.
not in another year or two, at least. If you want perfect optics , get the 14-24. If you want to use filters, nikon’s still making the 17-35/2.8.
looking at how long they bring out AF-S version of the 1.4 primes, how can you expect nikon to replace an already AF-S lens…when the range was covered by 14-24/24-70 already.
I would rather vote for a 16-35 f/2.8 a few years down the road.
how about:
70-200mm f/4
35-70mm f2.8 now that full frame is back
24-105mm f/4
and various primes
They already have a nikon 24-70 AF-S 2.8…
“35-70mm f2.8 now that full frame is back”
make it 2.0 and its up to date, 2.8 is so 1992
Oh, and just to add again:
It would be a prime lens killer most probably
Any idea when then 100-500mm will be announced?
the day before yesterday
I personally would like to see Nikon release in 2010:
- AF-S DX ‘N’ 10-18 or 24 mm f/2.8D (to compete against Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8)
- AF-S DX 35mm f/1.4G (to compete against Sigma 30mm f/1.4)
- AF-S ‘N’ 85mm f/1.8D (update it)
- AF-S VRII ‘N’ 85mm f/1.4G (update it and some people just need VR)
- AF-S DX VRII ‘N’ 17-55mm f/2.8G (update it. Current one is heavy and VR helps)
- AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E III
- AF-S Teleconverter TC-14E III
- AF-S VRII DC 135mm f/1.8D (update plus wider aperture)
- AF-S VRII ‘N’ DC 135mm f/1.4G (update plus wider aperture)
- AF-S VRII DC 105mm f/1.8D (update plus wider aperture)
- AF-S VRII ‘N’ DC 105mm f/1.4G (update plus wider aperture)
- AF-S VRIII ‘N’ 70-200mm f/2.8G (*ahem* to replace the VRII version)
AFS DX 9-18 would be a better addition to the mix
AFS DX 35/1.4, why DX, they already have 1.8?
“- AF-S VRII ‘N’ DC 135mm f/1.4G (update plus wider aperture)”
read my comment higher up, this would be a monster of a lens, and possibly the price will be monstrous too.
“- AF-S VRII ‘N’ DC 105mm f/1.4G (update plus wider aperture)”
I think you are asking too much, if its DC, they not make it 1.4 and they will not make it on the 135 and 105.
as for the New 70-200mm 2.8 VRII. That just recently came out. why replace it within a year?
I personally would like to see another wide angle, perhaps DX 10-18 f2.8. Or perhaps 12-24 f4 might be enough.
Some of you might want to start weight lifting if weight is that big an issue. I routinely hike 10-15 miles a day carrying a 75lb pack.
Oh, my comment didn’t come out right. I didn’t mean that as a cocky comment – I just meant that if you workout and lift weights a lot, carrying around heavy lenses becomes less of an issue and can actually be a good way to challenge yourself to stay fit.
Its not the carrying, but the holding still of such a lens that is an issue. Also, it is not a walk around solution then anymore, you will need to carry with you a sturdy tripod as well.
why would they release two new AF lenses? Why wouldn’t the 135 and 200 be AF-S? has nikon released even a single AF lens in the last couple of years?
“My last three guesses are for a Nikkor AF DC 135mm f/2.0D, Nikkor AF Micro 200mm f/4D IF-ED replacements”
Is the word replacements that unclear to you?
Quote:
I got a word that Nikon will release eight (8) new lenses in 2010 (I will rate this rumor @ 80% probability). If true, this will be the most lenses Nikon has ever released in an year (at least in recent history):
EVER means forever. Put recent history does not make this work.
How about the most number of lens in recent history.
So where is that AF-S 8-1200mm f/1.2 VRIII lens that we are all waiting for?
Speak for yourself, lol
I rather have something longer than 200mm and less wide, 80-400 or longer focal length
Speak for yourself, lol
I rather have something longer than 1200mm and less wide, 800-4000 or longer focal length
One thing is 100% true: You guys will not be saticfied. You will complaine.
When new lences are released this forum will be carpet-bombed with meassages like:
- Zoom?!?! OUCH!!
- Why the f*** 1.8? Why not 1.4?
- I do not want THAT focal length!
- Oh no, it is for DX
- WE WANT PRIMES!
-This is it. Now I change to Canon!
-
And when all your wishes come thru:
- Damn it is expensive. Well now the old one will come to the aftermarket.
Merry Christmas!
Since when are people easily satisfied?
I don’t understand the desire for slow lenses?? They already exist. And with the quality of the 24-70 f/2.8 … why the desire for a 2.8 prime? My main love of primes is that offer apertures larger than Nikon is willing to give us as zooms – so something like a f/3.5 prime or something is just silly.
And I have no interest in a <200mm f/4 zoom.
slower, means smaller, means lighter, in case of a 2.8 prime instead of a zoom, its the same amount of light, but lighter in weight for about a factor 6-8.
You forgot cheaper.
Ah yes I did, I have been repeating myself so much in this thread, I got tired of getting it all together in one post
Nikon is way behind Canon in the professional FX prime lens category and I hope (pray) to get some more fast primes next year that are FX . Maybe even a *gasp* f/1.2 in the 50mm or 85mm focal length.
new focusing screen please