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).
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 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