The good news: the 24mm f/1.4 and 16-35mm f/4 VR lenses are coming.
The bad news: I don’t have an exact date for this announcement. As far as I know, there is no press conference scheduled for this release next week. The new products can be out as early as tomorrow and as late as Wednesday night. Previous patterns suggests the release should be on Wednesday, February 10th CET (or Tuesday midnight, US eastern time) – exactly a week after the Coolpix announcements.
The rumor is that some German retailers could already place orders for those two lenses. The expected retail availability is end of March, 2010.
New teleconverters are still with a low possibility (80% chance).
Related posts:
77 Comments
Updates even during the super bowl? That’s dedication admin.
actually dedication is when somebody is reading this blog during the Super Bowl
Read and comment between plays…….
I wasn’t here, but was paying attention to cams on the sidelines. Saw 3 white lenses, but didn’t see anything that screamed Nikon.
Reading NikonRumors during the Super Bowl? That’s dedication Paul.
Football, what is football? Who is football? Why is football?
Baseball, New York Yankees!
To me it is not dedication, at all. Ever since the Rams left Los Angeles, I do not follow football anymore.
The Rams left Los Angeles!!??
Indianapolis Colts? What happened to the Balitmore Colts?
No news on any new SLR’s, Admin?
That’s what laptops are for
I’ve been surfing the web for the last hour, while watching the “who dats”.
Damn you Nikon! We need announcements.
I think the d700x must be coming. Nikon must be able to compete with the 5D mkII.
yes please.
Not in august or ,maybe another year.
give me a 35/1.4 and i’ll be a happy nikon shooter
“Give me” is the key part of this statement. If someone “gave me” one, I’d be a happy camper, too!!
Yay! Those 28mm f1.4 will finally go down in prices.. Sell….Sell….
I’m watching superbowl in hope that I will spot a Nikon D4 or Nikon Primes, wide angle that is.
I still have a hard time believing that the AF-S 24mm f/1.4G FX will be released. I just do not see it. Why would Nikon compete with itself? Their emphasis is to go cleaner at higher ISOs with the new (actually old technology) cameras. With a 24 f/1.4 the need for a cleaner camera diminishes. It makes more sense if the new 24mm is a DX lens (or f/1.8).
The 16-35 f/4 is actually the FX counterpart of the DX 10-24. That makes sense to me.
I would not complain about the 24mm being a DX lens. If it were, it would probably be for a lot less money.
Henry:
A funny thing happen to me on my way to the AF-S 24mm f/1.4, a lens I’ve waiting for the last two years. I got the Zeiss ZF 25mm f/2.8 Distagon used as a stopgap until Nikon came out with it. I was stunned with the quality of the ZF 25. So much so, that it might be the best glass I have, which include the ZF 35, ZF 50, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, etc.
Since I have the D700 and D5000, I would be interested in the DX 24mm and not the FX 24mm. The ZF 25 is here to stay! However, it is not a case of wishful thinking on my part. In all honesty, I just do not see Nikon coming out with the FX 24 for the reasons I gave, but I could be wrong, of course.
Valuable insight on the ZF 25. I can only drool about your line-up. I am mostly using 35/1.8, 50/1.4 & 85/1.8, would like to use 28/2.8 more but mine is not usable at night.
If you like the ZF 25, consider the ZF 100 f/2.0. I would consider this as one of the best lens for the Nikon dSLR.
@LGo, why stop at 100? BTW, the best Nikon lens for the Nikon DSLR is the 135mm f/2 DC. Slap it on a DX body and you get a 200mm (35mm equiv) with f/2 for under $1500!!! This lens GRABS light very well and renders it beautifully! It is also very sharp!!
DX 24 would be nice, even if f/2.8. My 28 f/2.8 is not usable at night. Bright lights , esp neons, come out as a blurry flare.. could be fungus but lens look clean.
If two stops increase in usable ISO is worth shelling out for a D3s, then a 2-stop faster lens is worth it, too.
I’m tired of this business of improving one aspect of camera performance and slacking off in other so there’s no net gain. The return to fast glass is a very welcome development.
Until we can shoot candle-lit wedding receptions at high enough shutter speeds to freeze action under ambient light with no perceptible grain, we’re not there. And guess what, we’re nowhere _near_ there yet, even with a D3s and a 58mm f/1.2 Noct.
Finally, there’s all the other stuff that’s good about fast glass: shallow DOF potential (especially important on a wide-angle), bright viewfinders, better AF performance.
Fast primes are _the_ biggest hole in Nikon’s lineup, and now after decades of waiting they’re nearly here. This is a much bigger deal than a two-month delay in a D700x.
@Ernst,
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
That is a +1 for each paragraph!!
Many shooters forget that you need to work both ends, camera and lens. A 2 stop increase in ISO in camera, plus a 2 stop increase in aperature = 1600% more light! I am a low light shooter and I want to see the D5S with f/.5 glass!!
O.K. we may be 10+ years away from your 3rd paragraph, but I will be there (hopefully) to buy it when it comes!
Seriously, though, I think manufacturing processes are in need of improvement. The ability to turn out ASPH ED lens elements comparatively inexpensively and improved yields of sensors (via process improvements) are necessary to move forward, even incrementally. (Yes, coating technology improvements help, too.)
The problems that Canon/Nikon/et al have experienced with sample quality variations are a problem that cries out for attention. There really is no reason they can not turn out products of more uniform quality. Quality is designed in, not inspected in.
A nice 85/90mm f1.4 would float my boat in the mean time.
Huh? If low-light performance is important, then it’s important. A fast lens in no way negates the advantage of a good sensor. Your comment assumes that there is a global constant for low-light performance that is “good enough” and there’s no point in surpassing it, and also that everyone will want to achieve it in the same way. Both of those assumptions are absurd.
Have any of you heard that the DOF in FX is such that getting macro shots with an acceptable range of focus is difficult or impossible? I shoot a lot of small animals – salamanders, lizards, etc., and I’ve heard from friends that they’re struggling getting good shots with FX that were easy to get on DX. I’m thinking about going FX, but after hearing that I’m not so sure. I rarely use an ISO over 200 anyway, so noise normally isn’t a concern, although I’ve also heard that the new D300s has pretty bad noise at the base ISO of 200. I’ve noticed it too on my D300. Some shots at ISO 200 look like they’re taken at 400 or more.
DOF at macro distances is highly dependent on sensor size – if you really want good depth of field, play with a compact. It’s nothing to do with the camera – it’s all just the laws of optics.
Yes in simple terms FX has less DOF at a given focal length because you will be closer to the subject to gain the equivalent field of view/framing.
As for noise on the D300 at base ISO. Simple – stop under exposing. Expose to the right and make the most of the sensor. And be careful what you are sharpening.
It’s not that simple at all. I don’t underexpose. This is a problem many photographers are experiencing and my agencies have issued a statement saying as much. They’re trying to figure out the problem, but no one is really sure. There are also problems with some RAW converters, especially Lightroom, but it occurs in Photoshop as well. My friend just bought a D300s and said the noise performance at base ISO is much worse than his old D80. Something is going on here.
The D300 can look noisy at base ISO if;
You underexpose.
You use Active D Lighting.
You apply sharpening to bokeh.
You apply sharpening to deep blue skies.
All of these are avoidable and have been discussed extensively elsewhere.
The D80 is not better – it is possibly just easier. The D300 is less forgiving but superior once you get control of it.
Note the above relates to the D300 – not sure if ‘S’ has other issues.
Yes, yes, and you’re ugly.
I know all of that and I’m happy with my D300 for the most part and I’ve taken a zillion images with it. The problem I’m having and others are too is a recent phenomenon, so something else is going on. You did mention something I need to check though…stay tuned.
Take it easy, I was kidding. You’re a handsome man.
Okay, I’m betting it was you, JED, who set my stupid Active D-lighting setting on. I’ve always had that set to off, how did you change it? I wonder if that’s the issue. If it was, you sir are not very nice and I’m not so sure you’re handsome anymore either.
Actually I look kind of green and constipated…
I’ve always though green people were quite dashing. Have you tried Metamucil for the constipation?
No, just tried lifting the shadows on some 7D files…
The Active D-Lighting feature shouldn’t make a difference when you are shooting RAW, based upon my knowledge. Only ISO, shutter speed and aperture affect your RAW file. I’ve tried with the D-Lighting on and then off, and don’t see a difference in the images. It could just be my experience.
Just to make this clear – I compared the D80@ISO100 with the D90@ISO200. The D80 is better, cleaner. That is the drawback of the new CMOS sensor – it is cleaner at high ISO, but at low ISO, the old CCD sensor is superior. It is a subtle difference, but it is there.
However, if handled right, noise at base ISO should not be a problem with the D90/D300/D300s.
nice i cant wait
It is good to have those 2 lenses coming but any words on the new body? Especially the D90 successor?
The rumors about a new DSLR have fizzled out. So has my enthusiasm. Tears….
There is the Super Bowl, then there is “Nikon Rumors”. You have to have your priorities in order. Thanks for the Super Bowl update Admin. Please Nikon a new FX DSLR.
So tomorrow there will be new rumors popping up?
I’ll believe it when I see it,
VR on a wide lens makes no sense to me cause
you can shoot at 1/15 – 1/30 and still get sharp images
Awesome new lenses I might say. Will love the 16-35mm f4 VR
Just make sure those all all FX lenses right? hehee
First I’d like to thank the Saints… Way to go, Second I am glad about the 24 1.4 bu I’d rather have a 20 2.8 or 1.4 oh well new toys ya.
35 1.4 pls
It’s NOT about ISOs or anything like that. It’s about depth of field possibilities. That’s why it’s so crucial Nikon get a 24/1.4 out the door.
Even though Nikon would get these fast primes out i’m not quite honestly waiting for anything special image quality wise. The only large aperture Nikkor prime that actually performs better than the competition is the Ai-S 50/1.2. Noct-Nikkor is softer than that wide open.
Both of them also have – trying to prevent myself to say horrid – weird bokeh?
search #96484378 under gettyimages … maybe Ashton Kutcher has something cool in his hands shooting on the sidelines of the Superbowl game
If ze Germans can order the new lenses, how about some pricing???
I think we are going to see the end of the f/2.8 primes for Nikon, or they are low on their list. The current lenses are the 14mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm. For starters, people shooting the cheap DX cameras probably won’t buy them, even if they were updated to AF-S. If you are shooting FX, AF-S is a non-issue since you can focus those lenses.
14mm f/2.8 D – At $1700ish, Nikon has seen a serious drop in lenses sold when the 14-24mm was released. There is no point when spending an extra $100ish gets you the zoom.
The 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm @ 2.8 work fine and don’t need an update, as well as the 35mm f/2. The people that buy these lenses don’t shoot a body without a focus motor anyway.
We will see more fast primes (f/1.4-f/2.0), like the rumored 24mm f/1.4 before we see any updates to the primes at f/2.8.
All of the current wide primes could use an update for sharpness, especially the 20mm. The amazing 14mm – 24mm zoom is as sharp or sharper than all the wide angle primes in its zoom range. Imagine if all that new technology were applied to making some small, light primes that could outresolve 24MP sensors yet weigh only a few ounces and take 52mm filters.
There are applications where size and weight are critical: mountaineering, backpacking, etc.. The new pro zooms advance the state of the art but are big and heavy. There have been no new, small, light, sharp lenses introduced in quite a while. In fact the trend is in the wrong direction: the new 50mm, 60mm, and 105mm are all bigger and heavier than their predecessors. Especially the new 105mm, which is freakishly huge.
“The new products can be out as early as tomorrow and as late as Wednesday night.”
That’s quite fast to me, it’s either tomorrow, or the day after next over here
I do not understand the policy objectives of Nikon …
Updated by 300 VR works beautifully, throwing objects that compete with others of the same brand for a couple of f / stop …
Where is the aim to compete with the Canon 28-300 L IS?
or an “under construction FX 18-200 PRO?
Where is the 300 f4 VR?
Where is the successor of the 80-400 with AF-S? Call it 100-500, and so on.
and then to compete with the 5D MkII
Sorry for writing, English is not my language
A yes, now I understand … it is making all the lens one or two points more luminous, so we have to pay double in times of crisis.
Nikon seems easier to create requirements that meet real needs.
D2Xs, 14-24 AF-S, 24-70 AF-S, 200-400 AF-S.
DSLR rumors are loosing the air quickly. Is anyone is playing with Nikon users? Just in case I’m going to hold back my loan and keep my D200 in good conditions.
Really the 24mm f:1,4 is the most useless lens I’ve ever heard about,. the cameras are capable to make good pictures at 1000 ASA . So, what would we gain? Only distortions low sharpness and weight. Nikon company would win a lot of money with optic snobs.
We should make a raffle between lenses and DSLRs to find out who foretells what kind of junk those people are scheming. Not for any special interest but for fun and curiosity. The smoke is clearing and it seems that there wasn’t any fire NR guys.
Thanks for your friendly and openminded reply.
Try shooting kids at dusk or indoors you’ll be desperatly in need of wide angle, bright lenses AND high ISO just to get a little ambient light into the flash (or run without flash if possible).
It’s not that we need one of these, as you assume.
You are wellcome.
If 100 ASA is not enought set 3000 ASA And you will see… No professionals are going to use f:1,4 aperture. The image would be a crap. Have a look to http://www.photozone.de/ and learn about I try to say.
Okay, let me put it this way: In most people’s hands, including mine, a 24/1.4 is pretty useless, as is a 35/1.4. But there are people out there where a 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 turns into an artistic tool of the highest quality once given into their hands. For example, in wedding photography, a 24/1.4 and/or 35/1.4 are pretty helpful tools if one is able to master them. Which most people are not….
The same artistic than a f:2,8 lens, even though the 20 mm F: 2,8 Nikon is much better than 24 mm. I have both of them manual and the difference is noticeable.
still love my D40 and 18-200mm VR1 , JPG ftw !!!!!!
Where is my D700x buuuu ;(
no new cameras…
bad news fos us. No good job from nikon.
Lens 16-35 f/4 VR is bad bet for Nikon, if 16-35 f/2.8 VR is the best bet…
Lens 16-35 f/4 VR is bad bet for Nikon, if 16-35 f/2.8 VR is the best bet…
Why?
Canon has two in that range, one at 2.8 and one at 4.
Nikon already has the 2.8 range cornered, and if someone needs to use filters for landscape, odds are that it’ll be on a tripod stopped down. As such the f/4 is fine. VR isn’t 100% on my list for a lens like that, but I think this is Nikon’s way of saying “the 24-100+ f/4 VR lens is coming”.
These two lenses are a salvo towards those users who are on the fence between Canon and Nikon, as Canon’s only advantage right now are the wide fast primes and “pro level” f/4 zooms below 200mm.
I dont think Nikon will make a lens starting at 24 and going above 100 with F/4 constant aperture. But we will just wait and see what path Nikon is going to take.
To add to that, I think it will overlap another time two lenses already available at F/2.8, but not have a single value in common (so not 24/70/200)
The announcement isnt even done yet and still people are complaining. Learn to live what you do can buy, and not what you never will buy anyway
just the usual dudes without a real life. don’t bother, they probably don’t even own a camera
What would really attract my attention is a D400 with high iso e.g. Why is it so quiet re this camera?
D400 is planned assumably for late 2010 (october or later) or 2011
THAT IS IT!!!!!! Seriously, what is Nikon thinking!
I’ve head enough, I’m switching to Voigtlander.
To Rostom i agree with your statement. I do want a and need a good 100-500 range lens with vr for birding BIF and airshows but paying more than 5000 $ is a little to much for the most people so if nikon is not bringing out the 100-500 vr3 f5.6
we all have to buy the 200-400 vr with tc 1.4 or 300 f2.8 with the new tc 20 mk3 but its a lot of $ but one thing i want to replace my d200 for a d3s and near future a d700? replacement