< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Is that it? (Nikon 35mm AF-S f/1.4 N)

I received this picture (original source) few days ago and my initial thought was that this is the current Nikon 24mm f/1.4 lens. Ever since, I received multiple emails from readers pointing the differences between the two lenses (thanks D40-owner and everybody else who sent that in):

  • One aperture in the DOF scale (probably 16), the 24mm has two.
  • The focal length seems to read 35mm (the 85mm f/1.4 lens is expected to have VR, the lens on the picture clearly does not have VR)
  • The max aperture definitely reads 1:1.x
  • The border just behind the focus ring is very thin, much thinner than the 24mm.
  • On the 24mm f/1.4 the gold "Nikon" label is much closer to the end of the plate (look at the letter "N").

For comparison, here is the current Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G N lens:

Update - here is a close-up of the plates:

What say you?

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • daniel

    first at last!

    • LGO

      Any indicative price for the 35mm f/1.4?

    • LGO

      Can’t help but notice how this 35mm f/1.4 lens dwarfs the D90 in size. But if Nikon releases a full-frame in a D90 body, then this would be a great combo.

    • Seppl

      Can anyone make out from these spy shots whether the auto focus wont work just like the 24/1.4?

    • Tinkthank

      Such an obvious fake! Even the curves don’t match up..FAKE FAKE FAKE

    • Zoetmb

      Thanks for contributing something of substance to the forum.

  • pete

    interesting. look at where the gold af-s starts on the photo compared to the 24/1.4. certainly not the same lens.

    • daniel

      Yes! I think that is the definitive proof that this is not the same lens! (May be a photoshop work or something but not a regular 24mm 1.4 lens photo)

  • Wierdo

    maybe they testing it out with the new sandisk worm???

  • Scott

    Quite clearly looks like 35mm :)

    Can’t wait to upgrade my 35 f/2 to this lens!!

  • Future

    Plus it SAYS 35mm on the lens..

    • http://www.russbarnes.co.uk RussB

      I think it does too…

    • Lance

      I think it says 85mm, or else the 3 is backwards. Look at the highlights, they are wrong for a 3 at that angle.

      • GlobalGuy

        I have to agree that its quite likely an “8” even though there is a small chance it could be a “3” — does anyone have an image of how Nikon stamps “3”s on lens barrels?

        I would like to compare. The BOTTOM of the “3” (if it is a 3) is just too big, relative to the other dimensions. Normally, “3”s have the top curve and the bottom curve be the same size. However, in the photo, the top is quite clearly smaller than the bottom curve. This leads me to strongly believe it could be an “8” and not a three.

        It is very, very common for the TOP part/circle of an 8 to be smaller than the bottom part/circle. And the light reflections are clearly indicating that the top is smaller than the bottom (as the distance between the glints reveals diameter).

        Unless this is a very weird 3, it is probably an 8.

        That being said, the lens does look small to be an 85mm. which is the strange part. I really REALLY hope Nikon isn’t cheating with this lens and making a crappy new version of an 85mm. Its fine for the 50mm to be kind of weak compared to Sigma, but I want the 85 to be extremely good.

        (I also very much want a 35 — so no bias here).

        Something is weird about this lens pic though.

        • John

          It would ***SUCK*** if the new 85mm f/1.4 lacked VR!

        • Strob

          I see I’m not the only who thinks that looks like an 85.

          It does look too small for a 85. The current 85/1.4 is quite small for what it is, but I expect the new version to be larger (that has been the trend). And the “VR” feature has almost a “must” status at the moment.

          Could this be a revision of the 85/1.8? Why?

    • http://www.dafyddowen.com Daf

      I think I agree with it being a 3 – 35mm

  • Dexter Morgan

    Hmm…I see my new walk-around lens fro my D700

  • enesunkie

    Wish there was an “X” or an “S” on the “D90″ label! That would make this even more interesting.

  • longtimenikonshooter

    Personally I simply disregard anything from any Chinese sources.

    • D40-owner

      It’s Japanese, dude….

      • D40-owner

        Ups, no it’s not, it’s Chinese alright.. Google translate fooled me..

    • i_want_a_D900

      The first credible D700 leak was from a chinese forum – a guy who claimed to work in a printer that prints the D700 brochure posted a scanned page of the brochure…

      • longtimenikonshooter

        They have poisoned our kids, our pets and our patients. That’s their undeniable long time track records. Now you want to have trust in them? God help us!

        • Anonymous

          Such xenophobia that condemns a whole people for the sins of some is more appropriate for Jim Crow America and the middle ages. I don’t trust the nation of China any more than I can throw the Great Wall. But there are many good and trustworthy people in China.

          • longtimenikonshooter

            I worked almost two years covering China and one thing I learned there is that almost every local that I worked with is so fond of telling lies.

        • I Am Nikon

          dude, God made the earth in 7 days.

          and the rest was made in China!

          • Canon Fangirly

            Wasn’t it 6 days?

          • I Am Nikon

            ^oh lol, yeah 6 days. ;)

  • MikonNikon

    It’s obviously the 85mm does anyone pay attention to the focus/distance scale anymore? The 35mm f/2 has an absurdly near close-focus distance. This one says .85 and the next nearest is 2. What 35mm lens do you know of would have this kind of focusing…

    • Anonymous

      It is pretty much for certain NOT the 85mm. If anything, I would bet for a shorter focal length than 35mm than for a longer.

      The 85/1.8 has a marking for 0.85 in the DOF scale. It also has one for 1, 1.2, 1.5 and 2.5. A 85/1.4 would definitely have SOME marking between 0.85 and 2. Noone says that the .85 are the close focusing distance, it is just one of the markings in the DOF scale.

      BTW, the 24/1.4 has one marking at 1m and the next at infinity, so 35/1.4 might be true. The 35/2 has markings at 0.7, 1, 2 and infinity (and also some at closer focusing distances).

    • anon

      How do you know that .85 is the close focus limit? The lens may simply not be focused at the limit. IMO it looks too short for an 85mm f/1.4. It is shorter than the current 85mm f/1.4 and the AF-S drive usually adds some extra length – look at the difference between the 50mm f/1.4 AF-D and AF-S.

  • Anonymous

    This is the 85mm…. confirmed :)

  • Rafael

    I think it may be the 85 instead of a 35…

    who cares about VR.. gimme AFS I´ll do the rest!

  • FakeKenRockwell

    an 85mm f/1.4 would be much larger than this, 35mm f/1.4 makes sense given the size.

  • nikon_not_for_me

    I think that picture taken at sandisk press release. I think that D90 is “D90 WORM”
    try this japanese web site (http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20100624_376355.html)

    can’t see much D90, but you can see the shape of the lens
    (sorry for the but grammer)

    • http://jtra.cz/ jtra

      Right. This makes the rumor much more credible.

  • 14-24mm-on-a-D80

    It has begun.

  • ashley dudd

    it is a 50mm f/1.2 N. how do i know? i have a dejavu!

  • Bob the Builder

    Definitely not the 24mm leans. The lens description, bottom line of the description plate started at the the letter K of Nikon. On the 24mm lens it starts at N of Nikon

  • Kwartjuh

    Yes, certainly not a 24mm, there are a number of things different on the lens in this picture.
    I do think it is a 35mm 1.4. But how on earth it got photographed on a Sandisk stand is beyond me. Somebody screwed up i guess. (or intentional leak from nikon to create some buzz).

    Anyway, what are you people willing to pay for this lens if the optics are good to very good and AF-S is fast?

    • David Hasselblaff

      2-3k USD. That’s what I’m willing to buy. And probably I won’t just buy one if it’s good.

    • Eric Pepin

      up too $1800. I paid $1200 for my 85 1.4, so include a bit of newness mark up and AFS and coatings id say thats reasonable.

  • http://www.kplan.ch Dave

    I think it’s either a 35mm oder 85mm lens. I’d prefer 85mm since I have the 24mm and the 50mm and don’t want to spend any money for the current 85mm because it will be replaced soon. I don’t care that much about VR.
    The lens on the Sandisk Worm page looks like the AF-S 24mm F1.4, if you ask me.

    The price of a 35mm will be slightly higher than the Canon counterpart. Maybe around 1700$? If it’s a 85mm then maybe the price will be 1400$.
    Looking at the build quality of the lens in the picture you’d expect a pro lens and therefore the price will be around the price of the 24mm. Nikon is building premium prime lenses now.

    • Eric Pepin

      if you dont care about VR, what are you waiting for. The next 85 will be more expensive and by buying the current one new now you will still get the warranty.

  • Bryan

    The number on it is definitely a “35”. It would make sense that SanDisk would get products ahead of time to test compatibility of new products (though I don’t know why they’d get a new lens).

  • http://sdickinson.com Sam

    Looks like 35mm to me. Actually reminds me a bit of the AF-S 50mm f/1.4.

    http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/376/355/html/14.jpg.html Looks interesting though. The new 85mm?

    • http://sdickinson.com Sam

      Looking again though, it may be the 16-85.

      • dudemanppl

        Zoom ring………

  • Michael Vang

    I’m thinking this is a fake. I mean, just take a look at the picture. It’s about 90% the same with the 24mm. And the areas on the lens that will tell us what lens it is, is not readable and looks like been altered with software. Probably fake.

    • D40-owner

      If this is fake, it is the best photoshop job I have ever seen.

      • PHB

        Its a photoshop job, not a renderware fake. But still fake. The proportions on the text are all wrong.

        I mean, lets say SanDisk were given a test lens, would they be stupid enough to use it in a PR shoot? And a $1700 FX lens on a D90 when there is a perfectly good f/1.8 DX lens for $200?

        I mean, if anyone was serious, wouldn’t they use a D3?

        Just wait for someone to find the original pic.

  • Andrew

    Relax it is just the 24mm.

    • http://www.cesarkoot.nl Cesar

      Eh… no?

  • Chris

    I suppose the plates with “nikon” and “AF-S” on it are supposed the same size. So why does “AF-S” start further away from the border than on the 24mm lens? This could mean that the whole text is shorter. What might be missing? This is probably not an “ED” lens!

  • JohnB

    Def not a 24mm, I wasn’t convince with that 24mm picture above (Thought it may be photoshop) but its the actual 24mm http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2035/4512480541_8d924e6a4f.jpg

  • HOpla

    This is definitely NOT the 24/1.4G AF-S.

    And I thing this one isn’t an “ED” spec lens. Becouse when you compare that long name: “AF-S NIKKOR 24mm 1:1.4G ED” with that one on this misterious lens, its name definitely strarts a bit ( a half cm ) later than that one on the 24/1.4G lens. It is clearly seen on the mark “A” in AF-S -> on the 24/1.4G lens it starts very very near border on that label.

    So, question is which of these incoming lenses ( 85/1.4G or 35/1.4G ) might lacks an ED mark ;-)
    I would say that this one is the new 35/1.4G lens. First, it should be cheaper alternate to 24/1.4G ( so, it is not an ED lens ) and second, 85/1.4G will probably have VR.

  • HOpla

    Yes, Chris is right :-)

  • MikonNikon

    It’s obviously the 85mm does anyone pay attention to the focus/distance scale anymore? The 35mm f/2 has an absurdly near close-focus distance. This one says .85 and the next nearest is 2. What 35mm lens do you know of would have this kind of focusing…

  • HOpla

    That’s right too :-) And 85mm lens is expecting this summer. 35mm lens in 2011, thay say…

  • DIP

    actually looks like 85 to me. i dont think an 85 prime would need VR.

    • Rafael

      agree..

  • http://photolog.imagico.de/ Imagico

    Something that has not been mentioned yet – look at the DOF markings and the focus scale: The DOF at f/16 is marked to be significantly smaller than the distance between the 2m and the 0.85m markings (probably no more than half the distance in the focus scale). This would indicate it is longer than 35mm.

    • http://www.dafyddowen.com Daf

      Noticed that too although I don’t have any really long or V wide Nikon lenses to compare.
      My 50mm 1.4 G does – 2 – 1.75 –
      17-55 : 2 – 1.75 – 1.25

    • nam

      yes, the throw would be very short if that 2 was for 2m, but it could be for 1.2m which is more reasonable. i’m looking at my 32/2, in it’s window, i can see infinity, 2m, 1m, 0.7m. so they are quite close together.

      on the 85/1.4, there is a 1.2m, 1m, 0.85mm, but you can barely see the “2” if you rotate it enough to see all of the 0.85mm.

      • nam

        oops, 0.85m in the last sentence. not 0.85mm.

  • SNRatio

    If the distance scale and DOF marks are not manipulated, there is no way this can be the 35/1.4. If it is the 85/1.4, the focus throw is about half that of the current 85/1.8, which is not improbable, given that they want faster AF-S. It seems to fit woth DOF markings too.

    It is interesting that this may be a non-ED lens, as some have pointed out. Could indicate that NIkon now comes up with a less expensive 85/1.4, more like the 50/1.4G, to make room for a 85/1.2 later. Like they have already patented a 50/1.2.

    It also fits in well with the “35/1.4 next year” messages we have heard.

  • bruce

    Busted on another forum. It’s a PS fake. Pretty obvious one actually. The layout of text on the body near the DOF scale is in wrong proportions.

    • Anonymous

      Wrong proportions relative to what?

  • Clark

    I guess it’s just me but I don’t really like the design..

    I hope the hood is cool lookn.

  • Anonymous

    Further eye-destroying pixel peeping in photoshop shows me that:
    – It still seems to read 35, not 85, but I may be wrong… It’s hard to see.
    – The aperture is 1:1.4. After “1:1.” you see a slanted gold line, and that can only be a 4, not an 8.
    – The letter after 1:1.4 can be a G, makes sense. But the relevant part is that it is aligned with the left part of the N, above. If you compare that to the 24mm, leaves enough space for an “ED”. So the lens is likely ED.
    – The DOF scale is definitely 16.

    • zeissgit

      it says ED on it!!!

    • JC

      “- The letter after 1:1.4 can be a G, makes sense. But the relevant part is that it is aligned with the left part of the N, above. If you compare that to the 24mm, leaves enough space for an “ED”. So the lens is likely ED.”

      Yes, but notice how much space is between the end of the label an “AF-S”. If it said “ED” on the other side, that entire row of text would not be centered, as lox said.

      It’s a fake anyway.

  • lox

    So it can’t be an ED lens, unfortunately.

    • lox

      For the bottom line is center aligned.

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

    I think the SanDisk card on the picture is only to show us that the picture is recent – this SanDisk SD WORM Card was announced few days ago.

  • The invisible man

    This is an hybrid lens made from the 85mm (menus) the 50mm, giving a 35mm.
    That help reducing the costs, the new Nikon’s chairman clearly stated that it was important for the compagny to controle the production’s costs.
    You can see that under the on/off focusing swich there is the place for a VR swich, the factory use the same barrel base for both lenses.

  • andy

    OOO!!! I want this lens! It’s one that I’ve been waiting for, for a long time. IMO, 24mm is just too wide for general purpose use and the inherent wide-angle distortion is too evident. I can’t justify spending that much money on a lens that won’t see much use. 35mm focal length is a much better buy for me.

    I might wait a while to see if there’s any bugs with the first batch. This is also a pretty good incentive for me to get a job.

  • ha

    absolutely not the 85. It is not the right size to begin with. way too small. It is either a 35 1.4 or something close. It is very similar to the 24mm which is kind of disturbing because it may indicate it is just a well made photoshop.

    Everybody expects a 35 1.4 anyways so this may be it.

  • Ken Rockwell

    this lens is the next best thing , at least what my MTF/WTF analysis is showing me , you can’t beat the new 28mm f2 AF-s , i support my growing family through this website , please do buy from these links .

    Bless Y’all

    • Torpedo Alley

      ha ha! Classic!

  • The invisible man

    Why is the front cap still on ?
    Harder to photoshop the front lens than the barell inscriptions ?

  • http://noctis.at.webry.info/ noctis

    NR there is nothing to report, it is clearly the 24mm 1.4. either you think it’s a 35mm 1.4 or you need an appointment with your eye doctor. starting today, accept no “spy photo” smaller than 3,000px by 2,000px (6MP) so it’s easier for everyone to detect any photoshop job than crappy and fuzzy tiny pictures.

  • Anonymous

    Just a suggestion….but what if it isn’t even lens… a new coffee mug perhaps?

  • Rafael

    at least this doesnt seem to be photoshop work, perhaps finaly Nikon is going to give its customers a new lens? after I dont know how many years…

    and a few more years or a camera in the 12 to 24 megapixel range too?

    • Zorro

      All but the D3000 are in the 12 to 24 megapixel range now!

  • Magnuss

    for me loks like 24mm f1.4

  • low

    all those photos look like 24 f1.4 to me

  • Nikonbeliever

    I think this is the new AF-S 50mm f1.2 in camouflage.

  • http://www.eigilnybo.com Eigil Nybo

    Definitely the 24mm leans.

  • EnPassant

    After carefully looking at the distance window and depth of field scale in the close-up photo I conclude the lens is set at a distance of about 0.9 meter, or 3 feet. Focusing my old AF 35/2 at 3 feet the 2 meter mark is in about the same position as in the photo of the supposed AF-S 35/1.4.
    That excludes the possibility it being a 85 mm lens.

    The one odd thing with the lens is the “AF-S” letters not starting close to the short border of the label as on all AF-S lenses with a similar label I know of.
    I ask the question: Would someone doing a Photoshop job make the label looking completely different than all the previous rather than simply mimic the current design?

    This as well as the other small differences from the 24/1.4 (Someone doing a PS job would propably make it more different, just my thought.) and the fact we have seen similar leaks (I start beleive it is Nikon themselves doing these leaks to stir up some interest before the official presentation!) days before official launch make me beleive this is in fact the rumored new AF-S 35/1.4. I expect we may know already next week! Especially as the latest rumors have been the AF-S 35 coming before the AF-S 85.

    The only dissappointing thing is the lens being almost as big as the AF-S 24. No wonder it can be mistaken for being the wider lens. On the other hand this indicate Nikon as with the AF-S 24 have pulled all stops to produce the finest 35 mm SLR-lens so far, not limiting its optical capabilities with size restrictions! (Making Leica happy as their small size full frame advantage niche is even more clear than in the days of manual SLRs!)
    Personally I would be more happy with a compact, low cost (similar to 35/1.8 G) AF-S 24/f 1:1.8 or 2 DX-lens (36 mm full frame equivalent) as well as a 16/ f 1:2 or 2.8 DX-wideangle (24 mm full frame equivalent) to accompany it!

  • Patros

    … First: the DOF markings… F:16 marked only… very close to each other… such a shallow DOF even at F:16… hmmm… (look at their position against the “0,85” marking…) … hint: “tele” …

    … second: the number “2” we can see in the “Distance Scale” window could be ( = is … :) … ) the “2” from “1.2” … the “old” AF Nikkor 85mm f:1.4D IF has the markings: “infinity – 10 – 5 – 3 – 2 – 1.5 – 1.2 – 1 – 0.85″ m … the new lens is AF-S … thus the distance scale is “decoupled” from the actual manual focus ring = rotates with different “speed”… = quicker… the omission of the “1m” marking between “1.2” and “0.85” is to be expected… ;-)

    … third: anyone who does say “it is the AF-S 24mm F:1.4G N, I can not see any difference…” did not pay attention to such a detail, for example: the text in the second row underneath the golden “AF-S line” below the distance scale window…: on the 24mm f:1.4G the text starts right on the edge of the “name plate”… see the difference? … ;-)

    I have my AF Nikkor 85mm f:1.4D ID in front of me right now… and I would bet: the pictured lens can not be a 35mm f:1.4G lens… this one seems like a AF-S Nikkor 85mm f:1.4G N … :)

  • Back to top