< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Jay Maisel also thinks the Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR full frame lens is coming

Many readers do not believe that Nikon will announce a new 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR full frame lens, some even think it's impossible to produce a lens with such focal length.

Here is another rumor for you: Kelby Training (paid subscription required) has a series of videos online called "A Day With Jay Maisel" where he walks around NY with Scott Kelby talking about the way he works. Kelby was asking Jay Maisel about the 70-300 VR he shoots all the time on a D3. He was saying how much he liked it and then out of the blue mentioned that he had heard about an 18-200 FX lens Nikon was possibly going to make, and that he was excited about it.

Unfortunately the video is not freely available, but maybe some readers that have subscriptions can confirm and quote the exact line.

Jay Maisel website can be found here, I know what you are thinking... I could not find any EXIF data on his images.

Jay Maisel is no stranger to Nikon - check out this link.

Update: Here is the transcript of the proper portion of the Kelby video "A Day with Jay Maisel – Lunch", Part 1 (at 5:28):

"Scott: You’re overseas on a project, how’s that.
Jay: Yeah.
Scott: You have to use one lens for the whole project, what is it?
Jay: It changes, right now it would be the 70 to 300.
Scott: You’re really loving that lens aren’t you.
Jay: Oh yeah. I like the 18 to 200 but it’s not a full frame lens.
Scott: No it’s not. That’s what’s interesting for $500 that it works on the full frame cameras.
Jay: Now I think… and you know how free Nikon is with prognostication of the future, they would lie just to keep in practice. But I think there may be an 18 to 200 full frame, and if that happens I’m buying it.
Scott: Oh that would be the first lens I would buy.
Jay: But the 70-300 is still terrific."

---
BTW, Nikon D3s and 24mm 1.4 (higher price) are currently in stock on Amazon.

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

    first at last…. good if you have d700

  • Paul

    I would question the size and cost of such a piece of kit, not the possibility.

    • d40-owner

      Very true.
      One could think “what about a 200-500 f/2.8?”
      The response would be: No, it would be huge and very expensive. Well, Sigma did it.

      But I agree that one thing is to play in the telephoto realm, where aberrations and distortions are very similar between focal lengths. Probably the big challenge for Sigma was the sheer size f the glass, not the optical design itself.

      But a 18-200 is a very different beast indeed. As the 18-200 DX proves, it is very difficult to make one and keep things under control.
      I’m no optical engineer, but I would venture to day that it is not just a matter of up-scaling the DX 18-200, because they have to consider cost as well.

      Anyway, if the lens is real, I will be first in the front row, slapping myself in the head, and congratulating Nikon.

      Let’s see…

      • GlobalGuy

        Who cares about distortion? Distortion isn’t a problem when you use this kind of lens, because you know what you are getting into.

        I agree, however, that a more limited range would be much more SANE.

        Say, perhaps a 24-200, or an 18-135.

    • venancio

      if not, then this:16-135mm FX…

  • nick94

    sounds pretty sweet!

  • d40-owner

    Maisel probably heard about it on Nikonrumors… :) :)

    • I Am Nikon

      I think he read it than heard on Nikonrumors… :D:D

    • bonk

      exactly my thought. kinda recursive. but that’s how rumours work. :)

      PS: hi, jay, like your work!

  • JS

    I’ve seen the video, in fact I think that is me you quoted. I had sent you that info a couple of months ago. Maisel does say that in the video. He said that he understood that Nikon was coming out with an equivalent of the 18-200 for the D3.

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

      I remember your email – just like everybody else I did not believe it at the beginning.

      • Lance

        Here is the transcript of the proper portion of the Kelby video with the Jay Maisel quote.

        ———————————————–

        A Day with Jay Maisel – Lunch, Part 1 (at 5:28)

        Scott: You’re overseas on a project, how’s that.

        Jay: Yeah.

        Scott: You have to use one lens for the whole project, what is it?

        Jay: It changes, right now it would be the 70 to 300.

        Scott: You’re really loveing that lens aren’t you.

        Jay: Oh yeah. I like the 18 to 200 but it’s not a full frame lens.

        Scott: No it’s not. That’s what’s interesting for $500 that it works on the full frame cameras.

        Jay: Now I think… and you know how free Nikon is with prognostication of the future, they would lie just to keep in practice. But I think there may be an 18 to 200 full frame, and if that happens I’m buying it.

        Scott: Oh that would be the first lens I would buy.

        Jay: But the 70-300 is still terrific.

    • art

      EQUIVALENT. That is a huge key word. That means we’re talking about something like a 28-300 FX and not 18-200 FX.

      • Twoomy

        +1

        • Anonymous

          My money’s on a 28-300 FX. 18-200 FX would look like a Nikon vuvuzella…

      • Richard

        Yes, and that makes more sense.

        • Anonymous

          I want a 8mm(fisheye)-2000mm zoom f/1.2 in all its zoom range, please.

          • SGN

            First you need to make yourself the incredible hulk….

          • Rafael

            dont forget it has to have VR III and ED glass and super duper AFS smoking motor… wait! thats whatsthe new 18-200 from nikon gonna have, crap I just leaked a rumor .. :(

  • Anonymous

    Just cos a photographer says he heard the rumor doesn’t mean anything. It’s just saying he heard a rumor and didn’t stop to think about whether it is feasible to make such a lens without some horrible optical compromises. Tell him Nikon have taken gullible out of the dictionary and I’d bet he’d say, “I’m excited to hear that”.

    • Kevin

      +1

    • The invisible Man

      True, like the Invisible Man with his “3 sensors” camera !
      (I better be right about that 3 sensors thing, I’m not a fast runner !)

      • Del-Uks

        Sigma/Foveon ?!?

    • bonk

      glad they didnt remove “gullible” from the dictionary. otherwise i couldnt have looked it up. *g*

  • Wade

    I just watched the lesson where Scott and Jay talk about the 18-200. It’s in the “Reflections” lesson at 2:35. I don’t think it’s mentioned elsewhere.

    Scott – You mind if I stop and take a shot from here? I don’t have quite as long a glass today I’m just using an 18-200.

    Jay – That’s an 18-200 on a d3?

    Scott – No this is ahh, I just got this to try out. It’s a D300s.

    Jay – OK and this is a full frame?

    Scott – And this is not a full frame. This is a cropped sensor so it’s an 18-200 kinda one lens does it all. Not very fast. It’s perfect for daylight shooting.

    That was it.

    –Wade

    • Lance

      When Scott said that about the 18-200 on a D300s, I said to myself, wait a minute, that’s equivalent to a 27-300 which is the same reach that Jay had with the 70-300 on a D3.

      Besides that, I know there was more to that conversation, I remember Jay saying something about Nikon making a new lens and if they did he would buy it. I’ll have to listen again too and confirm.

    • Lance

      Here is the transcript of the proper portion of the Kelby video with the Jay Maisel quote. It’s further into the video in Lunch, Part 1 at 5:28, rather than in Reflections.
      ———————————————–
      A Day with Jay Maisel – Lunch, Part 1 (at 5:28)

      Scott: You’re overseas on a project, how’s that.

      Jay: Yeah.

      Scott: You have to use one lens for the whole project, what is it?

      Jay: It changes, right now it would be the 70 to 300.

      Scott: You’re really loveing that lens aren’t you.

      Jay: Oh yeah. I like the 18 to 200 but it’s not a full frame lens.

      Scott: No it’s not. That’s what’s interesting for $500 that it works on the full frame cameras.

      Jay: Now I think… and you know how free Nikon is with prognostication of the future, they would lie just to keep in practice. But I think there may be an 18 to 200 full frame, and if that happens I’m buying it.

      Scott: Oh that would be the first lens I would buy.

      Jay: But the 70-300 is still terrific.

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

        thanks Lance!

  • The invisible Man

    COSINA use to make that kind of “merde” (can’t say it in English).
    In my country (well, my old one) we say: it’s wanted the butter and the money used to pay for it.

    • Richard

      I think a loose translation might be “having your cake and eating it, too.”

  • Matt

    I watched the video – and I remember him saying something about a lens that was exciting – but I’ll have to go back and watch it again.

    What I can say… in response to those that say “Just because some photographer hears about something….”

    Jay Maisel is not just “some photographer” not only that – he is a member of (and is sponsored by) Nikon Professional Services – and its well known that members of NPS often get test equipment ahead of time or other goodies. They run in a totally different circle than the rest of us. So, its very possible that he did in fact hear something credible.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotosniper2000/ fotosniper

      im a member of nps,
      i dont get anything to test, ever.

  • Sebastian

    The basic constructions of a telephoto lens and of a ultra-wide are very different. I’m not a lens designer, but I would think it’s very hard to make an ultra-wide-to-telephoto zoom. Look at the construction of the 18-35 FX (or the 10-24 DX, all on Nikon’s web site): Extreme retrofocus design, with 3 negative elements in the front. Those are needed to make the distance between image plane and last element so much shorter than the combined focal length. The 18-200 DX has two positive groups before the first negative element. I have a hard time believing that you can build a telephoto lens with all these negative elements in the front.
    Maybe with diffractive optics like Canon is starting to use you can do better, but I’d say 24-300 seems much more reasonable.

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

      the link is dead

      • Astrophotographer

        I got it. The EXIF says NIKON D800, but that can be faked.

      • Andy

        Try again. The EXIF DOES say D800, and it was taken with a 50mm/1.4.
        It has begun, anyone? ;)

        Andy

        • Denko

          This is 99.999999% fake…. way too many EXIF parameters missing for being a Nikon D### +.

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

      I think there may be something in that one. It also says it is image number 823, just right for a camera on test, shot with a 50mm f/1.4 – a good test lens on full frame. Hmmmmmmmmm.

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

      this is a phone camera…

      • wow

        view the exif…

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

          oh, I see – now if we only knew if the EXIF was manipulated :)

        • javaone

          EXIF says:
          Camera: D800
          lens: 50mm f1 (an old manual 1.2?)
          Photo: ISO 100 1/250 sec f1.4

          It could be real.

        • http://www.almondbutterscotch.com/home Almond

          Full EXIF (using EXIF Viewer):

          File name: 1279550688_DSC_1616.jpeg
          File size: 68879 bytes (1024×621, 0.9bpp, 28x)
          EXIF Summary: 1/250s f/1.4 ISO100 50mm (35mm eq:50mm)

          Camera-Specific Properties:

          Equipment Make: NIKON CORPORATION
          Camera Model: NIKON D800
          Camera Software: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
          Maximum Lens Aperture: f/1.4
          Sensing Method: One-Chip Color Area
          Color Filter Array Pattern: 750
          Focal Length (35mm Equiv): 50 mm

          Image-Specific Properties:

          Image Orientation: Top, Left-Hand
          Horizontal Resolution: 240 dpi
          Vertical Resolution: 240 dpi
          Image Created: 2010:07:19 23:41:43
          Exposure Time: 1/250 sec
          F-Number: f/1.4
          Exposure Program: Aperture Priority
          ISO Speed Rating: 100
          Lens Aperture: f/1.4
          Exposure Bias: 1/3 EV
          Metering Mode: Spot
          Light Source: Unknown
          Flash: No Flash
          Focal Length: 50.00 mm
          Color Space Information: Uncalibrated
          Image Width: 1024
          Image Height: 621
          Rendering: Normal
          Exposure Mode: Auto
          White Balance: Auto
          Scene Capture Type: Standard
          Gain Control: None
          Contrast: Normal
          Saturation: Normal
          Sharpness: Normal
          Subject Distance Range: Unknown

          Other Properties:

          Resolution Unit: i
          Exif IFD Pointer: 216
          Compression Scheme: JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
          Horizontal Resolution: 72 dpi
          Vertical Resolution: 72 dpi
          Resolution Unit: i
          Offset to JPEG SOI: 862
          Bytes of JPEG Data: 3309
          Exif Version: 2.21
          Image Generated: 2010:07:10 13:14:17
          Image Digitized: 2010:07:10 13:14:17
          Shutter Speed: 1/250 sec
          DateTime Second Fraction: 33
          DateTimeOriginal Second Fraction: 33
          DateTimeDigitized Second Fraction: 33
          File Source: Digital Still Camera
          Scene Type: Directly Photographed
          Digital Zoom Ratio: 1

          • d40-owner

            The image look, the perspective, the blue aberrations in the bokeh, all of those match the 50mm f/1.4G look. So at least the lens in the EXIF seems to be correct.
            But the camera information can be manipulated to say anything…

    • http://www.marekd.com Marek

      The EXIF reads D800 with a 50mm lens. Is there a way to check if exif was tempered with?

  • Leaking Starfish

    Unless Nikon paid God to suspend the laws of physics, the lens will gargle donkey batter.

    • Rafael

      agree 100% , and perfectly put (technically speaking)

  • TJ

    I would’ve been funny if Jay Maisel’s a reader of Nikon Rumors and found out about the 18-200mm via NR. LOL Its like a loop, which came first the chicken or the egg.

  • art

    What’s with all the self-admitted, non-optics engineer decrying impossible on this lens? 18-200 DX was probably “impossible” 20 years ago. Things change, technologies improve, and you get to have more photo-gear fun. Can you imagine an 18-200 FX on a D800? It’s not even like they’re saying 18-200mm f/2.0. They’re saying 18-200 f3.5-5.6.

    It’s going to happen one day. This year? We’ll see, won’t we?

    • http://www.almondbutterscotch.com/home Almond

      Nikon had DX in 1990? Wow.

    • pete

      you dont have to be an engineer to figure it out and obviously you are a newb.

      it is physically IMPOSSIBLE. times may change and technology may improve but the physics of light does NOT. there will never, ever be an 18-200 FX lens that has any optical quality whatsoever at the wide end. not EVER. can you make one ? of course you can. but what would be the point of making one when anything below 24mm, (at the absolute widest if they’re lucky), would be so abysmal its not even plausible that a manufacturer would think they could get away with it.

      its like saying that all of a sudden due to technology they could make a 500g 200/f2 with a 77mm filter thread. its just not possible regardless of what year or what technolgy can bring.

      as others have said, this is talking about an EQUIVALENT to the 18-200. the fact that some people can actually believe this seriously devalues the intellect of photographers in general.

      • http://www.bythom.com Thom Hogan

        No, 18-200mm FX is not at all impossible. But there are physical penalties involved: size, weight, complexity of the front element curves, almost certain focal length breathing due to the way you’d have to design the internal focusing and zoom elements, and cost.

        It’s that last thing that tells me this rumor isn’t real. You simply couldn’t produce such a lens with quality a D700 user would be interested in at a consumer price. At a pro price, the f/3.5-5.6 starts to not be so interesting.

        Let me reiterate something I’ve written elsewhere: the year before the next big pro generation (D4 in 2011) Nikon usually fills lens gaps and does consumer zooms. The Nikon modus operandi has always been: new pro generation starts a cycle by deploying new technologies and new levels of performance. By the end of the cycle they are filling gaps and rounding out the consumer trickle down that started with the new pro camera. This isn’t always a perfect progression–the D90 introduced video before the pro cameras got it–and sometimes development doesn’t happen quite at the speed originally planned, but this year ought to be mostly about finishing up the consumer/prosumer offerings.

        Nikon does not have a 28-200mm FX anymore. But they need one. What they’ve chosen to do is a 28-300mm FX. The thing that’s distorting this discussion is that lots of people are talking about the new lens based upon an existing lens. The way I heard it–directly from Nikon–was that they expected to have “an FX equivalent of the 18-200mm” before too long. That throws the whole focal length equivalency thing upside down and in a way we’ve never really dealt with before, and it’s confusing people.

        Simply put: I expect a 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR that covers the whole FX frame. I do not expect an 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR that covers the whole FX frame.

        Note further that if Nikon DID come out with an FX 18-200mm, the DX version would become obsolete or else Nikon would have a massively confusing marketing problem on their hands, and we all know how well they do with those ;~).

        • Vladi

          Well said and makes sense.

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

          Thom, you may be correct – as I said, some of this info was coming from Asia and the Google translation may have translated “an FX equivalent of the 18-200mm” to FX 18-200mm. I really don’t know at that point.

          • http://dptnt.com Max

            Perhaps you should include the source with your post so people can verify it for you.

  • Pat Mann

    Clearly this was meant to be an 18-200 EQUIVALENT for FX.

    Film shooters know this as the familiar 28-300 lens, surprisingly good when it came out, but not up to today’s standard represented by the 18-200.

    • GlobalGuy

      I AGREE with the above (equivalent). But I think that times are changing. Nobody prefers 28mm as the starting point anymore. If its going to start anywhere it needs to be 24mm. 18mm just seems ridiculously insane. But i guess its possible if you don’t care about corners. Still, if they had a 24-250, or a 28-300, i’d be very pleased.

  • http://www.hkmoo.com choiMatthew

    we would also have to be aware that he might be getting his information from NR =]

  • Gary

    I agree that Jay Maisel in no ordinary pro photographer; Jay Maisel is a legend and a master. I would attach far more weight to what Jay says than 99.99% of photographers out there.

    It would also not surprise me if Jay hears advance info before most anyone else…in fact, it would not surprise me if Jay’s photos are featured in any promotional photos taken with any new lens. Remember Bob Krist and his work showcasing the 24 1.4 and 16-35 f4?

  • Roger

    sounds like BS to me. no one has ever made an ultra-wide to telephoto lens.

  • Derek

    Even in the compact camera we dont see that, its unrealistic!

    All the best they can do is 17-35mm FX or 14-24mm FX, why not 17-50 FX or 14-50 FX ??
    We are talking about UGA here, it’s not the same reach UGA > tele that tele > tele (like 1200-1700mm or 200-400mm etc..)
    Don’t be stupid thinking this thing’s coming

    • http://fotografstuttgart.de Hochzeitsfotograf

      i also think it will not be fullframe lens, but maybe first few mm will be DX only, then FX. Camera would automaticaly switch to DX crop under 28mm or have some physical lock for FX users. would be new for nikon, but can work – universal holiday lens for DX and FX users.

  • Kimaze

    How much would a FX 18-200 cost? USD 1800 – USD 2000? will be interested to see such lens on a FX.

    • Segura

      Canon makes a 28-300mm for $2300 . . . If possible, it would be probably higher than this lens. I think the translation was messed up. I think they will make a 28-200mm FX. They have had several versions before, so this would not be too hard. 18-200mm is almost impossible.

      • GlobalGuy

        I just hope its a 24-250, or whatever. I want it to start at 24mm, minimum. 28mm is just enough. But we need a little more room. Optimize for 28, but give us 24. Scratch that — optimize for the LONG end. No lens does that and someone should try.

  • cirtap

    Well I hope it does come out…it would be better than that ultra cheapo lens they have now…all plastic..18-200 VR2 BS for DX people. IF there was an over priced, over hyped…worthless lens…18-200 VR2 BS for DX is it. The glass is cheap..nothing sharp…all soft at any stage…

    • Gerry

      Have you used the lens? I have it, as well as some pro lenses by nikon, and it is not as bad as you make it sound. When hiking in the mountains, would I want to carry my 24-70, and my 70-200 or would I want to carry my 18-200 and cover more range. The obvious answer is the 18-200 because it weighs significantly less, and it is much smaller. “nothing sharp” and “all soft” is hardly the case. At 200 mm, you could have some valid comments, but it is hardly a terrible lens.

  • Francis

    if 18-200 FX is true it wil be a great lens not for still photos but for VIDEO, which is an area every other camera makers are trying to develop. Nikon took the lead when it introduced video in D90. It is quite possible that Nikon is developing a prosumer FX DSLR which would have a great capability in shooting HD video.
    On the other hand, I think a 24-300 FX would be more useful for shooting still photos with a prosumer FX camera.

  • i_want_a_D900

    The 12-24 f/4 DX actually barely covered the D700 FF image circle at 18mm. a tiny bit of vignetting and that’s it. It uses 77mm front filter, and the front element isn’t really that large. The rear element is shamefully small in comparison.

    For the current 18-200VR, towards the 200mm end it covered about 90% of the FF sensor area. It uses 72mm filter. The 18mm end did quite well in DX-crop mode.

    Think about it a bit more, it might not be that impossible after all. Just use bigger lens elements to cover the FF image area.

    It might be doable but it won’t be cheap.

  • bwhahaha

    hahaha he is reading nikonrumors ! thats how he heard about it heheheheh

  • Discontinued

    SUMMARY:

    D800 is coming and will make a nice all in one solution for travelers with the also coming 28-300.
    Plus the 28-300 will be the filmmakers choice for the D800′s full HD movie mode, whenever impressive zooming is required. Much like Canon, just a bit later to the party.

    Hope, the D800 will become an impressive still camera as well and hope it will still support Ai and Ais.

  • Chris P

    I hope that the rumoured 18-200 or 28-300 or whatever is fact, as this will mean that it is the ‘kit’ or all in one cheaper wide range FX lens for the possible new FX camera; and therefore the 24-120 f4 will be built, mechanically and optically, to at least the standard of the 16-35 f4.

    • Discontinued

      Look at the price and size of the 3.5-5.6/28-300 Canon and think again.

      • http://fotografstuttgart.de Hochzeitsfotograf

        tamron is much smaller and honestly, not really that worse. It is all about how dense and good optics you use, and size often is cheaper way to achieve that.

        • Discontinued

          Size is also the way to achieve at least a 5.6 (bad enough) at the upper end instead of something worse. I guess it’s not quite as simple as you suggest.

          • http://fotografstuttgart.de Hochzeitsfotograf

            sure it is. size of the optics is not relevant for theoretical calculations of light conversions etc. It is just hard to make small glass which would break light in such sharp angles and keep good quality. Much cheaper is use of bigger optics where you spread whole image over larger area and you can use only small part of the lens fully zoomed.
            Think about, that in theory you can make one 52mm glass which would break light from 120° into sensor size of FX. Without some ultimate glass, you will have it at terrible quality. Much cheaper and simpler is to use more optical elements, break light slowly and correct aberations on attached conversion lenses, etc.

          • Discontinued

            In theory you can make this and that …

            … but even in theory there is a huge difference between the angle of view (which is what you’ve been talking of) and the brightness of of a lens. The latter requires size – not just in theory.

          • http://fotografstuttgart.de Hochzeitsfotograf

            not really. incoming light is just function of iris diameter and that can be made of any size, depending on where in optical system it is. if it is in front of the front element (like on lensbaby for example), lens can be quite small. you can also compress light, put small aperture element, and again expand it. F number is calculated and calibrated for 1:1 system but in real world it is placed on many places. Easiest is obviously backwards, where it can be smallest, but that leads to variable aperture zooms because the circle is different for each focal length at aperture position

          • Discontinued

            A front element can only gather as much light from a subject as the subject reflects to the front element’s surface. The larger the surface of a front element of an optical system, the brighter can the entire system be constructed – in theory as much as in reality.

            Who did tell you “in theory size doesn’t matter”? Well, relax now, we are talking about lenses and I am not you girlfriend. Don’t blame me for simple physics.

    • http://fotografstuttgart.de Hochzeitsfotograf

      why you say at least, 16-35 is superb, definitely on par with 14-24 at f5.6 and pro quality even wide open, and best of all, not bigger then 24-70

  • Anonymous

    It’s an AF-S 28-200mm f3.5-5.6G VR……. upgrade from the old AF-D version.

    • Soc#PL

      indeed :)

  • Anonymous

    I continue to say that if 18-200 FX is true it must be full of aberrations.

    18-200 DX already is full of aberrations.

    • Rafael

      agree 100 %

      this rumor I´d give it 0% possibility, this is just something someone made out to distract us from the real thing that maybe coming out.

  • elmo

    the 18-200 is maby the big surprise!!!!!!
    I would like to see Nikon to make a 28-300 like the Canon version

  • http://www.kevinblackburn.com Kevin Blackburn

    Hate to burst everyones bubble but I have watched this video twice and while there was gear and lens talk … at no time did Jay say ” I heard that nikon was coming out with xxxxxx for an FX camera” It just did not happen the discussion was completely non discript about what Jay VS Scott were using on that walk that day..

    • Lance

      That’s incorrect, here is what Jay said without the full context that I included above.
      ———————————————–
      A Day with Jay Maisel – Lunch, Part 1 (at 5:28)

      Jay: Now I think… and you know how free Nikon is with prognostication of the future, they would lie just to keep in practice. But I think there may be an 18 to 200 full frame, and if that happens I’m buying it.

  • camaman

    If it is the 28-300 Nikon lens I don’t think it would be wise of them to go for Canon-like version costing 2000+ dollars.(19cm long)
    If they want to inch ahead in video and full frame offering, going for a smaller (10cm long) 28-300mm VR lens like Tamron does and bundling it with D800 will be a seriously good kit! :-) 24-300m would be even better!
    I hope its intention is that!!

    18-200mm VR on a FX would be cool, but IMO that is a bit to wide for vacation lens.
    And if its big, like 10cm+ long… it doesn’t have the reach to justify the size for hauling it on vacation. Just my 2c. :-)

  • D700 (feels like F3)

    no 18-200mm please – we’ve got enough lens on the market, that are bad comprimise … for the traveller and photographers: two lens and light weight

    If Nikon is any ambitious: 14-24 at 2.8 is heavy, costly & just great. But for the mass-market a 14-24 or 14-36 at f=4.0 will do the job also at 50% of the weight, cost …

    • http://fotografstuttgart.de Hochzeitsfotograf

      it is called 16-35 and is available in shop near you

  • SGN

    If you take a 28-300 full frame, and put in one of those wide converters they use for camcorders (assuming you get if that large!!) you can have 18-300! NOT TALKING QUALITY HERE.

    Moral of the story, if FF 28-300 can be made, some tweaking can make it 18-200. SO it’s not impossible!!

  • SNRatio

    After looking more closely into this, I’m quite sure the 18-200 FX is possible. The main reason for the smaller image circle of the 18-200 DX Mk II is seemingly not the front groups elements, and I guess the main reasons for the small image circle is simply weight (also implies glass cost) and corner IQ. If Nikon relaxes somewhat on both requirements, they may even be able to make a video usable FX lens using approx the same optical formula. The trouble is, of course, the corner performance, but in ordinary still photo use, that will only be critical above, say, 21mm. (Only idiots will consider this an ordinary wide angle zoom..) And if they retain the center performance of the 18-200 DX, image centers will be really tack sharp.

  • thefunk

    I am definately not going to buy one because it’s out of date already.

    I want more.

  • Matstar

    27-300mm would be the true DX equivalent.

  • Andreas

    What if the rumored 18-200 FX is either hardware locked to 28-200mm on FX bodies (or maybe even a manual switch on the lens?) or electronically cropped to DX for focal lengths below 28mm? Then, it could be a 28-300mm DX lens and a 18-200mm FX lens all in one :) Would even be a useful 18-200mm FX lens for video…

    • Andreas

      Ooops, I meant 28-300mm DX and 20-200mm FX in one lens :) Would be cool if that came with a consumer FX body like the D90 upgrade!

      • Andreas

        Darn, I really need to learn how to type… 28-300mm DX and 28-200mm FX.

  • Anonymous

    All I want is the AF-S 85mm f/1.4G N :)

  • nobody

    24 to 120 mm is the maximum for an FX standard zoom today if you want more wide angle than 28mm. And the 15/16 to 80/85 DX lenses and the Olympus 12-60 Four Thirds lens are very close to these numbers.

    If Nikon would really start to go wider with a standard zoom than anybody has ever done, wouldn’t the first try be something like a 20-120 FX? 18-200 FX seems just too far-fetched IMO.

  • I Am Nikon

    It’s only impossible until Nikon releases it.

    ;)

    • http://fotografstuttgart.de Hochzeitsfotograf

      or some 3 F mount carousel with added optical AF-S element. You can mount any 3 AF-S lenses on it and just rotate to one you need. This i would get in a heartbeat. Mount 24G, 85G and 200G and it would be world awesomestest 24-200 f1.4-f2.0 zoom.

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

    Post updated (thanks Lance): Here is the transcript of the proper portion of the Kelby video “A Day with Jay Maisel – Lunch”, Part 1 (at 5:28):

    “Scott: You’re overseas on a project, how’s that.
    Jay: Yeah.
    Scott: You have to use one lens for the whole project, what is it?
    Jay: It changes, right now it would be the 70 to 300.
    Scott: You’re really loving that lens aren’t you.
    Jay: Oh yeah. I like the 18 to 200 but it’s not a full frame lens.
    Scott: No it’s not. That’s what’s interesting for $500 that it works on the full frame cameras.
    Jay: Now I think… and you know how free Nikon is with prognostication of the future, they would lie just to keep in practice. But I think there may be an 18 to 200 full frame, and if that happens I’m buying it.
    Scott: Oh that would be the first lens I would buy.
    Jay: But the 70-300 is still terrific.”

  • SNRatio

    A 18-200 FX and a 28-200/300 FX would be two completely different beasts. And the latter is almost bound to appear, sooner or later. It won’t be a million-seller like its DX equivalent, but it will be a significant lens for Nikon, and there will be quite a lot of prestige: They have to beat the third party vendors, and they should at least match Canon. It should not fall completely through on high-MP bodies either, for enthusiast FX is not being confined to 12MP. In the second release of the 18-200, Nikon has accomplished much of this on DX, but they can’t just scale up that lens to get the FX version.

    The lens should be good enough, centrally, in the tele end to be used as an alternative tele zoom on DX, and it should not be very much more expensive than the 18-200 DX. If you think that may imply a lot of optimization work, I think you are right. Which may be why we haven’t already seen it: Nikon wants to get it right, first time, and takes the time needed – just like they did with the 70-300VR.

    It may well be that the time for it has come now, but IF Nikon is planning for a 18-200 FX, they should do that one first. That will give their new cameras a unique selling property, probably for quite some time, and by the time the competition has their answer on the market, they can proceed to the next generation. Like they did with the 18-200 DX Mk II and the D3s.

    We could also look at it this way: If Nikon wants to attack Canon’s posiition as efficiently as possible, they should use the means where they have the most expertise, and I think that is still in optics. And they can’t rely on only “me too”-offerings.

  • Nathan Shane

    As a D700 shooter (I also have a D300) I mostly carry the D700 and the dream-trio14-24mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm lenses. There are so many times when I’m outdoors shooting that I’ve missed a shot because I was in the middle of changing lenses. For the longest time I’ve wished that there was an FX full frame walk-around-lens that was much more wider than 24mm. I can definitely see a very practical use and need for a full frame lens of this nature.

    I’ve been waiting for Nikon to release an updated 24-120mm but thought that I would still need to carry around my 14-24mm. But if they can truly make a lens that goes wider and reaches further, then that would be the lens I would prefer to have. So I think that it is very possible to make a lens like this and that it would fit the needs of many photographers.

  • Rafael

    Jay who said what?

    nah that lens is going to be DX or a lemon

  • John

    Please excuse my ignorance but what would the significance of an 18-200 DX vs 18-200 FX be (other than it would “fit” full frame bodies)?

  • jbl

    This is obviously going to be a 28-300 lens.

    Think about it, if you make some huge zoom lens for FX, it would be from wide to tele, but no need to go in the 18ish mm on FX… 24 or 28 is the desired number at the wide end.

  • Mike Benveniste

    Name all of the of the zoom lenses from any manufacturer, for any 35mm film or FX format SLR, which covered both the 20mm and 50mm focal lengths.

    —-Begin List—-
    —-End List—-

    • MB

      Name any lens that covered 18-200 before Nikon made one.
      And that will be the case with this new FX one, only it will be 28-300.

      • Mike Benveniste

        An 18-200mm DX offered no more technical challenges than a 28-300mm FX, and those did exist. The only thing shocking about the 18-200mm was that Nikon got there early. If Nikon does introduce a 28-300mm FX, the only thing shocking about it will be the price.

        But an actual 18-200mm FX, when no one has managed an 18-50mm FX yet? That would be a huge advance in the state of the art, because an 18mm FX lens requires a retrofocus design.

  • Jim

    JAY ONLY SAID THAT if THEY CAME OUT WITH ONE FOR fx HE WOULD BUY IT.

    • Lance

      He said more than that:
      “Now I think… and you know how free Nikon is with prognostication of the future, they would lie just to keep in practice. But I think there may be an 18 to 200 full frame, and if that happens I’m buying it.”

      To me this says that he heard it directly from Nikon, and that they made him think there might be one. He might have asked them about an 18-200, and they said “sure we’re working on something like that.” That might be all there is to it, and it ends up as a variation on those numbers.

  • angus

    I wouldn’t say 18-200 FX is absolutely impossible, Tokina had a 24-200 lens for 35mm SLRs several years ago. But Nikon (especially) and Canon have historically trailed the independents in the marketing of cheaper superzooms. It may be technically possible, but it would likely have a very large front diameter and possibly be uneconomic to produce at a kit price. I am skeptical about this rumour, and were it to materialize, would be even more skeptical about optical quality. Would quality conscious FF users really want a lemon flavoured lens like this?

    However, if it does appear, surely it would be an indication of a cheaper line of FF DSLRs coming, which IMO is still a few years away. FF equivalent to 18-200DX seems more likely, or even a revised 28-200.

  • Back to top