< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Patents for Nikon 24-120mm f/4 and 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 lenses

Pin It

Japanese Patent application 2010-175899 (release date: August 12, 2010 | filing date: January 30, 2009) seems to cover several different lens designs, two of them are for the lenses that will be announced tonight:

  • Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR:
    • f = 24.70-116.39mm
    • Fno = 4.12-4.14
    • Angle: 85.24-20.28 °
    • Image circle: 43.2mm
    • Length: 146.351-190.957mm
    • Back focus: 38.496-64.317

More details after the break:

  • Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (also to be released tonight):
    • Focal length f = 28.79-292.00mm
    • Fno = 3.57-5.96
    • Angle: 76.52-8.16 °
    • Image circle: 43.2mm
    • Length: 159.888-232.653mm
    • Back focus 38.422-79.261

  • Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II - maybe the kit lens for the D90 replacement in September? I doubt it.
    • Focal length f = 18.39-101.99mm
    • Fno = 3.63-5.84
    • Angle: 80.32-16.00 °
    • Image circle: 29.0mm
    • Length: 134.064-177.708mm
    • Back focus 39.008-66.008

  • AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR III - this one is portably few years away, VRII was just announced last year.
    • Focal length f = 18.50-195.00mm
    • Fno = 3.58-5.89
    • Angle: 79.78-8.44 °
    • Image circle: 29.0mm
    • Length: 141.720-207.403mm
    • Back focus: 38.000-80.450

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses, Nikon Patents and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • D800

    Lenses for the D800 !

    • http://products.plantae.sk miso

      lenses without its camera

      • twoomy

        gotta get the lenses out there first! (or all at the same time, but that isn’t happening). A D700x/D900 will be more marketable for the masses with a set of 24-120 f/4 and 16-35 f/4 lenses to support it. Nikon’s taking its time going after the 5dmkII f/4 user base!

  • http://products.plantae.sk miso

    is anywere any note about 24-120mm weight?

  • Scott

    It’s interesting to see the more exact specifications listed in the patents. They reveal just how much they’re being fudged. The apertures and focal lengths they list are telling of the kind of criticism we’ll likely see in the lens reviews.

  • S

    I have a gut feeling an FX camera will follow up the FX lenses, time span of course will be difficult to predict. I hope IQ of this 24-120mm lens will be excellent, but due to focal range and price..I strongly doubt it, even if we are in 2010. What I’d like to see is an improved iteration of the pro 24-70 mm nikkor. The 24-70mm is great in the centre but not up to scratch in the corners when used on a high resolution body like the D3X. I suppose the new 24-120mm will fit the ‘general purpose’ niche rather well, convenience at the compromise of image quality? Amaze me Nikon, it’s about time.

    • Anonymous

      I believe IQ difference between 24-70mm f/2.8 will be min. even at corners when stopped down to f/11 (typical landscape aperture)

      • S

        Nikon..for myself could you please build an FX 20-80mm F2.8 ED, N, AFS VR wonder lens? Try and make the IQ as good as a prime..even in the corners? I mean..is that even possible for let’s say £1500?
        Sounds like I’m smokin’ crack considering the engineering complexity of such a lens..but if someone at Nikon has the brains and testes to do it…please consider it. I’m doing my masters in engineering and if I ever become employed for Nikon’s Opticsl dept. and they are looking for courageous, innovative designers/engineers..hell this would be my contribution.

        • http://www.istockphoto.com/lostinbids Lostinbids

          How about a 35-120 2.8. That would cover portraits nicely.

        • f/2.8

          From what you asked for, Nikon is not the company for you as a customer or an employer.

  • Bart

    I’m waiting (in vain) for a 16mm f/2.8 DX prime.

    • D800

      and 16mm f/4 FX prime please

      • Global

        f/4 is terribly dark.

        • gt

          assuming this lens would be intended for landscapes, f4 wouldn’t matter too much. you want plenty of depth of field when shooting a landscape, so you’d probably be at F11 or above.

    • Maeka

      How much smaller do you think Nikon can make a 16mm f/2.8 DX prime than the excellent Tokina 11-16?

      They can’t make it any sharper, less expensive, or better built.

      • Aaron

        But they can make it say Nikon, and that alone is worth big bucks.

        Seriously, though (although the above is still true), why doesn’t anyone else have a 2.8 ultrawide DX zoom?

      • Aaron

        And actually, the design is out there. See the Sony 16 2.8 for it’s NEX-5. And it’s small.

        • Maeka

          You mean the NEX-5 which doesn’t have the flange-spacing issues of a f-mount?

        • Craig Grunwell

          Small and so far generally regarded as rather crappy. :/

      • Matt

        16 2.8 fixed focal length should be much smaller than a zoom!

      • Bart

        I’m not an optical engineer but I think that they can make it 30% smaler and 50% lighter than Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, little bigger than 35mm f/1.8 DX, comparable in size and weight with 20 f/2.8 AF. I would be happy with same build quality as 35mm f/1.8 DX. Price could be around $400, I guess.

    • Matt

      +1

  • http://www.fotoas.es fotoas

    I have been waiting a long time this news. I want my Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR.

  • RMT

    What happened to the N in the 24-120mm?

  • John

    By my count it went from 15 elements for the old design to 18 elements in this design – probably with some additional ED and aspherical elements. No wonder it needs the N magic with all those elements in there. Hopefully the IQ will be great AND the QC good enough on such a complicated design.

    My personal experience with the 70-300AFS VR (that has 17 elements) is that there can be a lot of copy to copy variation in performance.

    John

  • http://www.bonzo.com bonzo

    Any patents for other lenses? How can one search them?

    For example, 500/5.6, 600/5.6, 400/5.6, 300/4, 200/2.8 … :-)

  • Rob

    Looks like the 24-120 is longer in size than the 24-70. Nikon USA’s site lists the 24-70 at 133mm, this one here at it’s smallest is 141mm

    • nobody

      The minimum length is 146.351mm, but according to my understanding that should be the distance from the first lens lens surface to the sensor. So it should be about 110mm long at its shortest focal length, about as large as the Canon 24-105, and extend by about 45mm at its longest focal length.

    • Kevin

      Something is off. That would make the 18-105 longer than the 24-70, as well.

  • brave new world

    sometimes I wonder, if we can go back to light weight lens instead of having “almost all in one” lens, that are heavy, bulky and finally expensive.

    if there no designer in the optics industry who is able to provide simplicity?
    the cost of having that many surfaces, mechanical mount, VR, focus … is just
    high.

    Who needs a 28-300mm – why can’t we get back to zoom-factors 2.5 to 3.5???

    • nobody

      You have the zoom factor 1 with the 50mm, or any other prime.

      You have the zoom factor 3 with the 24-70mm.

      You’ll get the zoom factor 5 with the 24-120mm.

      You’ll get the zoom factor 10 with the 28-300mm.

      You have the choice. What are you missing?

      • Global

        Precisely my message on a previous multi-lens conversation either at dpreview or here. I don’t understand the complaints of people sometimes.

        You want a prime 28-300? Okay! so buy the 28 prime — or buy the 300 prime! or any of them in the middle. Goodness.

        I think the spirit of the complaint, perhaps, is that “pancake lenses” need to make a come-back. They don’t have to be truly pancaked — just snub-nosed lenses, or something optically pretty darn good but maybe not with all the bells and whistles (sacrificing corners?). Anyway, I wouldn’t buy them. But someone might. In particular, I question my sanity in using the 70-200 VRII. Its ridiculous. I really wouldn’t have minded if that one was a 105-200 VRII, or even a 135-200 VRII. Because its just too insanely heavy.

        In fact, a 135-200 VRII (emphasizing weight/size loss) would be amazing!

    • Sven

      Nobody says you need to buy that lens is you dont like it …
      Some people dont want to cary a hole bunch of lenses ( like reporters , people with to much money , tourists ,in some cases: me , … )

  • http://www.dishler.com jon D

    What time tonight?

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

      midnight, US eastern time +/- 1 hour

      • http://www.dishler.com jon D

        Thanks, I will check NR at that time. This is a great site by the way.

        • nikkor_2

          “This is a great site by the way.”

          +1. Thanks, [NR] admin, for all your hard work!

  • Anonymous

    Thrilling, the only problem is that most of the lenses will be anyway out of stock most of the times.

  • Clueless

    Ordered the 24-120 f4 already. first on list

  • S

    I’m telling you now, If almighty Nikon ‘Coolpix’ Corp. don’t make the 24-120 mm lens comparable to the 24-70 mm in terms of IQ they can keep the lens..stick it up their pinstripe Nikhole and zoom it all the way to 120mm!. Now, give me my godamn 24 mp 14 stop DR D900.

    • gt

      I guarantee this poster takes terrible photos

  • http://www.dishler.com jon D

    How about another Nikon announcement, like a new flash to update the 900 which is now several years old?

    • Segura

      Yeah, it is an old flash, that still probably does more than you need it to. What more do you want from the 900? It is their newest strobe, why not replace the SB-400 or SB-600 first . . .

      • http://www.dishler.com jon D

        I smell an SB-1000! And why you might ask?
        Metz Mecablitz 58 AF-2 flash announced today.

  • Fabien
  • ScorpioNet

    I am still waiting for Nikon’s answer to the Panasonic Lumix GF-1, the Olympus Pen and the Sony NX-5. Will Nikon ever do something spectacular again like they did in 1950 that challenged the mighty Leica M’s with the Nikon S with lenses of such quality that shocked the Red Dot among photojournalists. I am still waiting…

  • Back to top