< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Rumors from Japan: new Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.2G and 28mm f/1.4G lenses in development

Pin It

The Japanese site digicame-info.com reported a rumor few days ago that Nikon is currently working on new AF-S 50mm f/1.2G and 28mm f/1.4G lenses that will be released in the near future. I received similar tips at the beginning of the year about the 50mm f/1.2G lens and Nikon even filed a patent for it:

Nikon 50mm f/1.2G lens patent

The 28mm f/1.4G is news to me. This brings the question how reliable is digicame-info website when it comes to reporting rumors? Few days ago they correctly reported on the upcoming Olympus E-PL1s camera. A new 28mm f/1.4G will be too close to the already announced 24 f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4 lenses. Nikon already produced a Nikon 28mm f/1.4D AF lens in the past that was very popular and is still available for $3000-4000 on eBay (update: completed sells indicate a price range between 2000-3000$ for that lens).

Image source

The site mentions also a new 80-400mm lens - I believe this will be the next full frame lens to be released by Nikon.

The price of the Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.2G is reported to be around 350,000 Yen (aprox. USD 4,200) which is a bit high IMHO (FYI: Canon's EF 50mm f/1.2L lens costs around USD 1,300).

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

    OMG! Great News!

    • http://bit.ly/9NIXQ David Hasselblaff

      Sounds like the kind of glass one would announce along with a new full frame body. I have to agree that he price for the 50mm/1.2 (Noct?) is a bit high although I guess it will defo be between USD 2k-3k. I’ve used the Canon equivalent, but didn’t like it too much. Was too soft for my taste. Maybe I’m just too used to Leica’s quality glass.

      • st r

        How do I focus a 50mm F/1.2 at full aperture to tell whether it is crisp or soft? I think I can only use it on two-dimensional subjects, parallel to the sensor plane.

        • http://bit.ly/9NIXQ David Hasselblaff

          Personally I prefer photographing hair to see how sharp the lens is wide open — looking at the area in focus of course. But I have to agree, nailing the focus on large aperture lenses is not always easy. Even on a rangefinder. Although I don’t know how much crisper images are straight out of a Leica M9 due to having no AA filter.

        • Jabs

          @str.
          The Nikon F3 had some fantastic focusing screens that allowed me to focus low F-stop glass easily.
          I tried focusing a Leica F0.95 lens on an older Leica body years ago and rangefinders are the pits to me (that also includes the lousy M9) – LOL (sorry)!
          They are worse than SLR’s to focus properly and one is better off getting a high magnification finder head or one of the new high-mag finders that mount over your LCD screen and then by its’ elimination of extraneous light and having a built-in diopter adjustment, one can now focus properly.
          The key to focusing low F-stop lenses is diopter adjustment and eliminating extraneous light as in YOUR eyes being able to see and recognize WHAT IS in focus due to increased contrast, as the focal plane is very thin. I used to use a special F3 focusing screen plus a 6X high mag head that would allow me to see ANY section of the image that was in focus or NOT and that made it easy. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any current camera that has that screen anymore (forgot the name, but maybe it was an ‘M’ screen and also used a ‘P’ screen or ‘K’ screen). Nikon had a screen that was all matte and thus you could easily see the area in focus, even if it was off center.
          They (Nikon) NEED to bring that back but autofocus does NOT do well with low F-Stop lenses WIDE OPEN, as the human eye is better able to distinguish what one wants to be in focus, so use manual focus with a great screen.
          The MYTH of Leica being better in focusing of low F-Stop lenses is just THAT – a myth. Actually rangefinders are the worst in focusing low F-Stop lenses but they use depth of field and shorter focal lengths to cover your errors and then people love that or laud it as mistake-proof (I call it idiot proof as in giving you a generic image that does not really represent what you shot as accurately as a SLR, but people have their own opinions and since I have owned and used both Leica’s and Nikon’s then from experience and use, the old Nikon F3 is better than ANY Leica rangefinder in nailing focus). I remember when I went to Nikon House at Rockyfeller Center in New York and shot with a 58m F1.2 Noct wide open on an F3HP at dusk with skaters and bright lights, it nailed focus and my brother who was shooting Leica’s was not as successful as me, so your mileage may vary – LOL!
          I also believe that a D3S can outshoot any Leica in low light but often with ANY digital camera, you have to shoot in manual with low F-stop lenses.

          • http://fotografolowcost.blogspot.com Blog de fotografía

            Any idea of whether is possible/advisable to get a focusing screen for a D90?

            • Jabs

              @Blog de fotografia:
              Sorry, but I don’t know the answer to your question, but you could try using ‘google.com’ or ‘altavista.com’ to search for an answer.
              I don’t believe that the D90 has removable focusing screens BUT I could be wrong!
              There were in the past Beattie (? -spelling) brand screens for all types of Nikon’s, but I also don’t know if they are still in business.
              Try searching online for all this info – OK.
              Have a great day.

            • John

              Well, my 50/1.2 AIS is nearly impossible to accurately focus on my D300 even using a Katzeye screen – it’s pretty hit or miss, especially in lower light situations.
              The D700/D3/D3s/D3X cameras are way, way easier to focus such fast lenses even with the stock screen.

              So, don’t count on being able to focus accurately on a D90 w/o using live view.

          • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin
          • Jabs

            I forgot one very important thing.
            GET a rubber eyepiece as they are one of the best aids in focusing accuracy.
            ALL my cameras always had them on the camera heads that could mount them.
            I preferred the screw on variety (usually on the Nikon PRO bodies) as the other slip on ones, easily fell off and frustrated me – LOL!
            The older SLR film cameras did not have a built-in diopter adjustment, so you bought diopter lenses that screwed into the removable camera heads ‘eyepiece’ and that aided focusing accuracy.
            I believe that starting with the F4, the diopter was built into the camera heads (please correct me) with a pull out adjustment or a knob to adjust diopter!

    • Jesus

      Great news??

      Who needs a fuckin 28mm

      • Global

        Thats what people said years ago, which is why they are so rare and expensive today. ;-)

        The question is only valid because the 24/35/1.4s exist now. But honestly, if Nikon had come out with a 20/1.8/2 + 28/1.4, it would have been perfect. A 24/28/35/1.4 is a curse of blessings, one of those lenses will probably be dropped sooner than later.

        Of course that one will become the collectors item, I suppose…

        • Arthur

          I’d rather have an 18 or 20mm f/2 than that in-between 28mm too.

        • Panfruit

          I won’t be happy until they release a 30, 32, and 26mm. No sir.

      • http://www.lamarfrancois.smugmug.com francois

        An 18mm f/2.8 refresh for DX would be fairly useful.

        The 24mm f/1.4 supplants the old lens in every way , can’t see why they’d make a 28mm prime. The 50 f/1.2 is interesting though

    • The invisible man

      I can’t believe it !!!!!
      I’ve saved money for years and I finaly have now enough for my 16-35mm f/4 (the 14-24mm too big and too expensive).
      Guess what ????
      B&H website is down !!!!
      Maybe God is talking to me : ” you don’t need an other expensive Nikon lens…..”

      • n a

        the lowest price on ebay way 435 us

        • Arthur

          You must be joking! 16-35mm f/4.0 VR for $435?

          • Brock Kenwell

            I bought a US version for $925 that I found on craigslist.

            • The invisible man

              I just ordered it ($1109), I hope it worth the price, it’s only f4.0 aperture.

  • Mihir

    Whoa. 4k is a little too expensive. They’re smoking some really good wasabi over at Nikon HQ.

    • GlobalGuy

      The funny thing is that the 28.1.4 was selling for up to $4,000 just a few months ago. Now its “buy it now” for $2,500. There’s a funny comment on the eBay link admin posted:

      “Nikon 28mm f1.4″ by: jm140851 ( 51)
      Now is 4000 -tomorrow will be 5000 so what, the best there is.I have this lens and I will keep it until I die.”

      If he bought it for $4,000, he might be weeping upon this rumor and the sudden dramatic drop in price following 24/35.1.4 releases… Forever? =P

    • PHB

      Any price data in rumors is a sign they are likely false. There is no way that nikon would make a firm pricing decision at this poin, let alone tell it to someone who might leak.

      Even if the lens did bring back the Noct designation, it would not be unique. The 85 mm actually ouperforms the old Noct design on sagital coma flare and costs a mere $1700. It is a far better lens, noct performance with superlative bokeh.

      The price of a telephoto lens is pretty much a function of aperture. NOT the focal ratio. The 85 has an aperture of about 60 mm the 50 f1.2 would be 42mm or so. For a. Normal lens the price should probably be more like $1,200 like the Canon.

  • stephen

    Maybe somebody can explain this, but what’s the need for a 28mm f1.4 when there’s a 24mm and 35mm f1.4 already?

    • Dr FF

      I was wondering that.
      DX??

      (Totally guessing)

      • Mihir

        That was my first thought as well – but they already have the 35 1.8. Doesnt make sense for DX either *scratching head*

        • PHB

          It might be easier to do a 28 mm dx than a 24. And since both are roughly a 35 mm equivalent they are useful alongside a 50 mm prime. 24 is clearly better but at what extra cost?

          Since this is a 1.4 it is almost certainly FX though. I am not sure I would have a use for it alongside a 24, but some might. And what else are they going to do? Much of the design work will have been done already. They almost certainly considered a 28 at the same time as the 35 and the 24.

      • http://jonreytan.blogspot.com jon t.

        don’t forget..

        the 28mm 1.4 has an aperture ring (non-G version).

        both the 24mm 1.4 and the 35mm 1.4 are (i believe this for the latter) are both G lenses. meaning, they won’t work on 35mm film cameras.

        the 28mm 1.4 is non-G, therefore it will work for film shooters

        it has nothing to do with video, and everything to do with being backwards-compatible.

    • mshi

      for video use imho

      • Mihir

        pls explain? whats wrong with the 24 or 35 1.4 for video?

        • mshi

          nothing wrong with 24 or 35. more large aperture focus length choices can definitely strengthen Nikon’s appeal to motion shooters.

          • Mike

            They do currently have 20, 24, 28 f/2.8 and 35 f/2. Perhaps the new guard of prime lenses includes 24, 28, 35 1.4G? Some people like the angle of view of 28mm.

    • dino

      Yes, there’s.

      From 35 to 24 you have almost 50% more frame to cover. A 28 may be the right way to go if you like moderate wide angles AND you would like a half way prime between 35 and 50 when cropped to DX.
      For sure, the high price, as well as the 50 (4 k???) will be a serious deterrent…

      • mshi

        At times when 35 is too tight and 24 is too wide, 28 is the solution.

    • Nathan

      In the old days people would choose the 28mm over the 35mm/24mm combo. So a 28mm would give people options to have just one lens vs. two.

    • Rosco

      Maybe because they are different focal lengths! And; they have different fields of view…. Not exactly rocket science! :-)

    • Jabs

      @stephen.
      Do this test.
      1. Go into a small room or even a Museum/Hallway and mount all three lenses on a camera one by one.
      2. BACK up as far as you can and PHOTOGRAPH the SAME thing or area and then tell me what is the difference YOURSELF.
      3. TRY and photograph the whole room with each lens and then you will easily see the differences yourself.

      End of rant – LOL!

      MORAL – focal length matters the most in CLOSE areas!

      • stephen

        Yea, I did that test when trying to figure out to buy the 80-200 or 70-200. There was hardly any difference.

        There’s hardly any difference between 18mm and 17mm. I take my 17-55mm zoom and don’t really see a difference between 24 and 28mm….

        END OF RANT HAHAAHAH

        • Jabs

          @stephen.
          You DID NOT do the test, as I asked you to MOUNT a 24mm, 28mm and 35mm LENS on your camera ONE by ONE and then focus with the THREE of them individually in a small room, Museum or such on the SAME subject or area (sorry if I was not specific enough before).
          THEN you will easily see the difference, as I always kept a 24 F2.8, 28 F2.8 and a 35 F2.0 on hand for such limited situations.
          A ZOOM is not the answer, as you might not get exactly the focal length that you THINK you have, hence my recommendations.
          At times INDOORS, even a 24mm is NOT enough and I always wanted a 16 or 18mm lens and then look through the Nikon PC (Perspective Control) lens and perhaps learn even more about the effects of EACH focal length on PERSPECTIVE.
          I did and still do a lot of Architectural and equipment photography (both indoors and outdoors) and THAT trains your eye away from ZOOMS, though zooms are quicker often to frame, they are NOT as corrected as primes or PC lenses for EXACT shooting of that type, in my opinion.
          I also walk up or down ladders or chairs to bring my shooting HORIZON up or down and thus try that plus then learn a lot about composition of certain subjects with wide angle lenses.

    • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

      Why do they need a 500mm lens when there’s a 600mm lens, or vice versa?

      (They are about the same percentage in difference)

  • mshi

    If AF-S 1.2 can have better or equal performance of Noct 58 1.2 at wide open, I will buy it.

  • Robert Stoffer photo

    grrrrrh.

    lenses to buy….. 24 1.4 (Spring), 14-24 2.8 (Dec), D800 (whenever the hell it comes), 35 1.4 after. now a replacement for my slow focus 50 1.4 G? YES! but not at that price…. but a 2.8 1.4 maybe tempting but 24 and 35 is too close together for that lens. Id rather see a 135 1.8 AF-S

    • mshi

      135 1.8VR can also set you back $3K to $4K.

      • Robert Stoffer photo

        Yes, but i think it would be a better lens to have to combo a 24,35,50 and 85 1.4′s instead of adding a barely a stop in a 50 1.4 and the 28 being so close to the 24 and 35. Id have TOO many lenses to use in the short end if i had the 24,28,35,50,85,135,14-24,24-70,70-200?

        • Segura

          I have the 24 1.4, 50 1.4, 84 1.4, 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 60 2.8 M, and a preorder on the 35 1.4. I think I am covered . . . please don’t release any more fast primes!

          • mshi

            You need 400mm 2.8 too.

            • Robert Stoffer photo

              Who needs that? :). that would be awesome but in my own choice, id rather have a 200mm F2

          • hexx

            just quick question for you, i guess you’ve got 85 f/1.4 af-d not the new one, for portraits…

            i can’t decide what’s better the old 85 f/1.4 or 105 f/2 DC

            will be jumping to FX next year so i can sell all my DX lenses and will need to buy FX lenses and this is where i’m a bit confused, because as far as I know the old 85 f/1.4 is much better for portraits than the af-s (new one) but i also know that 105 f/2 DC is excellent for portraits because of DC.

            any idea?

            • Bondi Beach

              I find the AF-D autofocus slow on the D700. Candids can be quite challenging – perhaps the AF-S is quicker?

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedtoast/ Fried Toast

            The problem is not Nikon releasing fast primes. The problem is that you need to stop visiting NikonRumors if you can’t control your N.A.S. :D

            • Robert Stoffer photo

              whats N.A.S? :D.

              I am a proud pre order of the 85 1.4 AF-S. 2 months on preorder in 2 days… :/

            • WoutK89

              Nikon Acquisition Syndrome if I have the A right

          • Baked bananas

            Get the 50 mm 1.2 and you will have a royal flush.

        • Rosco

          There is quite a difference between the 28 and 35 though. I use a 35 (24mm on a D300) almost exclusively for most photo projects. 28 gives a different “feel” to the photos (for me)
          Cheers :-)

          • jdsl

            How come the 35mm becomes 24mm on D300?

            Either you mistyped it, interchanged it, or confused :)

            • Rosco

              “I use a 35 (24mm on a D300)” I put the 24mm in brackets to show i was using the 24 as a 35mm equivalent.

              Should have written it this way; “I use a (24mm on a D300) 35mm equivalent” But thought most would know what I meant…

              A case of “type in haste and repent in leisure!” :-)

      • Roger

        Sony 135/1.8 sure aint anywhere near 3,000$.

        Any new Nikkor 135/1.8 will be 1,500-1,800$ lens.

    • dino

      I’m waiting too for a 135, whatever it is.

  • Annatar

    Whereas the 50mm f/1.2 is definitely probable, I find the 28mm lens a little hard to believe. Why would Nikon spend a great deal of money and resources to produce such as lens when they’ve recently released superb 24mm and 35 mm versions? Sure, the old 28mm lens was stellar but if the rumor turns out to be true, it would be a surprise to me at least.

    • preston

      I’d like to see a 28/1.4 if it was in the amateur price range (if it’s less than $800 it can even be f2.8 like the old ones – I just want USM and made for digital). It’s great that they are making a top quality fast 24, 35 and 85 now but people like myself that don’t make $ from photography can’t justify the cost of a $2,000 lens. I love my 35/1.8 for dx and I plan to go to fx in the future, but right now it’s not feasible because the new primes cost a fortune.

      • st r

        I just want USM

        I suggest you buy Canon, then.

        • preston

          Yes, let’s be nitpicky about using the correct proprietary term. You know exactly what I mean.

          • st r

            Yes, I do… and “ultra sonic motor” it is probably more generic than other brand names like swm, so it is the most suitable to be used as a general term.

            Still, being on a branded (although independent) site, I could not resist.

    • PAG

      It might be that cranking out a 28mm f1.4 is not all that hard. It’s not like they have to completely reinvent the wheel with so many other fast prime designs in their stable.

  • Greg

    “Nikon 28mm f/1.4D AF lens in the past that was very popular and is still selling for $3-4k on eBay”

    Sounds like the NR admin needs to learn the difference between an asking price and a selling price. Hint: nobody is paying $3-4k for this lens. You need to check the completed listings for an accurate assessment of value. Asking prices are meaningless.

    • Greg

      The three completed sales are all around $2500 and there’s even a current Buy It Now offer for $2500.

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

        Hey! Cool new avatar!

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

          I have to change it again – the text is no readable

          • Mock Kenwell

            You’re going to have to figure out a way to stack
            NIKON
            RUMORS.

    • BeefHammer

      Wow Greg, maybe if you get a minute later you can overreact to what is a fairly trivial part of the story.

      • Greg

        Wow BeefHammer, maybe if you get a minute later you could overreact to what is a perfectly reasonable correction to a core part of the post.

      • Zizzler

        beefhammer not so good with reading comprehension or math

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedtoast/ Fried Toast

      Price at Map Camera in Tokyo was ~$3,000+ and it wasn’t like they sat on the shelves. Seems a bit overreaching to say, “nobody is paying $3-4k for this lens.” More like, “Nobody on eBay is paying $3-4k for this lens.”

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedtoast/2541216897/

  • R R

    wow ! I think I like the new CEO in Nikon. good ideas! (maybe not so new CEO)

  • Richard

    $4,200 Just what is Nikon sniffing?

    • WoutK89

      it is not even a fact! Nikon didnt smoke anything yet, apparently you dont know the meaning of rumors.

    • jdsl

      Wasabi and nato and some *ss in Kabukicho, Shinjuku

    • King Of Swaziland

      For $4200, a 50mm f/1.2 ought to have no spherical surfaces (all surfaces aspherical) and thus near zero spherical aberration (also eliminating spherochromatism and focus shift) , super-achromatic design (4 different types of glass), darn near zero coma, nigh-perfectly flat field, and every internal surface nan0-coated (current lenses only have one nano-coat surface).

      $1500 is a more reasonable price for the lens we are likely to get: no aspherical surfaces, no ED or super ED glass (thus achromatic design, and not apochromatic or super-achromatic), less than stellar coma correction, wild field curvature, and insane focus shift.

      • PHB

        You don’t want an aspherical surface, they tend to muck up the bokeh.

        That is why the 85mm f/1.4 has no asphericals. It has no sagittal coma flare even so.

        • King Of Swaziland

          Poorly made aspherical surfaces screw up bokeh (generating the onion ring structure). Modern glass making techniques eliminate most of the issues.

          • PHB

            Yes, I was probably over generalizing.

            But in general, aspherical surfaces should be used for solving problems, not introduced for the sake of it.

        • Roger

          Leica 50mm Aspherical has the smoothest bokeh, best bokeh you will ever see in a 50mm lens.

          Asph does NOT muck up the bokeh.

    • Roger

      Rumor, not fact. There will be no 4,000$ 50mm lenses.

  • zzddrr

    I think Nikon should stop introducing new equipment until actually it can manufacture them and get them on time to the dealers’ stores. I am sick and tired looking at these new products since most of them are virtually always out of stock. :-)

    • Anonymous

      If you are sick and tired of looking, then don’t look. I have got a better idea… why don’t you go any buy Cannon and then gripe about Cannon. I am sick and tired of listening to your griping about Nikon. :)

      • zzddrr

        And I am sick and tired with people who cannot read and understand others’ valid point!

        • twoomy

          Agree with zzddrr. I’ve shot Nikon for 30 years now, but I’m also frustrated how slowly announced products become available. And how often it is hard to find some basic (and boring) Nikon accessories like LCD covers, caps, batteries, etc. in stock.

          Suggesting that people switch to Canon is just plain stupid.

          • Mock Kenwell

            Agreed. But it’s hilarious to listen to zzddrr bitch. If Nikon wasn’t updating its primes, he’d be bitching about that. Some folks just aren’t happy unless they’re unhappy. I mean, how cool is it that all these primes are getting released now? Finally. I for one am glad to see the D7000 flying off the shelves and don’t think anyone could have guessed it would be so wildly popular in this shit economy. So you have to wait a bit for the lenses. Big damn deal. Delivery time has much improved from even just a year or two ago. Be happy the lenses seem to truly kick ass and are highly sought after. If you have the money, you can get any of these lenses. If you don’t, then get in line with the rest of us and wait for the MSR to drop a bit in 6 months. Honestly, I’m amazed at how much product this company is putting out. I think it’s terrific.

            • nikkor_2

              Mock is spot on!

            • zzddrr

              thanks Mock, at least you prove that you can point fingers. I can too. Look my middle one :-)

              Now, I guess you did not understand what my point was. The worse thing you can do with your loyal customers is to screw them, and that is what Nikon has been doing lately. That is why I said that it is important to sort out the shortage issues. I did not comment about the lenses. (BTW, I like them if I can buy them…)

            • Ren Kockwell

              Dude, you’re eternally grumpy & you know it. On a forum like this, you vacillate from entertaining to mildly annoying. Today it’s entertaining. It gets you the response you’re looking for, so you can save on therapy. Nikon Rumors is everyone’s cure-all!

        • Anonymous

          I am glad that you are sick and tired of with people… :)

          For real, I see that you are bitching about everything that Nikon does… why don’t you get going with Canon/Sony and get over your suffering. Maybe then you can go out and shoot some pictures instead of your bitching like a broken record.

          • jk

            and we wonder why we cant have world peace…. we can’t even get along when talking about inanimate objects…lol

            • Don B. A. Turkwell

              No kidding!

              By reverse logic, the day folks here start treating each other (and Canon/Sony users) with respect, is the day we can fully expect world peace.

      • jdsl

        But he has to buy some gunpowder too!

    • Patrick

      +1

    • nikkor_2

      “…I am sick and tired…”

      Oh, Chuck (Westfall), you are indeed sick and tired; we NR readers think perhaps it is time for you to take a rest …

      A deep, long rest.

      If not, than perhaps a job change will alter your outlook? :)

    • Jabs

      @zzddrr.
      Maybe Nikon should make worse products, eh or maybe there is a SERIOUS pent up demand for their newly introduced superior products and EVERYONE is now trying to buy them at the same time.

      LOL!

      Have you bought your D7000 or D3100 YET (both above 12 megaixels too)???
      Or are you waiting for something else?

      Maybe you go visit them and teach them how to manufacture MORE and also loosen up our demands for their NEW products – lol.

      • zzddrr

        Jabs, god didn’t give you too much did he? So how come Apple is capable of producing enough crap? Perhaps they did not hire you to plan. :-)

        • Peter B

          Everything Apple makes is made in China.

          • zzddrr

            guess what, what do you think where nikon makes the 105 macro?

        • Jabs

          @zzddrr,
          Actually God Blessed me with tremendous intellect and an Engineering background too, so I understand screw-ups, under-supply or oversupply issues AND also the fact that NOTHING will ever please some people as to ‘bitch’ is their raison d’etre, so you leave them alone, as they EXPECT a perfect world while with me being REALISTIC and grounded, I expect problems in life and accept that.
          It is CALLED maturity on my part while for the ‘kiddie squad’ it = STAR SCREAM-ism of decepticon infamy – from Transformers – ROBOTS in disguise – is what you display here!

          Intellect allows for PROBLEMS and solutions, while stupidity, immaturity seeks a PERFECT world and since God made humanity imperfect, then I dwell in the human realm and not some ‘perfect’ world of my own DREAMS or making!

          LOL!

          Just razzing YOU, as you are so infantile here at times.
          You make this place often tolerable, as many come here to look at YOUR rants just like how people go to Ken Rockwell’s web site to hear about his latest ‘discoveries’ and perceived intellectual shenanigans.
          A ‘jackass’ always makes the most NOISE, sometimes to be seen and other times because they are unfulfilled, unrealistic or even stupid.

          Perhaps YOU contribute something of GOOD here, as we all can complain and to WHAT avail???

          Enjoy your day!

      • Ren Kockwell

        Whoa Jabs, one thing at a time. Step One: Get out of parents’ basement. Step Two: Save Nikon. Step Three: World Domination. Step Four: Kiss a Girl.

        • aetas

          Ah crap…I messed up the order. And for the record I dont think that zzddrr is that bad. Just a little grumpy, like we when my wife says no to world domination (again)

          • Anonymous

            aetas
            Agree with you. I think zzddrr has valid points even though often the posts come across a bit grumpy. At this time he/she is spot on. What he/she pointed out is the same thing what Thom Hogan has been saying for awhile that Nikon has to sort out these product and sale issues.

            One thing for sure, when zzddrr posts something he/she receives quite few responses so the whole thread becomes entertaining. I guess he/she does this grumpy style intentionally so others will jump after he/she.

        • Jabs

          @Ren Kockwell.
          1. BOTH of my parents are dead.
          2. Left home in the 70′s.
          3. Expecting a perfect world MEANS that you do NOT understand supply and demand and thus a MORON.

          It is fashionable to complain all over the Internet, but it is TOO juvenile EVEN when you are right.
          EVERYONE knows and understands these ISSUES, so you are preaching to the ALREADY converted and thus DENSE!

          Clear enough for you or do I need to post a ‘dissertation on CRAP’ and then insult the intellect of others here?

          I prefer to TALK up to people and NOT talk down to them as ONE shows YOUR disdain for humanity and the other shows YOUR love – which one is displayed here by many???

      • Don B. A. Turkwell

        “…D7000 sucks. It is an inferior product that has “complain-complai”. Also they didn’t do “this-and-that”. Nikon should better get off their “beep-beep” and make me “whatever”. Else I’m gonna switch to a Calashnickoff – I heard it has a much better FPS (for shooting action)…”

        /-sarcasm:off

  • Steve

    Much more excited about the new 80-400!

    I’d LOVE to have a sharp portable zoom like that – the 300 2.8 and 500 f4 are a little big for my kayak!

    • PAG

      +1. Bring on the birders’ lenses!

    • Nikon Canon

      Yay !! 80-400 redo, time to fill this void Nikon. Mounting the old 80-400 to newish bodies are like mounting passenger tires on a Ferrari…

      • Mock Kenwell

        Passenger tires?

  • Greg

    I want more DX primes. Where’s the 85mm 1.8 DX ?

    • http://www.AlmondButterscotch.com/home Almond Butterscotch

      hell- where’s the AF-S 85mm f/1.8 (full frame, mind you, not DX- its a cheap enough lens)

      • WoutK89

        you will be complaining that the price is doubled, the old 85/1.8 is cheap, the new one will be 700-800 dollar I assume.

  • Roger

    I wouldnt mind 28/1.4 and 50/1.2 at all, should Nikon choose to make them ……

  • x

    85mm f/1.2 please!

    • http://www.videographerinloscabos.com Carlos Plazola

      I`ll second that!!! 85mm 1.2!!! It would be a titan lens!

      • Panfruit

        I’m guessing since they just released a high-end 85mm f/1.4 that there is *no* chance of this happening.

      • gt

        that’s ridiculous. that’s the last lens I hope they release. If the 85mm 1.4 isn’t making the pictures you want – there’s something wrong with you

        • Mock Kenwell

          Totally agree. The 50mm f/1.2 is one thing. And I LOVE fast primes. But the 85mm f/1.2 is a bit much. Canon’s is a bitch to nail focus. Really hit or miss. And even when you hit, its effects can be distracting to faces. So little is in focus. It’s just not really worth it and I’d rather have Nikon focusing on more practical and needed glass.

          • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

            +1

        • Roger

          +1

    • f-stop

      Yes! an 85mm 1.2 needs to happen for nikon period!..yes the 1.4 just came out but still a 1.2 is a whole new chapter that many nikon users may want if nikon brings it to the table full frame and DX users alike.

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/sooperkuh/ außerirdische gesund

        Why should a DX user want a 85mm 1.2? To put a $8000 lens on his $600 D90? If somebody wants to spend that much money on equipment, they might just buy a FF camera. A D700 costs a lot less, than most of these lenses we are talking about here.

        • Mock Kenwell

          +1

      • Roger

        F/1.2 whole new chapter, my ass. :D

        If I showed you 2 pics side by side, f/1.2 and f/1.4 you wouldnt be able to tell the difference.

        Desire for f/1.2 lenses, it’s a photographers version of dick measuring.

        • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

          I disagree entirely. While it depends on the shot composition, f/1.2 can definitely give a different feel than f/1.4 in many circumstances. It’s right on that edge of giving a “medium format feel”.

          I would agree that in the sake of low light performance it’s not necessary.

          • Mock Kenwell

            +1 DOF = difference Low Light = not so much

          • Roger

            There’s no thing as medium format feel. No medium format lens can match what a 85/1.4 or 85/1.2 does on a 35mm full frame camera.

            Try a 85/1.4 and 85/1.2 side by side, shoot the exact same scene, and see if f/1.2 gives you a different feel. I did just that, images looked the same.

  • santela

    50/1.2 for 4k? if so nikon is just forcing me to switch to canon.

    • Panfruit

      How about if they just ever don’t release a 1/2 stop faster than f/1.4 50mm lens? Then what, tough guy? :P

      • santela

        then it just means nikon is not releasing a 1.2, it doesn’t mean they are high on wasabi.

    • Mike

      Nikon is not forcing you to buy any 50 1.2. And you’d switch on pure speculation on such a product let alone speculative price?

      >$2000 CAD is too much for me. If it falls in line with Canon’s price, I’m all over it like a fat kid on a Smartie. Chant with me 1.2, 1.2, 1.2….. |-)

    • http://www.videographerinloscabos.com Carlos Plazola

      If you do so, you are going to regret it, you know the Nikon optics are the best next to Leica`s…. Canon optics are inferior…

      • santela

        totally agree, that’s why i’m not switching… yet.
        i really want a 50/1.2 (had the ai-s version, not that great, but sharp as tack at f/2), if it’s around the same price as the 35/1.4, i might get it.

    • Mock Kenwell

      I love people who threaten to switch for totally moronic reasons! It’s my favorite!

    • Anonymous

      Please don’t wait… go ahead and switch to Canon NOW.

    • Don B. A. Turkwell

      They better not make any F0.95 lenses, either. I’ll be so mad I’ll switch to Casio – you just can’t do that to a man!

  • C

    The price of the 50mm prime sounds very reasonable! USD4,200 is in fact lower than my expectation!

    Don’t get me wrong, I see it is the AF-S 50mm f/1.0 N ED, isn’t it?

    • Artur

      Indeed, reasonable price for me either. Especially, if they will make it (as good as AF-S 200mm f/2G ED-IF VR II ) with some precision-ground aspherical glass or Super ED, not plastic-fantastic stuff. So, I expect to pay 4k-5k. Fair price

    • Mock Kenwell

      If it out-performs the legendary Noct, I would consider $3200.

    • WoutK89

      ED in a 50mm lens? If a 35mm/50mm/85mm f/1.4 doesn’t need ED, what for would you put ED in a 50/1.2?

  • Nau

    another 2 primes … where is 24-70?!!?!?!

    • Robert Stoffer photo

      On every photo website. It was released 3 years ago august 07. Great lens. doenst need replaced quite yet

      • Nau

        problem is it will be replaced next year some time and I dont want to be outdated pretty much on a day of arrival… but to be honest want new 20is-85 one more thn anything
        perfect range for main lens

        • Roger

          Cant make a lens with that range and still make the optics great.

  • asdasd

    maybe 28 will be more budget like.
    So we will have 24G = pro
    28G semipro
    50G1.2 pro
    50G1.4 (existing) semipro

    • ItsaChris

      Ya I would like to see a 28mm f1.8/2 lens. give all the people who dont want to spend 2k on a very specialized lens (24mm 1.4/35mm 1.4) an option. I would think about buying one if it came out around $500. but if its DX only i might pass.

      also with all this talk about what pros need i thought i might put in my 2cents
      high end pros starter bag – 16-35 (changing to 14-24) 24-70 70-200 Fisheye macro and sometimes sprinkle in a 200 f2, 85 1.4/1.2 35mm (or 50mm 1.4/1.2)

      middle wage – 16-35 (or 12-24) 24-70 70-200 and sometimes have – fisheye, macro, or 85 1.8( or 50mm 1.8 or lens baby)

      lower wage – 18-70mm (or 12-24 + 35-70 or even 24-120) 80-200 2.8 (but i have see 70-300vr 180 2.8 70-200 f4)

      pros use differnt things, and all the equipment can and does get the job done on a regular basic.

      • http://NikonNative.com heartyfisher

        +1 on the 28 1.8 !

  • Zorro

    I hope these unnecessary lenses are produced. There will be plenty of customers, with more money than sense, who will buy these lenses as compensation for their inadequate appendages. This will keep Nikon profitable and provide R&D money for sensible products for the rest of us.

    • mshi

      don’t forget Nikon said three years ago that emerging markets, such as China and India, where the money is flowing like water in the river, will be their major markets in the next ten years.

    • gt

      A new 50mm is necessary I think. The current 50 1.4 AF-s is poorly designed – slow autofocus and terrible bokeh (ugly/harsh).

      Professionals avoid it like the plague – and, if they do use a 50mm, they turn to the sigma 50mm 1.4 despite it’s inaccurate autofocus.

      Clearly, there’s a need for a professional 50mm

      • Mike

        Really? Why didn’t anyone tell me? All those weddings I shot with it…. All those crystal clear images because of precise AF. I’ve only had comments about the content of the image and not how crappy the background is (which I disagree with). The 50G is a gem. Can’t wait for the 1.2!

        • http://BLOG.UNIQUEPHOTO.COM MIKE EAST

          +1 I’ve gotten stellar results with it. If anything pros will avoid the 50 1.2…. You think a 1.2 lens is going to focus faster than the 1.4?? LOL! Keep dreaming. If all you judge a picture by is viewing the bokeh at 100%, then I don’t know what to tell you.

          • gt

            ryan brenizer, ranked one of the top wedding photographers in the states, dumped the 50 1.4G and turned to the sigma – because he preferred the AF and the bokeh.

            What would you tell him?

            • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

              He actually uses the 50mm f/1.2 AI-s mostly when he reaches for 50mm. :-)

            • Anonymous

              So one guy represents your assertion of “professionals”? Your post implies that most professionals avoid the Nikon. If I misunderstood, then please let me know.

            • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

              While most Nikon professionals do have the 1.4G… most of those same professionals to say that Nikon really doesn’t have a true professional-grade AF 50mm.

            • gt

              @sean,

              he owns and uses both – sigma 50mm and the 50mm 1.2

              notably, he doesn’t use the 1.4G

              @anonymous

              the opinion of one of the most successful professional wedding photographers in the states – is telling to me

            • Mock Kenwell

              The 50mm f/1.4 is not a horrible lens, it’s just not up to Nikon standards. The flagship focal length should be a bit more spectacular.

            • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

              My thoughts exactly, MK.

      • Artur

        Agreed

      • Roger

        “A new 50mm is necessary I think. The current 50 1.4 AF-s is poorly designed – slow autofocus and terrible bokeh (ugly/harsh).”

        +1

        50/1.4 AF-S doesnt play in the same league with the 24/1.4 and 85/1.4. Underwhelming lens in every way, I’d like a better 50, please.

        • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

          The better 50 is the f/1.2 AI-s, which is still manufactured brand new to this day. :-)

          But, I know. We need an AF version of it.

          • Roger

            We dont need 50mm F/1.2 AIS + AF, we need a completely new and much better design.

            Btw, I doubt 50/1.2 AIS is still being manufactures, more likely is that Nikon hasnt sold all the 50/1.2 AIS lenses they have from an old production run sitting somewhere. When they do, they’ll declare it “discontinued”.

            • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

              It’s possible… but would Nikon produce many many years of overstock on a product and just have it sit in inventory?

            • Roger

              You’re assuming these things are selling. How many people are actually buying manual focus AI-S lenses brand new (instead of buying them on the used market)? Almost no one, I would imagine.

              Whatever stock they have left, it’s gonna take a loooong time to sell ….

  • MinnieChasper

    4k…….. there’s no way I could ever afford that.

    Bye bye 1.2 …

    • Mock Kenwell

      Then get the AI-S. It’s beautiful and has gorgeous color characteristics. $300-400 and it’s yours.

      • MinnieChasper

        Yeah I’m gonna get the AI-S real soon.. Thanks Roqwell ;P

        • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

          I just picked a great sample up on eBay last week for $400, even came with vintage Nippon Kōgaku caps and leather case. :-)

          It’s has a cinematic characteristic that isn’t described in spec sheets. Not to mention it’s built like the best lenses Nikon’s ever made.

          • Roger

            Lenses just keep getting better optically, but they’re getting worse mechanically.

            You think AI-S lenses have excellent build quality? Now go try a pre-AI lens, they felt like a solid block of metal. AI-S lenses are nowhere near as good, and modern lenses (short of superteles) are poorly built.

            It’s the same with Canon, exactly the same. Today even some $2,500 lens is built worse than a 50$ 50/1.8 from the 70s.

  • Magnus Nordström

    Nikon is obviously continuing their release of top-level lenses that is out of question for amateurs like me with limited amount of money. Great. They have left out the focus motor from their lower-end cameras, but have not cared to provide the owners of these a selection of fast to semi-fast primes with the only exception of 35/1,8 DX. That forced me to update to D90 though I was otherwise pretty happy with my old D60.

    I want to see a 24mm f/2 DX lens, I think there is a market for one. 35mm is just too long on DX in many cases, and I love my Sigma 24/1,8 for its angle of view and large aperture. 35/1,8 DX has ben a great success for Nikon AFAIK, and I don’t think a lens like this would sell any less…

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/sooperkuh/ außerirdische gesund

      Magnus: Amen to that!

      A 24mm f/2 DX is really needed. A compact 35mm equivalent is really the most useful all-purpose lens for many people. The Sigma is large and heavy. A 24/2 in
      a similar form factor to the 35mm/1.8 would make the whole Nikon system (or at least the DX bodies up to the D7000 and D300) much more useful.

      • padlockd

        +1

        I love the 35mm 1.8G, but sometimes I still need a wider angle. I’d probably buy it!

    • Scott

      16 F/2.8 and 24 F/1.8 DX would be fantastic and would rocket to the top of my list. I don’t think anyone would mind a 12 F/4 either.

      My ideal DX prime list:

      12 F/4, 16/2.8, 24/1.8, 58/1.8, 90/2

    • Don B. A. Turkwell

      The reason for that madness – and hope – is that more entry-level-er glass may follow. If Nikon introduced updated 85 F1.8G, I doubt they would have sold me 85 F1.4G.

  • http://NikonNative.com heartyfisher

    28 1.4 !!! Yay! but probably too expensive for me… still may finally bring down the price of the old 28 1.4 and admin was right .. it was closer to 3-4k for a long time (I have been keeping an eye on it for a while)… lets compromise and say it was 2.5 to 3.5 k :-)

  • nobody

    IMO, it would make much more sense to offer a new affordable and compact 28mm f2 or f1.8 for those Nikon customers who don’t want to buy the costly, big, and heavy 24 and 35 f1.4 lenses.

    Regarding the 80-400, I sincerely hope they use the earlier patents for a lens with a constant build length, and not the latest one, which gets longer with longer focal lengths.

  • http://peterjamus.com Jamus

    I hope this is the case either way… I want some more primes.

  • Gareth

    I was just looking at this lens yesterday thinking why don’t they make a lead free version?

    If they can make an unleaded version with the same design, they would be stupid not to make a few. 28mm is a popular focal length.

  • http://www.truphotos.com Truphotos

    The 80-400 is finally due to arrive :D

  • fuxl

    You should all read this:

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml

    Unless the f/1.2 lens is designed to tackle this issue, it’s practically pointless on a digital camera. The 7D has a light loss value of 1 stop on such lens, so what’s the point?

    • http://www.truphotos.com Truphotos

      All of us should get the D3S, which has the least light loss of around 0.3 EV :o

      • fuxl

        f1.2 lens would be even worse than .3, more like .5

    • asdasd

      point is that on same camera you get always same loss. so after buying best camera, all is left is availability of better lenses.
      So lets say, i will buy D3s instead crappy canon to adress the issue, i will have with my 501.8 same IQ as 7D with f1.2, but then i want my 501.2 ON D700 to get most of the system :-)

      • fuxl

        No.
        The point is that you gain nothing by going from f1.4 to f1.2. The amount of gathered light the sensor gathers ( t – stop) is the same

        • http://www.stofberg.com Dustbak

          You still have the DoF that belongs to 1.2. The ISO raise to compensate for light loss at the sensor is actually a non-issue, IMO.

          Like the ISO characteristics on film were the same on every type of film…..

        • Mock Kenwell

          I remember reading that when it came out. Great article. Here’s my two cents. With Nikon’s incredible low-light bodies, no one craves the f/1.2 lenses for low-light purposes so much anymore. They crave the DOF they offer. And while the argument for f/1.2 lenses having similar relative light loss to f/1.4 lenses is now well-documented, in my opinion, the DOF argument is weak at best. No empirical data to support either case.

          In that regard, the best test is my eyes. I definitely see a difference in my old 50mm f/1.2 versus the 50mm f/1.4 on both cropped and full-frame digital bodies, and it’s not just glass quality. The DOF is very noticeably shallower. Same is true for the Canon L series equivalents. So I still think there is a difference. Whether its worth paying for is totally up for debate. Diminishing returns tends to set in and the differences are highly esoteric and specialized at best.

          • Jabs

            @Mock Kenwell (nice name – LOL).
            The differences between lower F-stop lenses can be clearly seen and appreciated but they are like a TEST of YOUR visual acuity or even YOUR focusing ability.

            105 F1.8 gave stunning results as FAR AS isolation of the subject from the background in say, model photography BUT the 105 F2.5 was sharper wide open and even stopped down BUT it NEVER had the ability to ISOLATE the subject from the background like the 105 F1.8 and hence that IS the reason for low F-stop lenses.

            SAME thing can be done almost with a 200 F2 or a 300 F2.8 WIDE OPEN, as in subject isolation from the background WHEN all you want is a particular PART of the subject IN FOCUS or for it to stand out from EVERYTHING else.

            Selective focusing is what you are describing and auto-focus often ROBS us of this ability or we DO NOT know how to either manually focus or use auto-focus PROPERLY or effectively and then get this effect.
            Sometimes you CANNOT get the exact effect via auto-focus, so you use manual focus and LEARN selective focus with either a short or LONG focal length lens, as BOTH are options depending on SUBJECT distance from the camera or the available SHOOTING distance and environment (as in indoors or outdoors and how much room you have to back up), hence 200 Micro-Nikkor -vs- 200 F2 or even 180 F2.8 or 105 F1.8, 85 F1.4, 135 F2/DC or AIS and say 300 F2.8 or 300 F4 ED and longer lenses .

        • jk

          not true…simply not true

          • jk

            sorry that was in response to a post above…

            lets not forget lenses are sharpest closed down 2 stops from wide open. So even if you do not shoot the 1.2 wide open all the time it will still be sharper…

            but really though if you don’t think the 1.2 is worth it then don’t buy it… I have been dreaming about this lens for a while and I hope this rumour is true.

            • Ren Kockwell

              Yeah but no one buys an f/1.2 to shoot at f/2.8.

            • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

              Exactly.

              But f/2? Sure. The current f/1.2 is SUPER sharp at f/2… sharper than the Noct, even.

              Even still I shoot it at f/1.2 all the time. :-)

            • Jabs

              @Sean Molin.
              An OLD argument – LOL!
              The 58 F1.2 NOCT was designed to be SHOT wide open mainly.
              It is sharper at F 1.2 than the 50 mm F1.2 at F1.2, as that was designed as a NORMAL lens while the 58mm NOCT was designed to shoot WIDE OPEN mainly.
              SHOT with both on Velvia 50D, 64T and 100D and at F1.2, the NOCT was superior by far.
              I used a TRIPOD also.

              Bottom line:
              58mm F1.2 NOCT was designed to be BEST at F1.2 and thus specialized lens and very EXPENSIVE.
              50 F 1.2 was designed for better DOF over 50 F1.4 and a brighter view through the PRISM or viewfinder (used F3HP/AF/T and F4S).
              50 F1.8 was SHARPER than both of them – lol (and cheaper too).
              55 F2.8 was also sharper than ALL of the 50 mm’s too.
              However, you could not do with the 55 F2.8 Micro Nikkor, what you would do with the 50mm F1.2 or F 1.4 primes.

              I personally HOPE that Nikon brings BACK the 58mm F1.2 NOCT and not the 50mm F1.2.
              With the type of glass expertise Nikon HAS and the newer coatings, the new lens should be much better, more flare resistant and way MORE expensive too – oh well.
              Maybe they will introduce BOTH?

              58mm F1.2 NOCT for low light wide open shooting at F1.2 with a D3S ($9-10K cost maybe)
              - and -
              50mm F1.2 ED for the ‘bokeh crowd’ at a lower cost.

    • Gareth

      what’s the point of mentioning the 7D?

      • fuxl

        it’s the worst performer (probably because of the highest pixel density)

    • http://nikonkrab.multiply.com/ HDZ

      May be new sensor technology need to come out to the market.

  • Darkness

    4K for a 50mm lens, what site is this?

  • http://net-photography.com Natthawat Wongrat

    4,200USD for f/1.2….no thanks

  • design.matters

    The discussion is crazy – consider a new 28mm and a competitor to the Noctilux – wouldn’t you want to have it (in 2011 new and in 2021 used …)?

    24 and 28mm lens have been always the best examples for good design by Nikon –
    they will continue this, I’m sure.

    A 50 1.2 is as important as a 50 0.95 – it’s a flagship product. If any of us will buy it or not, if not relevant right now. Such design matters are the trip test for Nikon to show their expertise. The revenue is coming with other products …

    Finally to the light loss “problem” – if camera manufacturers identify the problem and solve it by increasing the gain – OK. The only question is, if any of us has control over this. I think YES, namely by making a choice of the lens and ISO settings. Consider the case: you take the shot with your xx-mm 1.4 lens and have 1 EV underexposure and consequently miss the shot almost. You would certainly increase ISO yourself to capture it (if the situation allows it) or consider next time a more secure pair of settings. And that’s exactly that the manufacturer does: they make sure, your risk of failure is lower by adapting automatically.

    Remember: we can’t change the laws of physics but we can assume that manufacturers ease our use of equipment.

    • Drab

      “24 and 28mm lens have been always the best examples for good design by Nikon –
      they will continue this, I’m sure.”

      Really?

      The current AF-D 24 f/2.8 is a swell little inexpensive lens with CRC. Vignettes a bit on FF, sharp enough for a D3X, but taxed by current high-density DX sensors. Out performed by every measure by the current pro zooms which cover 24.

      The current AF-D 28 f/2.8 is a cheap lens w/o CRC and hardly an great performer, much less a “best example[s] for good design”. Out performed on every measure by even the consumer zooms.

      We can excuse the 24 as it is older tech, but the 28 was never intended to be an excellent performer. Design compromises were made intentionally to keep it inexpensive.

      • Teh D00d

        He isn’t talking about the the 24mm and 28mm 2.8 AF-D lenses.

      • Jabs

        @Drab.
        You have just propagated one of the worst Internet MYTHS about DX -versus- FX sensors and you are WRONG.

        DX = the SENSOR image is magnified and NOT the lens image.
        THEREFORE all that you see is the SENSOR’s limitations and NOT the lens limitation.

        FX = BIGGER sensor with LOWER image magnification at the SENSOR level, so a D3X always has a higher stress on resolution than ANY DX sensor of ANY resolution introduced so far. THUS, the D3X stresses the LENS greater than any cropped or DX sensor can = FACT!
        THERE is NO ‘equivalency’ in RESOLUTION from FX to DX and that is a lie perpetrated by idiots or uninformed people online.

        DX = the CROP FACTOR in OUTPUT from the sensor and NOTHING more. There is NO truth to an FX sensor of a certain size = a DX or cropped sensor multiplied by a certain CROP factor and thus DX stresses lenses greater = LIE or fudd.

        Sorry to be harsh, BUT someone needs to stop that LIE or URBAN Internet MYTH.

        BIGGER sensor = MORE stress on lens and NOT the other way around.

        EXAMPLES –
        1. A D700 at 12 FX megapixels will stress a lens FAR greater than a Canon 7D or a new Mark4 OR a Nikon D7000 at either 16 or 18 megapixels DX (cropped sensor) megapixels.
        2. A D3X at 24 FX megapixels will STRESS a lens greater than a D700, D3 or a D3S @ 12 FX megapixels = FACTS!
        3. A Meduim Format sensor by being BIGGER, will also stress a lens in a greater manner than ANY FX sensor almost.

        HINT:
        It is a RATIO!

    • Lawliet

      The iusse isn’t light loss as in the need for higher sensitivities. But you lose geometric aperture and thus the low DOF those lenses could offer.

      Ultrafast lenses will get interesting if used with an updated sensor design, but until that happens they are rather low on my priority list.

    • aetas

      but maybe we can, maybe we can change the laws…Nikon has prob already looked into that.

  • Artur

    Cheers Admin, much appreciated

  • XXL

    maybe 20 or 24 f1.8 DX will sell better… (i want one)

  • chEEtah

    Actually, 28mm is not much closer to 24mm than 600mm to 500mm:

    24/28 = 0.857
    500/600 = 0.833

    Nikon does have both 500mm and 600mm lenses in their line-up, so I why not have both 24mm and 28mm? :-)

  • Scott

    16 F/2.8 and 24 F/1.8 DX would be fantastic and would rocket to the top of my list. I don’t think anyone would mind a 12 F/4 either.

    My ideal DX prime list:

    12 F/4, 16/2.8, 24/1.8, 58/1.8, 90/2 (the latter only because the 85 1.8 doesn’t have AF-S.

  • Dweeb

    Just update the 28 2.8 and sell it for 300 bucks.

    • Mock Kenwell

      I’d love a cheap, smaller 28mm f/2. With the new bodies, you only need lower light for thin DOF.

      • Global

        If f/2.8 series should have an f/4 counterpart….
        Then f/1.4 series should have an f/1.8/2 counterpart.

        Nikon has a huge opportunity to pick up “between” ranges.
        Example: Someone owns 35/1.4 and 24/1.4 — do they buy 28/1.4?
        Not likely.

        But might they buy a 28/1.8 or 28/2? Maybe!
        Anyway, still waiting for a 20/1.8/2 and a 135/1.8VR.

        • Mock Kenwell

          Agreed. All these new primes are drool-inducing but at the end of the day, I’m going to have to pick just two tops. It would be nice to have mid-priced options. Especially at the wide end where narrow DOF isn’t as crucial.

          • PHB

            Nikon almost certainly disagrees, at least as far as FX is concerned.

            As far as they are concerned, primes have been obsoleted by their zooms. Even the 10-24 DX zoom is sharper than the 20mm and 24mm f/2.8 primes. The f/2.8 zooms are better still.

            DX is a different matter entirely. The 35 f/1.8 DX has already sold more copies than the 35 f/2. I would see cheap DX primes as being a far higher priority than any f/2 FX.

            I can’t see much use for the f/4 zooms either. I would buy the f/2.8 zooms instead and use a DX body. The only point I can see would be to have the f/4 zooms to cover the main focal range and then add in some very fast primes for low light.

            The fact that this rumor mentions price almost certainly means that it is totally bogus. I would not be surprised if Nikon was working on either design. The idea that anyone would leak the target price is ludicrous.

            • Roger

              ” I can’t see much use for the f/4 zooms either”

              You and me both, brother!

        • http://www.kampus.ro Laurentiu Ilie

          +1 135mm f/1.8 AF-S VR DX

          • Roger

            There is no point, making a 135mm DX lens. It’s full frame all the way!

  • redgreenblue

    +1 for a 24mm 1.8 or 2 DX
    just what I’m dying for: a 35mm equivalent for DX, same quality/price range as the 35 1.8 DX

  • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

    Haha… and I JUST bought the 50mm f/1.2 AI-s this week.

    I loathe the 50mm focal length so I just NEVER touched my nifty-fifty 1.8. I decided I wanted something to spice it up a bit, so I sold my 1.8 and got the 1.2. Hey, it’s good for practicing manual focus. :-)

    • Mock Kenwell

      I have it too. Don’t you love the buttery focus and color quality?

      • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

        It took me about two days to really start getting used to its character and how best to focus it… but yeah, it’s incredibly cool. There’s something about its character that can’t be described in a spec sheet. As long as you nail the focus at 1.2, the sharpness and contrast issues are easily corrected with some mild adjustment in post…. but it has this cinematic feel I can’t put my finger on.

  • http://martinskikulis.com Bristol Photographer

    Nikon’s 50mm f/1.2!? Bring it on! where’s my wallet… :)))

  • design.matters

    the design of 24 and 28 used to be good at the time of their release … the question is however: how many do use 24 1.4 a lot? My 2 cents are: it’s a different tool to compose an image, therefor it will take some time to obtain best results … the 24, 35 and 85 are great examples … for the FX market

    • Ren Kockwell

      If you had to do lots of group shots in cramped quarters at churches and poorly lit reception halls, you’d find uses for it really fast! It’s narrow DOF is also great for ring/ hand close-ups.

      • f/2.8

        Uh, you forgot the White House.

        These lenses are not for people who complained about their prices. They are for photojournalists/reporters who had to shoot indoor w/o flash and still have some depth of field so Obama and Karzai will be in reasonable focus even tho they may be a couple feet apart.

        Not saying that is the only use. But you can try to imagine similar needs.

        For those who could not understand the reason for a 28mm when there is a 24mm – even if I explained it to you, you wouldn’t understand.

        • Mock Kenwell

          Yup. Good points all. If you need it, you need it. Just went the wedding photog route as it’s a tad more relatable than the PJ one!

  • JBL

    WOW I’VE BEEN WAITING FOR THOSE TWO LENSES.

    The switch to FX is gonna cost a bunch…

    14-24 f/2.8
    28 f/1.4
    50 f/1.2

    The rest will be extra..

    • jk

      you should rephrase that to “I am waiting for those lenses” lol

      • aetas

        maybe he is preparing for whatever camera he wants and is not in stock.

  • NikonFF&DxUser

    I’m just cracking myself here reading all these comments.
    May I add, why don’t Nikon add a pre recorded voice that say’s “Great Shot” or when they try to frame “Great framing” everytime a not so great photographer who always complain about the lens and the camera how crappy they are.

    • mshi

      We don’t hear writers discuss their pens or painters talk about their brushes. But we do hear photographers always talk about their gear.

      • jk

        Not a fair comparison. For one they probably do discuss this in certain circles. But in this case there is a big jump between the complexity of the two. not much you can really discuss/argue about a pencil.

      • gt

        your comparison is ludicrous.

        photography is a technological art-form. The technology plays a large role.

        Yes, framing, composition, an eye for great light, vision, etc. are all extremely important as well. but, quality lenses Also play a large role in the ultimate image. anyone who denies this is living in a fantasy land.

        I’ve always had an issue with the phrase – “its not the gear, its the photographer.” In reality, it really is both. It takes a solid photographer to pre-visualize his final creation – but he needs the proper tools to make that vision come to reality

      • Ren Kockwell

        Writers discussing pens? What is it, 1912? Writers have used typewriters and laptops for the last 100 years, pal. And if you’ve never heard writers bitch & kvetch about their laptops, then my guess is you don’t know any writers. Their writing instrument of choice is highly personal and ritualistic. Epic analogy fail.

  • n a

    i do like to have the 50 1.2

    • na

      There actually is an old manual f1.0 zoom. It is possible and has been done. Email me for a photo, I just can’t find it right now.

  • RMT

    On a side note:
    Can anyone explain to me why there aren’t any f1.8 zooms?
    Is it technically impossible or would the lens just be enormous?

    • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

      It’s not technically impossible, but it’s practically impossible. They’d be huge and expensive.

      They could probably do like a 35-60 f/1.8 zoom for DX… but it’d probably be one of the most expensive DX lenses.

      But yeah, that’s exactly why the 24-70 doesn’t interest me. It’s not sharp enough wide open and f/2.8 in the normal range doesn’t do it for me.

      • Don B. A. Turkwell

        What fo you use for mid then? Primes only? Another zoom?

        • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

          The entire body of my work (aside from, literally, a handful of shots) is wider than 24 or longer than 85. I’ve had a 50 f/1.8 the whole time, but I never wanted to use it… which is why I picked up a 50 f/1.2. It’s got a character that fits my style and I will probably actually use it more… but still not very much.

          I’d rather use a 35 than a 50.

  • design.matters

    f 1.8 zooms would be a real design challenge – to produce a certain image quality, one would need to narrow down the zoom range i.e. not practical at all

    business side – COST
    design side – COMPLEXITY if asking for a wide-angle zoom
    (check the 2.8 zooms – what a level of complexity already…)

  • DaveyJ

    The 80-400VR seems to have gone by in this post practically unnoticed. My guess is that it will sell well and we lightweight wildlife guys and gals sure are looking forward to seeing what this new one will do. I also hope the pricing is a realistic as the D7000. Somewhere around $1,600 if it works well would be tolerable?? I did notice some posters also anticipate that release.

  • MF

    I’d be happy with a 28 f2…

  • mshi

    It seems like a lot of D7000 shooters are not happy with its AF system. some say they need to have AF fine tune for all their lenses.

    • http://www.truphotos.com gnohz

      Also about sharpness. Wonder if this issue is resolved.

      • mshi

        No. It’s because of their shooting technique.

  • Phil

    $1300 for a 50mm F1.2, and no one bats an eye, LOL!

  • Adde

    Why no 16mm F1.4 (or 1.8)?

    • Scott

      @Adde. Assuming you’re talking about an FX lens, that’d be one gargantuan monstrosity. The 14/2.8 is huge. Dropping it 2 stops would make it unfathomably huge – probably as massive as the superteles.

  • Fred

    $4K?!?!?!
    Screw Nikon
    I am switching to Leica!

    • Robert Stoffer photo

      pay 2k more for a lens you have to focus manually!

  • Back to top