This is a list of lenses scheduled to be announced by Nikon in the near future (not necessary in 2011):
- Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4G IF-ED N
- Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4 IF-ED
- Nikon AF-S VRII Micro-Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 IF-ED N
- Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/2G
- Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/2G
- Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/2G
- Nikon AF-S DX VRII Zoom-Nikkor 16-70 f/3.5
The tipster also described two different F-mount adapters for the upcoming mirrorless camera, one of them will probably support AF.
Reportedly, Nikon has more new PC lenses in the works, no further details were given. We should see related patents online soon.
There are some ramblings about updating the super lenses to meet wildlife/sports demands.
Prepare to see patents for a 800mm f/4 and 600-1200mm f/4-8 lenses (with a built in 2X teleconverter that will get you to 1200mm f/8).
Since advanced information of upcoming Nikon lenses is difficult to get and release plans are often changed, I would rate this rumor at 40% probability.
Related posts:
241 Comments
Patent for 800mm F/4 thats insane…I bet it would cost more then a sports car!!
If it comes out with VR then it would make an incredible line of lens and will get every wildlife photographer excited…;0
also great lens for exercising !
Is it possible to make a Mirror Lens 800/4?
I’d sacrifice with donut bokeh for a very good, light tele-mirror lens.
The diameter of the lens would be HUGE.
They don’t sell that kind of lenses in USA, to afraid that people, searching for the NASA eagle’s landing site, discover we never landed on the moon.
Yeah…it is insane but I am getting excited….It would be a terminal case of NAS as in you would never be able to buy anything again…
Has VR ? but can you hand hold that !! LOL
This is a dream list.
Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4G IF-ED N
F/4 nano? really? If you want it to be heavy as (*$# and over $1600 sure)
Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4 IF-ED
This is just a dream lens pure and simple. I could see a new 70-200 f/4, but
70-300, really? You might as well add the 1-500mm macro lens to your list.
Nikon AF-S VRII Micro-Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 IF-ED N
Very Possible.
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/2G
No- it would be at least a 1.8. nikon would be shooting themselves in the foot with this one.
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/2G
Nikon doesnt “need” one. This won’t be released for a while if at all.
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/2G
Sure, but it will be DC. Anything less and just like the 85 theyd be shooting themselves in the foot.
Nikon AF-S DX VRII Zoom-Nikkor 16-70 f/3.5
No. This just wont happen on so many levels. No one is going to want to carry a 16-70 f/3.5, and their target market (prosumers) will likely not want to be spending 700-800+ on this lens.
This lens would be prohibitively heavy or a really large front element that no one would like.
I read the 70-200 as non micro.
That is highly unlikely that it wouldn’t be a variable aperture zoom (4-5.6), but very slighty possible.
A new 70-200 f/4 is a definite.
Same with 16-35 f/2.8 one of these days. Probably in the next 3-4 years. Same with the 50 f/1.2, possibly 200 f/4, and definitely 105 and 135 dc in the next few years. Nikon would be crazy not to remake those.
Yes the 85 2G gave it away… I can think of a remote possibility of a 85 2.8G but not a f/2 when there’s already a new f/1.8.
Also the 800/4 sounds like it came from some kid’s dream lens list. Not that there haven’t been any 800/4 before (Pentax 67) but a lens full of ED glass to make a lens like that give decent image quality on FF is going to be twice the weight of a 400 2.8 and price… which also coincides with Sigma’s 200-500 2.8.
actually – NO, there is NOT, it is f/1,4 at 85mm which is ´new´ … & at USD 1.700 (or even much more on other markets just to let u know …) … so, no matter if it is 1,8 or 2,0 (well, it does matter, but not fatal …), at less then 1/2 of the above price would do miracles in the market. regarding f/1,8 – yes, one exists, though it is a ´old-mobile´ & really past it!
“Nikon AF-S DX VRII Zoom-Nikkor 16-70 f/3.5
No. This just wont happen on so many levels. No one is going to want to carry a 16-70 f/3.5, and their target market (prosumers) will likely not want to be spending 700-800+ on this lens.”
No one? Really? If the quality is good, I don’t mind paying 700-800 for this lens. So, no one, really?
I would personally love a 16-70 f/2.8 or f/3.5 from Nikon. It would be an amazingly versatile lens especially for video. I would happily pay $700-$800 for one.
+1
the 80-400 4.0 is nonsense
Agreed.
The 200-400 is a monster lens. What type of price point would this lens come in at?
A Nikon 16-70 VRII at a constant aperture of f3.5? The 16-35 f4 is a big lens and cost $1000. Again, what kind of price point would this lens come in at?
And there is already a 600 f4 and the updated 2x TC. Or was the dreamer attempting to suggest a 600-1200 zoom with a built in TC (2400mm at f16)? Didn’t quite make sense.
I’d rate the probability of this rumor at 0%. A true dreamers wish list.
The 16-35 is an FX lens, the 16-70 will be a DX lens so, though it’s not going to be compact, I think it won’t be huge either. The f/3.5 aperture is probably a compromise over f/2.8 – loosing half a stop just to avoid the lens having to be huge and mightily expensive.
Price point – I would guess it’ll be about the same price as the 24-120 f/4 G which has a similar reach for DX.
I agree on everything you said. Especially on 16-70 which I think is needed if Nikon wants to seriously support DX for video or photography. Right now I have the 16-85 3.5 to 5.6 for my D7000 (mainly for video use) and would happily change it for the rumored 16-70 3.5 without any hesitation. Right now there is no serious camera-lens-combination for shooting 1080 video, due to the lack of both, either a capable FX-body or a capable DX-Lens with fixed aperture.
Oh hell, I’d buy that one.
“Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4G IF-ED N”
What if its DX? Woulf the f/4 be more possible?
Also, the current 80-400 is 4.5-5.6 and uses older glass designs….
They might be able to make an 80-400/5G.
Anyway, I want a 400-600/f4 VRIII.
Enough with the 80s-400/70s-300.
We have plenty of reach to 300.
What we are missing is 400-600!
400-600/f4 VRIII, please.
(0.5 multiplier, is MUCH more simple than the 80-400s current 4 x multiplier!!).
1.5 multiplier, rather (vs. 4 x multiplier)
What I’d like is a 100-400 (VR) of about the size and price as the 70-300 (VR).
Doesn’t help to have so much overlap in the short tele area and also a 100-400 should be possible to make smaller and cheaper than a 80-400.
5.6 300-600 mm would be a great lens – full frame of course. I would buy it, if it has professional quality.
Nikon AF-S VRII Micro-Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 IF-ED N – YES!
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/2G – WHY?
Yepp, 70-200 f/4 that will rival the brilliant Canon equivalent.
85/2 – would be cool – much more usable than f/1.4 for perhaps half the price.
The 70-300 in this line-up would make sense as a DX lens only
You can’t micro a zoom lens.
as you mention, the f2 lenses make little sense
I rate this rumor as 10%.
The 70-180 f/4.5-5.6 is a zoom and micro lens. Turning that into an f/4 with VRII is what makes this rumor nothing more than pipedreams.
LOL having a 70-180 micro F4.5 announced in ’97 I think makes the argument FOR a modern computer designed 70-200 F4 micro.. didnt you know that there is already a canon 70-200 F4 for years now? I would think that improving on that would be logical!
The 70-180 f/4.5-5.6 is in terrible need of an update!
A 70-200/4 zoom Micro would be an amazing addition to Nikon’s arsenal of lenses.
Of course, as long as it doesn’t focus breathe so damn much………
Canon’s 70-200 f4 is not a macro lens and is considered a standard telephoto zoom.
The 70-180 f4.5-5.6 micro focuses down to 1/2 life size and is a rather large heavy lens. This lens was never a volume seller and was quite expensive.
A 70-200 f4 micro would be even larger than the old one with the faster aperture and VR/AFS. Price would be over $2000.
Rumor probability 0%
85 mm – why? … WHY? SORRY?!”?! it def. IS a MUST as there is nothing else worth thinking/buying except for f/1,4 at rather comical price … that is WHY
Waiting for 800mm f/4, will become a better choice to 600 f/4 and need to wait for new series(6) gitzo tripods
85mm f/2, 70-200 f/4 , thats awesome if the price/quality is right
Christmas wish: AF-S 58mm f/1.2 NOCT…
No more needs of 1.2 lenses with digital high ISO.
I would much rather have a lens designed to provide excellent IQ across a broader range than one trying to deal with the problems of an f1.2 aperture.
+1 reason why the new Af-s f/1.8 is better than the Af-s f/1.4
f/2.8 & f/2ers are definitely NOT the same people as f/1.4 & f/1.2ers.
There’s room for both, because they are different markets, if by only a few candles and mere inches of DOF.
DOF???
on a 58mm ? what a deal !
nothing exciting
80-400 mine
wow 600 to 1200 i will be able to see russia
You don’t happen to live in Sarah Palin’s Alaska, do you? =D
80-400 f4? Considering the size and weight of the 200-400 f4 I’d put a BS rating of 80% on that rumor.
But where’s the AF-S 24 f2.8 …
If there’s any truth in this rumour, it seems obvious that the source didn’t mention the aperture value of the long end with the zoom lenses.
Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4G IF-ED N
should read 80-400mm f4-5.6,
Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4 IF-ED
should read 70-300mm f4-5.6,
Nikon AF-S VRII Micro-Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 IF-ED N
makes sense as is,
Nikon AF-S DX VRII Zoom-Nikkor 16-70 f/3.5
should read 16-70 f3.5-4.5,
which would be a really necessary high quality standard zoom upgrade if the D400 really comes with 24mp.
16-70 is DX, 16-35 if FX. DX needs to draw way smaller light circle so can be tiny. 18-70 is a tiny lens and costs about 200 units.
The 18-70 f3.5-4.5 was a good standard zoom for 6mp DX cameras several years ago. But it clearly shows its age. No VR, for instance.
So there would be good reasons for an improved DX 16-70mm with a high megapixel DX camera. And f3.5-4.5 would be a very reasonable choice.
Yep, a 24 mp D400 would need a couple “high end” lenses to see any improvement. The 16-85 is a fine lens, but might not fair well on the D400.
24MP D400 will require full pro lenses, as in the magic trio. Or maybe the not-quite-so-magic f/4 series.
Can’t see any of these being particularly useful in a 24MP DX situation.
Can’t see DX delivering 24MP worthy performance on the wide end on any lens though.
I would be very interested in the 85mm f2 if it was a DC lens…
The current PC lenses are great, but being able to rotate the orientation of the tilt and shift to each other without surgery would earn my dollars.
In Nikon terms, DC stands for Defocus Control. has nothing to do with tilt/shift.
would prefer 85 mm f/1,8 … either or, THE SOONER THE BETTER & THE SAME FOR 35mm …
I think we’ll see an updated 85mm 1.8 within the year.
I’d look at one very seriously.
•Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4G IF-ED N
-true but not F4. more like f4-5.6
•Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4 IF-ED
-not true. but may happen. probably 100-300 though.
•Nikon AF-S VRII Micro-Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 IF-ED N
-almost certain.
•Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/2G
•Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/2G
-nah. the 85 will be 1.8. The 35 may be true.
•Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/2G
-it will be a 135 like the patens we have seen tell us. the 105 is dead.
•Nikon AF-S DX VRII Zoom-Nikkor 16-70 f/3.5
whatever. DX zooms are like fleas. There is one too many already and bring nothing good.
I might be tempted by a 100-300mm f4. Sigma does a 120-300mm.
and an 85mm f1.8 G but not f2. I struggle to blur the background with my 50mm f1.4G on my D80 so an 85mm f2 won’t be much good for isolating subjects.
Wow, a zoom Micro-Nikkor. Now that’s an interesting lens.
There was a zoom micro-nikkor some years back – it was 70 -180
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AFDMicroZoom70180mmED/index.htm
They really miss to compete with canon in the mid market of lenses.
I am really sorry that I choose nikon now as I want some good lenses but also affordable and nikon doesn’t have the 24-105mm f4 L IS from canon neither the 70-200mm f4 L IS.
It’s a real shame for nikon if you want to have a lens you have to deal with poor lenses or good but really expenisve ones as f2.8 in zooms… I started to hate nikon system!!!!!
Hmm … the grass is always greener on the other side. I think we’ll see a Nikkor 70-200 f4 lens soon. You can always switch to Canon if you cannot wait.
“They really miss to compete with canon in the mid market of lenses.
I am really sorry that I choose nikon now as I want some good lenses but also affordable and nikon doesn’t have the 24-105mm f4 L IS from canon”
Could it be that you missed the 24-120 f4?
Very similar to the Canon, regarding focal length range, as well as capabilities and weeknesses.
In reviews the canon looks much better and the 70-200 f4 L IS is the king of sharpness, contrast and colors.
I have worked with the Canon for three years, and I’m working with the Nikkor now, and I can assure you they are very smilar.
Canon 24-105/4 L IS you said?
Nikon’s answer is the new 24-120/4 VR. A little longer, and much much sharper than Canon.
In reviews the canon looks much better and the 70-200 f4 L IS is the king of sharpness, contrast and colors.
Please be kind and point me a review where the 24-120 f4 VR from nikon is better than the 24-105 f4 L IS from canon.
Thank you!
You’re correct about the reviews but I’m not going to switch to Canon because of the 24-105 f4 L IS and the 70-200 f4 L IS. There are some lenses that Nikon makes that are not in Canon’s lineup. If you really need these two Canon zooms for work then go for it. If it’s for pleasure then you have to think how to justify the switch to Canon.
If you’re talking about zooms then that title goes to the new 70-200 f2.8L IS II… speaking from experience here.
This is NOT a challenge. I, too, would simply like to read the review or whatever which compares the two lenses.
Thanks
maybe not what you are looking for, but photozone gives the canon version a slightly better optical rating which is propably due to the shorter zoomrange of the canon.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff?start=2
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/420-canon_24105_4_5d?start=1
AF or AI-S 43mm f2 macro.
I WANT I ALL!
Queen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfLD-7bCtME
Here’s what I’m hoping for:
Primes –
12/2.8G AFS DX
20/2.8G AFS
24/2G AFS
35/2G AFS
85/1.8G AFS
135/2G AFS
200/2.8G AFS
NO VR ON THE PRIMES PLEASE!
Zooms -
16-50/2.8G AFS DX VR
70-200/4G AFS VR
24-105/2.8-5.6G AFS VR
Oh, and I forgot:
50/1.2G AFS to put my lovely old 50/1.2 AIS out to pasture, though it will be pretty pricey I’m sure!
And you would buy all those nice lenses???
What do you guess that camera case would weigh?
Only, based on how the new AF-S 1.4 primes are priced, all these AF-S primes will be nearly twice the price compared with their AF-D predecessors, if there’s any. So we’re most likely looking at a price list like this:
20/2.8G AFS – ~$750
24/2G AFS – ~$600
35/2G AFS – ~$550
85/1.8G AFS – ~$700
135/2G AFS – ~$2000
Do those still look so attractive?
hmm 24/2G for $600 ?
perhaps you meant 24/2.8G
Yeah I meant the 2.8G rather than 2G. Anyways those lenses will be very expensive compared with AF-D versions, meaning hard to justify buying them, unless they provide a much better package.
800mm F4 … get real .. this would require a 200mm objective lens .. the largest one made right now is 150mm on the 400/2.8 and 600/4. This 800/4 behemoth would require a small truck with a built-in hydraulic tripod.
As for the 80-400 af-s VR proposal … this would have to be an all new lens. The current design, I am given to understand, cannot be modified to include af-s.
eric in san diego
It would be smaller than the 1200-1700mm zoom-Nikkor.
I have been waiting so long for Nikon to release decent midrange lenses. I have had nikon for 30yrs and they still havent managed it. How hard can it be to just take the f2.8 series and just make them smaller and lighter and take them to f4. I do mainly landscape and I really dont need f2.8, for the rare case I do I will just use my 24 f1.4 or my 85 f1.4. I really dont need to carry f2.8 lenses. Together with the lack of high pixel count on an affordable FF body I have been really tempted to change to Canon. Why wasnt a D700x released? The D3x is sensational for landscape but one again its over priced and TOO HEAVY for my needs. Im getting too old too lug all this stuff and the tripod to support it.
Hey Peter,
This rumor is busted. I talked to some friends in R&D as well as on the production lines of all Nikons factories and they all confirmed this list is not even close. They gave me the real one.
All being released in August. This is a huge shake up month with loads of new stuff.
(No holidays for anyone)
Primes:
14mm AF-S ED f/2.8G N
20mm AF-S ED f/2G N
35mm AF-S ED f/1.8G N
50mm AF-S ED f/1.2G N
85mm AF-S ED f/1.8G N
105mm AF-S ED f/1.8G N DC VRIII
135mm AF-S ED f/1.8G N DC VRIII
200mm AF-S ED f/2G N VRIII
300mm AF-S ED f/2.8G N VRIII
400mm AF-S ED f/2.8G N VRIII
500mm AF-S ED f/4G N VRIII
600mm AF-S ED f/4G N VRIII
800mm AF-S ED f/4G N VRIII
Zooms:
No update for 14-24
17-35mm AF-S ED f/2.8G N
24-70mm AF-S ED f/2.8G N VRIII
70-200mm AF-S ED f/2.8G N VRIII
No update for 200-400mm
Macro:
105mm AF-S ED f/2.8G N VRIII
200mm AF-S ED f/2.8G N VRIII
70-200mm AF-S f/4G N VRIII
DX:
Entire Range to be updated at Christmas along with the D400 24MP announcement (sorry to all DX users)
These are all to be announced alongside the new FX bodies.
D4x (medium format body)
USD$7999 48MP back
USD$12999 60MP back
USD$24999 120MP back
D4 32MP USD$5999 iso usable to 25600 with H, H2, H3
Full HD 1080/60
12 fps
New AF system
D800 32MP USD$2999 iso usable to 12800 with H, H2, H3
Full HD 1080/30
8fps
New AF System
Dual CF
100% VF
Front IF sensor
All this is ready to ship as all production has been completed in a new factory in a different and secret location in Japan where Nikon had already set up its own state of the art power station.
This rumor is 100% guaranteed + I was told that February announcements will dwarf these by a long way (more FX updates) plus an enormous DX shakeup.
Are you Casey Anthony? By the way you lie I think so.
Don’t know Casey Anthony.
Wasn’t meant to come across as a lie, just jest!
Yes Victor, I think with a tweak the original list is feasible.
There are only 2 upgrades I personally would like to see.
A new 50mm 1.2 (if its as good as it should be, I’d happily pay $2000)
An update of my 20mm but it doesn’t need to be f2, heck it doesn’t even NEED to 2.8. I mostly use it at 11-16 anyway. But maybe if it was f2 it would be even better at 11-16. and well worth the $2000+ I would be willing to pay. The 135mm doesn’t need an upgrade, its an awesome lense and I wouldn’t give up DC for AF-S, which is likely what they’d do.
Glad everyone saw the humour
Casey was just acquitted in a much publicized murder case.
No wonder she is free to post as MRPhotoau.
I find you gulty of a years old primes, 20mm f/2, no way (well I hope I’m wrong).
LOL, yeah that sounds a lot more realistic. Especially the naming for a MF-body (D4X) or the price point for a 32MP FX, starting at 2,999 $. Or the own-power-plant-new-nikon-factory-story.
I get your point, but I do not think admins list is that unrealistic. Read nobody’s comment above. Some lenses may not have a fixed aperture. Taking that into account the list becomes much more realistic all of a sudden.
What!!!!! Still no AF-S 300/f4 VR? What is Nikon THINKING?.
I think I believe this list more than the original one published!!!
An 80-400 f/4 would be the size of my car hahahaha. Although the 70-300 f/4 and 85 f/2 do sound pretty realistic
With the 24-120 f/4 nikon really showed they would compromise IQ for the sake of having a bigger zoom range. If this trend continues I would not be surprised to see a constant 70-300mm f/4.
if it does happen probably another lens that’s slightly worse than the canon 70-200/4L equivalent (think 24-105/4L vs nikon’s 24-120/4 VR)
I also agree with this comment, it is sad to see that Nikon are going for extended zoom range instead of optical quality in their long awaited f4 zoom lenses. This is especially so when the D700 is such a quality camera, what was needed instead of the two lenses we have so far were updated, optically/mechanically improved constant f4 versions of the exisiting 18-35 and 28-105 f3.5-4.5 lenses.
Alternatively they could introduce either a 28-85 or 35-105 f2.8 in the pro range as a far more useful alternative to the ‘too short at the long end’ 24-70 and the ‘far too big and awkward’ 70-200 for portrait use.
Or even a re-make of the 24-85/3.5-4.5 AFS with VR and modern optics/coatings would be a fantastic alternative to the 24-120′s that Nikon has/does make.
I own the 24-85AFS and on my D700 it’s pretty decent for a general walk around, but I’m sure Nikon could make it even better and sell a ton of them to the non-pros like myself who have a FX body.
I’d welcome a re-make of the 28-105/3.5-4.5 AFD as well too.
It’s alway mystified me why Nikon could make such a great 16-85AFS VR for DX, but could not do the same (24-120/3.5-5.6 AFS VR) for FX?
It would be really great from Nikon to make 3.5-4.5 optics at least for DX. I have a 18-105 3.5-5.6 but a 3.5-4.5 would be more appealing. I also have a Tamron 17-50 2.8 so I am not sure I would buy the 16-70 3.5-4.5 although a 16-70 3.5 would be a great choice. The 18-105 is f5 at 50mm.
I agree
Sad to see that the 24mm f2.8 doesn’t even make it to the rumor list.
Really wish to have such compact and decent wide lens for night casual shooting..
Me too, but I can’t see Nikon releasing any f/2.8 FX primes for a long time or even ever since they now have a large stable of f/1.4 stuff. F/1.8 or f/2 seems to be their next step up from the super fast f/1.4 stuff.
That’s OK with me as I’d love a 24/2AFS and a 20/2AFS (even a re-make of the 20/2.8 would be great if they could just get those corners a bit better wide open).
Sadly, all of Nikons lenses are getting longer/larger in diameter than their predecessors due to AFS motor inclusion and telecentricity requirements.
20 or 24 f2 will be nice if nikon going to make it in the future.
hope the 70-300 f4 will be f4 all the way – i have the new tamron 70-300 and it’s great for shooting butterfly and small animals – only problem is the lens is not fast enough – f4 with vr at the 300 range will be so useful – and i can use the 1.4 extender with it
How can there be II versions of these lenses when thete is not even a first version??? The II does not refetence to VR but the version of the lens itself.
you sure about that? Better do some more reading.
no it doesn´t – it is all about VR-generation
I would like to see the 300mm f/4 updated with VR…
It’s the sharpest and longest Nikon lenes that most enthusiast wildlife shooters can generally afford / justify (with Nikon’s 1.4 TC fitted it is sharper than 80-400 at 400mm).
Canon has IS in their similar 300mm f/4.
(Wait for the tirade of abuse telling me to switch to Canon…)
So what are the other PC-E lenses in the works? We have already seen patents for a 17mm PC-E lens, will they slot another two in between the 24mm and 45mm, and the 45mm and 85mm PC-E lenses?
I wait in eager anticipation.
I am still wondering how 800mm can have a fixed F/4?I suppose there will be lot of design constraints and challenges for one stop improvement from the F/5.6 and that too without compromising on the weight factor.If they have designed it with the existing weight of 600mm VR then it will be exciting to shoot with.
I hope this will turn out to be true !!!;0))
The front end will have about a 12″ diameter.
Nice wish list…i call this one “busted”.
i’m waiting for the 12-800/1.8 VR III that also does macro
Now that would be awesome!!
… for demonstrating every optical aberration known to mankind ;P
True…
Is that the f2.8 version?
actually, a 70-200 f/4 would make a lot of sense. canon has these semi-professional, constant-brightness lenses at f/4, obviously way cheaper than the f/2.8 version, which is why many people choose canon – nikon has no prosumer lens range. it’s time nikon stepped up in this regard.
All “L” series lenses are of high/”pro” build quality and they also have similar colours that are different to the non-L lenses.
The Canon f/4 zooms are cheaper to make than f/2.8 zooms which in turn makes them more affordable to “non-pros”… but there is no compromise in quality just because of the slower f-number.
“The Canon f/4 zooms are cheaper to make than f/2.8 zooms which in turn makes them more affordable to “non-pros”… but there is no compromise in quality just because of the slower f-number.
Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/05/possible-list-of-upcoming-nikon-lenses.aspx/#ixzz1RPDv4G8P”
Yet they still use the “L” nomenclature.
Marketing at it’s finest.
Save for the purchase of a Zeiss 35mm 1.4, all I know is that I have about a month or two left before I’ll be ponying up 6K for that new D4.
I’m not amused. Where’s my new 17-35 2.8?!
GIEEEEEEEEEEF!!1
I certainly hope that Nikon has some adapters for their mirroless camera so I can use all of my AI, AIS, AF-D, and AFS glass on the camera if/when I needed to (if it makes sense – I wouldn’t carry around my 80-200AFS with my 2.5x crop camera – at least not for very long anyways).
I wouldn’t expect the AF-D to focus, but I would expect it to talk to the camera properly and my AFS lenses should AF with somewhat reasonable speed.
I’d love to use my 50/1.8G, 200/4 AIS, 105/2.5AIS, etc with a 2.5x crop camera (hopefully it will have an EVF to aid in focusing).
I would also welcome a 105/2G AFS if it were cheaper than the current DC version (fat chance of that eh?). I love my 105/2.5 AIS, but sometimes wish for an f/2 verion to further reduce the DOF. I hope that the G version has a longer, more accurate focus throw because that DOF at f/2 is so so thin that at times MF’ing it is the way to go.
Definitely would love to see a 24-70/2.8 VRIII. I love the lens, but the weight makes it tough to AF in low light.
Definitely would love to see a 24-70/2.8 VRIII. I love the lens, but the weight makes it tough to AF hand-held in low light.
Why would you want VR on that lens?
video ?
so u have a choice – use it or don’t use it
Unless you’re talking about the Sigma 200-500 2.8, zooms are not for low light.
I didnt even know this lens exsisted until your post.
My gawd! 26K for a lens??
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/551436-REG/Sigma_597306_200_500mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html
all pointless lenses
I see some posters “correcting” the Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4 IF-ED to supposedly be an Nikon AF-S VRII 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G IF-ED, but how would this differ from the current 70-300mm Nikon already makes?
A 70-300mm f/4 (or 100-300 or even 120-300) that took a TC 1.4 well would be a great lens for bird photography.
agree
A constant f4 70-300mm would be a lens bigger and heavier and costlier than a 70-200mm f2.8. How big is the market for that?
I would much rather expect an upgraded 70-300mm f4-5.6, because the current one is a superb lens for the € 400 that it costs, but that lens (which I own, btw) while really good up to 200mm, is simply overchallenged with high resolution sensors at the long end.
So a revised version of a 70-300mm f4-5.6 seems to make more sense to me, especially if there’s really a 24mp D400 in the wings.
One 35mm f2 please!
Read this report and comments yesterday and although many were rubbishing the post, it does make a lot of sense after some thought:
1. 80-400mm – clearly wanted by many. I think f4-5.6 variable aperture is more likley in view of intended market/price considerations.
2. 70-300mm. Either f4-5.6 (ala newish Canon L lens), or even a fixed f4 which would probably give slightly more than 70-200/2.8 size/price.
3. 70-200. Many have been asking for f4 zoom, not sure how many would want a Micro version? But the old 70-180 Micro was popular with a small market segment.
4. 85/2. It seemed Nikon’s thinking was to make people wanting primes go to a premium price, but personally I would love to see the choice of lenses we once had. Would certainly buy one of these, f1.8 or f2!
5. 35/2. Would the number of these sold justify taking sales from the faster version? It always was a popular focal length, so possibly, yes.
6. Can’t see both the 85 and 105 f2 versions together, unless perhaps the longer lens is a DC upgrade.
7. 16-70mm – Intriguing. As an FX lens it would be a disastrous compromise, but a new DX top class standard is needed, particularly with 24MP DX on the horizon. I would imagine a fixed aperture would give about 17-55/2.8 size or slightly smaller. Another possibility is a variable aperture (62 filters and 18-70 size?)
8. 800/4. 220mm dia x 600mm long weighing in at 7.5 kg? Why not? (but not for me).
9. 600 + 2x converter built in? I know Canon is planning something similar, but I would have thought a smaller converter would be more useful. I guess it may be someone’s ideal lens.
Finally, any indication of when any of these may be coming?
Most D7000 users are longing for a fast VRII DX zoom of the type 16-XXmm (nothing above f4, please) with a decent construction and a sensible price. I know I am. By that same token, a modern 20mm f2 or 2.8G would be most welcome, especially if coming in at the cost of the 35mm 1.8G or 50mm 1.8G.
I am a D7000 user and got the 16-85 mounted. If there had been a 16-85 f4 – I would have spent my money on it – sure! What I am missing now badly is a 70-200 f4 – if it would be priced similar the Canon lens, it would be a no brainer …
I dont think we’ll never see a 80-400 f/4 unless Nikon is planning to stop the 200-400 production. An 80-400 f/4-5.6 or 100-500 f/4.5.6 is more probable.
The production of a 70-300/4 could mean that Nikon is thinking to “fill the hole” and produce a series of optics with a good (pro) quality at a reasonable price (like Canon).
A 70-300 f/4 would certainly be able to sit someplace in the gap between $1,500 and $5,000 dollars (a big friggin’ gap).
Nobody asked… A constant f4 70-300mm would be a lens bigger and heavier and costlier than a 70-200mm f2.8. How big is the market for that?
Nobody, it’s the bird, nature, and sports markets. I don’t know about sports, but the bird market has taken off (no pun intended). You can’t really go to any popular birding destination without seeing a pile of 300mm and up lenses. This is a market where Nikon, Leica, Swarovski, and Zeiss are all profitably selling $2,000+ binoculars and even more expensive spotting scopes (plus the carbon fiber tripod). In other words, birding is a market with time and MONEY.
When the D400 comes out, they’ll have the cameras for all birding levels really well covered. The 55-300mm and 70-300mm are already great for the less expensive market. An upgraded 300mm f/4 and 80-400mm will sell, and if they created a 100-300mm f/4 that weighed an extra pound or so and cost under $3,000, it would sell too.
“Nikon AF-S DX VRII Zoom-Nikkor 16-70 f/3.5″
Yes please!, PERFECT walk around length for my D7000. OOooh, if only!
80-400 √√√ and check.
An updated 200mm micro nikkor would complete my shopping list.
A 16-50 f3.5 DX and 50-135 f3.5 DX would be great, and not too big! I would love a 200-600 f5.6, too.
I would love a Micro-Nikkor 70-200 f4!!!