< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Possible list of upcoming Nikon lenses

Pin It

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.

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

    finally a replacement for the 80-400 :-)

    • http://www.f1album.com Simon G

      Sure . . . if you are shooting DX

      When the 80-400VR came out the D1 was the flagship, now FF is the flagship, shouldn’t the replacement for the 80-400 VR be more like 120 – 500 f4-5.6 ?

      • http://www.cpearson.me.uk Christopher Pearson

        The canon equivalent is 100-400 and is an EF. the pro Nikon is 200-400 also.

        Personally I’d rather have the stop of light and 400mm, I can add a TC and go to 560mm f5.6 then.

        • LGO

          This listing is a fanciful exercise.

          80-400mm f/4 VR N?

          Think about the size, weight and price of the 200-400mm f/4 VR II and one will know that the 80-400mm f/4 would exist only in one’s imagination.

          • Kenji

            THANK YOU LGO…

            80-400 replacement should be a variable aperture lens please to keep the weight and size down, for those of you who want that stop of light you have the 200-400 and its $7000+ price tag and 7.-something pounds…..I’d rather have a 3lb 80-400 f/4-5.6 VR…

            Going to a 120-500 might be feasible, look at the Sigma 150-500 or 50-500 OS lenses…then again the Sigma’s are f/6.3…

          • Todd

            Exactly. 80-400mm f4? F5.6 yes. Why make the 200-400mm then? Anyway, this is the one lens I really really want. A new 80-400mm will be SO welcome.

      • PHB

        Or maybe you should be shooting in DX mode if you want to have a handheld lens with a long reach?

        Nikon can’t change the laws of physics. If you want a long reach and a reasonable sized aperture, you need either a larger and heavier front element or a smaller sensor size.

        80-400 is on the limit of what can be hand held comfortably for long periods of time. a 120-500 f/5.6 zoom is going to be enormous.

        • Kenji

          ^- For birds, Sometimes 400 isnt quite enough ;)

          Sigma offers the 150-500 and 50-500 OS which are both really nice lenses, and handholdable, however, I doubt Nikon would make their 120-500 zoom f/6.3 so the Nikon would likely be a bit heavier..

          • CD Sharper

            I recently shot Merrit Island National Wildlife Refuge and my 80-400 was not enough.

      • Elton

        When the 80-400 was released the F5 was the flagship, although I enjoyed using it for years on my F100. I’ve wished for a AF-S version as many have, but an f/4 would be way to heavy for me and way-way to expensive. Even a f/3.5-f/5.6 would probably be so expensive at this point that the increase in performance might not make it over the cost-justification bar.

      • nobody

        An extra DX body will probably be cheaper than extending the long end to 500mm.

        • Walkthru

          Agreed!

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

      > finally a replacement for the 80-400mm

      Unfortunately, no. An 80-400mm f/4 would be a replacement for the 200-400mm ;~) 400mm f/4 is a big front element, heavy and costly.

      • PHB

        I hadn’t spotted that.

        80-400 f/4 does seem to make more sense than a 200-400 f/4 though. But its going to be a $6000 lens, not a $2000 lens and sell in thousands not hundreds of thousands.

        80-400 f/3.5-f/5.6 seems much more likely to me.

        I can’t see the point of the 35mm f/2 either. Its a stop faster than the zoom, but its another lens to carry round and the only people who would buy are budget conscious FX owners. That does not seem to make a lot of commercial sense to me.

        The 105 f/2 also looks a little peculiar. Its a reasonable lens to offer, but the difference between that and the 85mm is barely large enough to make a difference. Meanwhile there is no refresh on the 135mm ?

        Then again, the 70-200 f/4 is a macro lens? I guess its possible, and there are people who think the loss of the macro zoom is a major issue for them. But would such a lens be light enough or cheap enough to satisfy the ‘must have lightweight CA zoom’.

        Looking at this list it does not look very much like a list Nikon would offer. It is all skewed to the mid-priced professional market. There is only one DX lens and its a pretty slow one and a very odd one indeed.

        Nope, not buying this story. This looks like the type of lenses a Nikon Rumors reader would suggest, not a marketing plan. Three f/4 zooms, all teles, three f/2 primes, two teles? Does that sound remotely likely? Producing five teles and not updating either the 135mm or the 80-400? Come on.

        Fake.

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

          Nah, an 80-400mm f/4 does not “make more sense” than a 200-400mm f/4. Nikon’s lens lineups tend to be rationalized. The pro is expected to buy: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400. They supplement from there. They are building a secondary slower aperture lineup that looks like it’ll go: 16-35mm, 24-120mm, 70-200mm, so there we might see something like another overlap with a 150-300mm or 200-400mm f/5.6.

          Generally, you can spot flaws in lens lists pretty easily. The >2x zoom ratio is a giveaway on a lens that should be pro (e.g. f/4 at 400mm). You can balance 2x designs with fixed apertures fairly easily. It get’s difficult to do that the more zoom ratio you have.

          There were really only two lenses on that list that struck me as plausible from what I’ve heard recently. And only one of the lenses listed is on the possible August announce list I heard of.

          • PHB

            The 200-400 is really an exotic, I know that it continues the magic trio range, but at a cost equal to the other three put together. 80-400 makes more sense to me as a buyer, but agree probably not something Nikon would likely deliver.

            The only lenses that look plausible to me are the 70-200 f/4 and the 105 f/2. And even that 105 f/2 looks rather implausible to me without a 135 f/2 alongside it.

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

        I don’t think the rumor is accurate. An 80-400 with variable aperture and f/5.6 at the end would sell much better than an expensive 80-400/4.0.
        All the super teles feature VR II and have nano crystal coating, so whatever ridiculous update it will be – it will only rise their prices once more. Considering how hard they are to get, Nikon would probably be better off doing something about the supply chain. My 600 VR took six months to deliver, despite ordering through NPS priority.

  • Evan Forman

    Why a 35mm f2? Surely it couldn’t be any less expensive than the extant f1.8.

    • http://blog.dafyddowen.com Daf

      The 1.8 is a DX, seems that the one above is FX/FF

    • http://none Arron

      Because the 1.8 is designed for DX – although it works on FF, some people cant have that small vignette.

    • Ben

      Who knows… maybe they really want to push the price down in order to make more sales. It would make sense seeing as how cheap you can get hold of D3100 and D3000 bodies.

    • http://johanvdgeest.nl/ Johan

      For full-frame bodies obviously. The current 35mm f/2 isn’t that good. Although the f/1.8 can be used on full-frame and gives pretty good images, you do get a lot of vignetting .

  • B2

    20 f/1.8 Please and make 16-70 f/2.8

    • Steve

      I would think a 16-70 is more likely to be fixed f/4 ; and even f/3.5 seems optimistic for that range. f/2.8 would require very large optics and major quality compromises to keep the price suitable for dx users.

    • sade

      +1

      Also with VR please. 17-55 is too old now.

      • Steve

        I’d like to see the 17-55 replaced by a 15-45 VR and released with a 45-135 VR also f/2.8 = some pro dx lenses.

    • B2

      Yep, that would make a perfect sense too. Make it as good as 35 f/1.8 DX Nikon and I will preorder it already.

  • http://blog.dafyddowen.com Daf

    Although I’d love 85/35 1.4 – I’d certainly be interested in f2 if there was a significant price difference.

  • Zeb

    Be better to have a built in 1.4x on the 800mm f/4 = 1120mm f5.6

  • Steve

    The Nikkor 70-200 f/4 VRII sounds good – but a micro and VRII with a 3x zoom ? Seems too good to be true.

    • http://photosbysandj.com Scott O

      Hope a 70-200 micro would sell better than the long departed but excellent 70-180…

  • http://www.bernardovaghi.com.br Bernardo Vaghi

    Let´s Go!

    Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4G IF-ED N – Nice for birds, not for me
    Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4 IF-ED – Nice!
    Nikon AF-S VRII Micro-Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 IF-ED N – Why buy this instead 70-300, just for the N?
    Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/2G – Let´s see the real life samples, sounds great, VR!!
    Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/2G – redundant!
    Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/2G – Please remove the C.A. wide open!
    Nikon AF-S DX VRII Zoom-Nikkor 16-70 f/3.5 – If Nikon do a great job in optics 3.5 is a great constant aperture for a zoom lenses!

    Cheers!

    • preston

      Micro-Nikkor 70-200 f/4 would have close focus ability meant for macro shooting (usually 1x but for zooms can be down to .5x), whereas 70-300 has minimum focus distance of 5 feet for a reproduction ratio of .25x.

      Also, 35 f/2G would not be redundant if it was for FX. It would be replacing a poorly regarded D version that came out in 1995, but was probably the same optical formula as the Ai-S version from 1981. This lens would be the 35mm prime that amateurs and enthusiasts can afford, so less than $500 compared to the $1,800 for the 35mm f/1.4

      • http://www.bernardovaghi.com.br Bernardo Vaghi

        And forget the “micro” feature, sorry.

        But is really curious Nikon thinking about a 70-200 VR micro f/4. This could kill the other micro lenses.
        F/2.8 micro, is just a “marketing aperture”, since in real macro conditions there ir no possible DOF in 2.8. I shoot jewels and i use f/10 + apertures to get the perfect DOF and Sharpness in DX. Starting in f/4, and with the flexibily of 70-200 range this could kill other micros.

        The 35mm 1.8 dx works pretty well in FF . The vigneting is really artistic for some shots. I think Nikon “gelded” (plastic) models are here to sale, the AF-D models seems sturdyer than AF-S models. Compare the build quality: 80-200 AF-D (two rings) vs 70-200 VR AF-S. I owned both (today with 70-200 VR), the old model is really better constructed.

        By the way, good news.

        • WoutK89

          Not every micro lens should be used for Macro only! You can also use it in “far away” uses, therefor not rending the larger aperture unusable.

        • http://picasaweb.google.com/roger.ethan.moore Roger Moore

          The f/2.8 is more than just a marketing ploy. As @WoutK89 points out, it’s useful if you want a dual purpose lens that can function both for macro and distant shooting.

          It’s also the focusing aperture, so the high speed is helpful for a bright viewfinder and accurate focus. Since the maximum effective aperture drops as you focus closer, so those f/2.8 lenses are usually in the neighborhood of f/5 effective at the close focus limit. If they were a stop slower, that would be more like f/7, which would make focusing much more difficult. The faster aperture also gives you the ability to go for a very narrow DOF for artistic purposes. That may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but it can be a useful effect.

          • http://www.bernardovaghi.com.br Bernardo Vaghi

            Thank´s for sharing this usefull information.

  • Mickster

    Even though it’s rumour, the return of the long awaited update of the 80-400 f/4 will put a smile on a few faces i think, hope the glass is much sharper and highly improved overall, even before we even talk about the added benefits of VRII.

    • Elton

      Alas, the current lens is a 80-400 f/3.5-5.6. If the new lens is really an f/4 lens it won’t make many of the old lens user’s very happy as it will be vastly more expensive and heavy. The 200-400 f/4 is $7,000. I can only assume the rumor is wrong. The current 80-400 is $1,600. (Makes me feel good about the $1,399 I paid for mine in ’01.)

  • Bullsnot

    Hmmm… Somehow F2.0 doesn’t sound as sexy as F1.8, even though the difference is small in practical terms.

    The 35mm F2 doesn’t make much sense… Why wouldn’t they just have made a cheap FX 35mm lens to begin with (just like the new 50mm F1.8G)? Seeing how close the DX 35mm 1.8 is to working on FX the difference in the amount of glass doesn’t seem like much?

    Looks almost like Nikon had a rushed product plan to fill some gaps without thinking long term…

    • B.O.

      to me, it looks more like the ‘tipster’ had a rushed fantasy list to fill some gaps without thinking long term…

  • Bullsnot

    Nikon AF-S VRII Micro-Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 IF-ED N

    Now this one sounds like a hit! Just don’t over-charge too much for the “Micro” abilities and people will be falling over each other to get one, assuming of course the optics are stellar.

  • http://na dino

    80-400 F/4 ? Wow, that’s to be a HUGE lens (and accordingly expensive) !
    35,85 and 105 f/2: very nice move, I expect a price in the order of 1/3 – 1/2 the equivalent F/1.4 version. So at least it was with old samples, where 85 F/1.4 costed from 2 to 3 times the 1.8.

    70-200 F/4
    70-300 F/4
    80-400 F/4
    hmm.. not sure here. I also see a risky lens overlap. Probably the first one is built with pro specs and the other are a bit less good (or more expensive)

  • Stageshadow

    A micro nikkor 70-200 f4 vr?
    Is a 70-200 f2.8 killer! (less focus distance, cheaper price, same af-speed)

    A 16-70 vr f3,5 would be a great lens for a d400 kit!

    There will not be a 16-70 f2.8 vr, think of the size of the 17-55 f2,8, imagine that lens even larger and heavier… (OMG)

    I didn’t see a 70-300 f4 vr…
    The 70-300 f4-5,6 vr sells well but needs a little rework to match the performance of the canon 70-300 f4-5,6 IS L.

    Just my 2 cents…

    • http://jamri.smugmug.com James Clarke

      The 70-200 f/4 Micro would be sweet, but F/4 aint gona focus as fast as a f/2.8, but it still should be pretty good.

  • El Aura

    Sounds like a wishlist to me (not that several of the items aren’t likely to come, as AF-S replacements for existing lenses are certainly happening).
    But, I would highly question the 85 mm f/2 (nobody has released such a lens as new since the 1970s) or the 16-70 mm f/3.5 DX or the 70-300 mm f/4.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/52846199@N08/ Neil

    No way the 80-400 has a constant aperture. It’ll be variable like the current one.

  • http://www.cpearson.me.uk Christopher Pearson

    The 80-400VRII would be a certain hit if it’s in the same price ball park as the Sigma 500mm, I know it will be more but not too much more I hope, say around £1200-1300. The “Canon 100-400″ is currently the big hole in the Nikon line up to my mind. I suspect f4 constant is unlikely and will be f4-5.6 however.

    The 70-200 f4 VR would need to weigh in at about £800-900 (so less than a used 70-200 f.28 VR1) but it’s the 2nd hole in the Nikon lineup filled for me.

    I was considering a Canon swap purely on these 2 lenses.

    • PHB

      The 200-400 f/4 is $6000 so expect an 80-400 to cost the same.

      The list is a hoax.

      Basically the guy looked at the list of what he saw as ‘gaps’ in the current lineup and then proposed improvements, changing some to VA and improving the apertures on others.

      It does not make any sense alongside the existing line.

      Nikon already has two 35mm primes, a 35mm f/2 would be slower than both. I could see that as being a possibility only if Nikon had been playing about with the design and worked out how to get a variation of the 35 f/1.8 DX to work on full frame.

      But thats not why its in the list, its in the list because this guy likes big, long lenses but realizes that a telephoto only list is not going to be believable.

      New 85mm and 105mm but no 135mm or 200 mm?

      That 70-300 f/4 going to perform without also being N?

      Since we are playing fantasy here, here is my list (all AFS-G)

      80-400 f/3.5-5.6 VR
      135mm f/2
      300 f/4 VR
      400 f/4 VR
      2? f/1.8 DX
      50 f/1.2

      105mm 10x Micro DX.
      (Specialist lens for microscopy, DX only)

      Now even there the lineup is not very likely as it is not exactly balanced between wide and tele. The designers are different so it is not at all likely that there would be so many new teles and nothing on the wide side. But on the other hand, the wide end is pretty well served at the moment.

  • fiatlux

    No way the 80-400 AF-S would be f/4 contant… the 200-400 f/4 is already quite big, very expensive and has been updated to VRII no too long ago.

    The 70-200 f/4 would be a very interesting lens if it was indeed a micro Nikkor, although it could become very slow at AF which would upset those who are looking for a lighter and cheaper alternative to the 70-200 2.8 VR.

    But as others have said, this looks more like wishful thinking. And where’s that 24mm f/2.8 AF-S and that 28mm f/2.0 AF-S ? ;-)

    • rearranged

      ”it could become very slow at AF which would upset those who are looking for a lighter and cheaper alternative to the 70-200 2.8 VR.”

      Have you ever used the micro 105 vr? I would say it’s as fast as the 24-70 as long as you have the focus limit turned on.

  • sade

    Why not a 24-85 (or even 24-70) f/2.8 VR?
    I know, I know, ISO performance of nikon FF’s are great but I don’t like to bump up the iso to +1600.
    If the new nikon bodies use +20 mp sensors then we need even faster shutter speed (or VR) to get the best image quality.
    Also for video folks, VR is a must.

  • jumpgate911

    I think somebody got bored and made a wish-list that somehow found its way into your hands.

    * 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
    Category “wishful thinking”. The only realistic one is the 70-200 f/4, but I’m sure it won’t be a Micro-Nikkor. There have been many rumors regarding a 80-400 replacement, last year even a 100-500 was rumored, but nothing ever materialized. I don’t think it will be constant aperture. Why produce even more expensive lenses in times of financial crisis etc.?

    * Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/2G
    * Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/2G
    * Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/2G
    The 35mm makes sense, the others don’t. The 85mm f/1.8 isn’t a bad lens why would anyone want to replace that with an f/2 version? A 105mm f/2.8 also exists already.

    * Nikon AF-S DX VRII Zoom-Nikkor 16-70 f/3.5
    If this is true then it will be f/3.5-5.6 and replace the 16-85 or it will be f/3.5-4.5 and probably sell for 900€, replacing the low-cost 18-70 with a high-end model seems like wishful thinking yet again. As a (strange) replacement to the 17-55 f/2.8 it could play in the 1500€ league. Still, yet another lens in this range.

    • Dweeb

      Yeah, I’ll believe it when I see it. They generally introduce a new lense when a new body comes out for promotion so maybe we’ll see one or two around the Christmas competition time (ie as early as August intro).

    • PHB

      There has been a Micro Nikkor very similar:

      http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AFDMicroZoom70180mmED/index.htm

      But it was f/4-5.6.

      Ken Rockwell and other folk who spend their time photographing stuff for catalogues like this lens because it allows the shot to be composed without having to move the object being photographed or the camera.

      It sells for $1750 used. So its still an in-demand lens amongst that community.

      But a constant aperture version is rather improbable. At short focal distances, you don’t need a large aperture to get narrow depth of field.

  • http://www.truphotos.com gnohz

    Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4G IF-ED N is a must have for wildlife!! :o

  • sade

    80-400 f/4 is very unlikely to be introduced any time soon. Perhaps it is just a typo. It should be f/4-5.6 and 70-300mm f/4 also must be 300mm f/4 VR.
    I wish we see a 400mm f/5.6 VR, a 28mm f/2 and a 50mm f/1.2 in 2011-2012.

  • http://www.andygural.com andy

    I’ve been wondering if there was an update to the 105 coming. The current model appears to have its production shifted to China; I think that’s odd for a pro lens. This has led me to consider whether a VR2 or faster replacement was being planned.

    I also wonder what’s going to happen to the 1990-era 135DC.

  • The invisible man.

    Nothing for me there !
    The only lens I need would be a 200mm af-s f/2.8G VRII N
    And also an update of the 300mm f/4 AF-S
    Thanks !

  • Trevor

    85 f/2, yes please. Also, 24 f/2.8.

  • Nerval Sanpajmidijar

    Where’s a new 17-35mm f/2.8?

    • KsOfW

      +1

  • KsOfW

    If Nikon continues to take their DX line seriously, I would like to see a 2.8 quality ultrawide; perhaps 10-35mm range. VR may seem pointless at this focal point, but as was posted earlier, it makes a world of difference when using video.

    • The invisible man.

      I did not know that you can use VR on video, good point I’ll try it ASAP !

  • viTRifY13

    Darn! No 17-35mm f/2.8 replacement?

  • GaiaOverAll

    Give us AF-S VRII 24-70 f/2.8 G IF-ED N with barrel that doesn’t change size!

    And also the built-in geotagging on the new FX cameras coming… now it is found on the majority of compact!

    • Geoff

      I like the lenses that do not extend when you zoom them also.

    • Dr.Bob

      Owww yes please @ 24-70 f/2.8 with VR. I really would love to buy the current 24-70, but I’m not going to, because it should have VR!

      • Dr Motmot

        Just buy it, you’ll love it! It is the sharpest lens I own and the most contrasty, I haven’t found that I need VR on it. I use VR all the time on my 105mm macro but it is quite a bit longer so VR makes a big difference.

  • brd

    Dear Nikon! I am begging for an AF-S DX 17mm f/1.8 prime!

    • The invisible man.

      go FX !

  • fredflash

    Now, this sounds great: Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4 IF-ED

    This lens is overdue! Finally something what is ment for enthusiasts, someone between a beginner and a pro.

    Nikon – simply do it!

  • Dweeb

    Not interested in any of them. Why doesn’t that surprise me? 300mm ƒ4 VR? How about VRII?

  • snakemaycry

    No 24f/2.8 ;(

  • broxibear

    I’m starting to think that these lenses, along with the recent AFS announcements, is hinting that the D800 will not have an internal focusing motor so won’t autofocus the AFD lenses ?
    We know Nikon are going to do it at some point…I wonder if the D800 is the first one ?

    • Elton

      Jeeze, I sure hope not. One of the things I look for in the next body is compatibility with my existing lenses. Those include the 18-35 AF-D screw drive lens which suits me just fine. The slow focus on the 80-400 (and the lousy tripod mount) are bothersome but I can’t pay f/4 prices for a replacement. I’ve got some other screw drive lenses (50mm 1.8 AF-D) I’d like to not replace. A D800 is expected to be a “pro” body, and I expect pro bodies to be fully compatible with all Nikon lenses. (That includes having a AI aperture ridge coupling for the meter too.)

  • pethunia

    ..And a simple set of extension rings (5-8-12-24 mm) is LONG overdue, Nikon!

    Make it so.

  • peter

    uhm…
    wasn’t this busted?

    (long ago)

  • STJ

    No new 135mm and no 200mm micro?
    But a fancy revival of the 70-200 micro which never sold much due to high cost? (want want want….)
    And only one DX lens?
    80-400 f4? wooha…
    35mm and 85mm – boring…
    Weird collection of lenses, but Nikon seems like they are often up for a good surprise when it comes to lenses so why not…

  • Canon to Nikon

    if the 70-200 F4 is as good or better than the Canon L, i am ready for my jump ship!!

    • moises moreno

      Atually the nikkor on is a micro lens. good for micro photography and also for portrait and some sports.

  • http://www.BogdanSandulescu.Ro fotograf nunta

    No AF-S 135mm f/2 G N?!… :(

  • peter

    hummm
    it seems some comments were lost?
    among others the comments on rings (I’d like a 36 mm ring AF-D/AF-S version)

    however,
    ‘not going to happen’ was quite clear from the start, no?

  • broxibear

    Remember those Nikon lenses that were cups, they make a thermos now… http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/nikon-lens-mugs/

    • Geoff

      They need to make them have a sipper. I don’t like having to unscrew the mug I have to drink out of it.

  • http://www.vivesa.pl Fotograf Kielce

    80-400mm f/4 – nonsense
    70-300mm f/4 – nonsense
    70-200mm f/4 – possibne
    85mm f/2 – nonsense, rather f/1.8
    35mm f/2 – possible
    105mm f/2 – possible
    16-70mm f/3.5 – less possible

    • B.O.

      “85mm f/2 – nonsense, rather f/1.8″
      nonsense?! nikon has made 85/2.0 lenses in the past, and they made them rather well too…

      • jetelinho

        either or – NIKON NIKON NIKON, come out with that, the f/1,4 is rather pricey & we simply need one … with AF-S!!!

        so – my votes go for 85mm be it f/2,0 OR (& better) f/1,8 … & either 35 f/2 (f/1,8) or 28mm f/2 (f/1,8). COME ON, we DO need that & the prime lenses are out of this world considering their prices …

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

    keep in mind that I rated the probability of this rumor @ 40% which is pretty low for NR standard (usually anything above 80-90% should be considered “serious”)

    • Todd

      But you do think a 80-400mm replacement is coming soon, correct? Not f4 but f5.6. Yes?

    • STJ

      40% = 40%….. My guess is that a poll would yield a rating between 2% and 70% for these lenses, but overall my guess is “fake”…

  • http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com Ron Scubadiver

    35 f/2 sounds real interesting, but only if it works better than the current 35mm AF-D.

  • canapé

    Nikon AF-S VRII Micro-Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 IF-ED N

    micro? 70-180 + a “cheaper” version of the 70-200 2.8?

  • Nikonuser

    Something doesn’t sound right. Or rather, sounds incomplete the way it was written.

    My gut feeling tells me that some of these zooms are actually variable aperture:

    •Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4-5.6 G IF-ED N ?
    •Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G IF-ED ?
    •Nikon AF-S DX VRII Zoom-Nikkor 16-70 f/3.5-5.6 ?

    •Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/2G

    Plausible, but why not f/1.8 again?

    • Crocodilo

      Nikonuser quote:
      “My gut feeling tells me that some of these zooms are actually variable aperture:
      •Nikon AF-S DX VRII Zoom-Nikkor 16-70 f/3.5-5.6 ?”

      How would that compare to the current 16-85mm f3.5-5.6? Shorter focal range, that’s for sure? Lower price point would be very desirable. Higher image quality would be difficult to obtain, maybe not impossible. Nah, the current 16-85 proeminent shortcomings are indeed the slow aperture and steep price.

  • Artur

    What’s up with 50mm f/1.2 G ?

    • http://tumbleweed-092.livejournal.com Slow Gin

      Already patented. ;)

  • kshieh

    I’d rather see a compact AF-S 24-85mm f/4 G VR with improvements over some what out-dated AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 G

  • Jesse

    how about they work on making the lenses already out available… I have been trying to get a hold of a new 85 1.4 G for months.

  • Nithin

    70-200 f4 – micro was already predicted by Thom Hagan!

    However i still wonder how can this be possible if Japan is still recovering

  • bdeckert

    If it’s true. I would really like the 70-300 F/4. I was actually just thinking about the possibility of that lens the other day. I guess I wasn’t the only one – even if it is a fake rumor. If it weighs and costs less, I would much prefer a 70-300 F/4 over a 70-200 F/2.8.

  • http://tumbleweed-092.livejournal.com Slow Gin

    I can’t afford ultra-long tele for bird shooting and probably will never own one in a whole lifetime, so just wondering: how much this 800 mm f4 is going to weight? Even Canon EF 800 mm f5.6 looks like a rocket launcher on steroids. But this one is f4! o_O

    As for 35 mm f2, bye Nikon. Too late. My next lens is Distagon 35 mm f1.4 ZF.2.
    As for 105 mm f2, this will be very good lens, no doubts.

    • Maddog

      “How much will it weigh?”-If you have to ask you probably have to work out more to be able to pick it up. I have Nikkor 800mm 5.6 and it’s no light weight…Personally I think this one is B.S. unless it is some exotic aspherical job made out of unobtanium…

  • Back to top