< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

The patent for the upcoming Nikon AF-S 28mm f/1.8G full frame lens is now online

Pin It

Patent application 20120069440 is for the upcoming Nikkor AF-S 28mm f/1.8G full frame lens. I have no exact announcement date yet, but I believe this lens will be introduced in 2012. The patent contains several different calculations and one of them is for 28mm f/1.8:

  • f = 28.08 (focal length)
  • FNO = 1.84 (aperture)
  • 2ω = 76.4° (filed of view)
  • Y = 21.6 (image height)
  • TL = 124.5 (total lens length)

The next patent application 20120069441 is for a 16-35mm f/2.8 lens:

  • f = 16.48 - 24.00 - 33.95 (focal length)
  • FNO = 2.884 - 2.884 - 2.884 (aperture)
  • 2ω = 108° - 84° - 63° (filed of view)
  • Y = 21.64 - 21.64 - 21.64 (image height)

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

    Any indication whether the 16-35 will be VR? If they leave the VR off and manage to stay with 77mm filters I will drop by 16-35/4 like a hot potato.

    • treehaus

      +1

      • The Beginnings

        +2394

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

          +10101 The 16-35 f/4 is not a great Nikon creation, I don’t care what anyone says. I owned mine precisely 8 weeks before I sold it a couple of years ago. Something to rival the quality of the 14-24 that took STANDARD 77mm filters would be fantastic for landscape photographers like me…….

          • Ralph

            YES!! I was thinking about dumping the 14-24 and getting the 16-35. I take it from comments here that isn’t such a great idea?

            • El_Pickerel

              I dunnowhat they are on about. Mine has been serving me well for a pretty rough trip in Iceland. I am stopping it down for landscapes most of the time though.

            • St.

              16-35mm is a GREAT lens!!!!
              I have it and it’s freaking sharp from edge to edge. The only problem could be the distortion, but it’s ok, since you can easily correct in LR or CR.
              Also see Mansurov’s review and test samples:
              http://mansurovs.com/nikon-16-35mm-f4-vr-review
              14-24 is fantastic lens, but for it’s focal length you want to use it for landscapes, and there you definitely need filters.
              So yeah – personal choice, but don’t believe if someone tells you that 16-35 is not a good lens, just because he has 14-24.
              They both are excellent – the choice is yours, according to your needs.

            • Jonathan

              I have a 16-35, and I find it to be a better lens for me than the 14-24. Why? Lighter, accepts filters, and the range between 24-35 is more useful to me than the range from 14-16.

            • Brock Kentwell

              My 16-35 rocks. I like that it takes filters and the 24-35 is extremely useful.

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

      It does have a group labeled as VR…

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

        From the abstract:

        …thereby providing an optical system having excellent optical performance with excellent vibration reduction performance, an optical apparatus equipped with the optical system, and a method for manufacturing the optical system.

      • John

        Sh*t… guess I am staying with the 16-35/4.

        • Furee

          you won’t and you know it

    • fred

      Look at the diagram, genius.

      • John

        Since you are so smart why don’t you tell us what G1- stands for

        • aahkam

          G1.. G4, Sounds like a group to me. So it is in 4 Groups.

          • regular

            I had a good laugh with this series of obvious questions-answers :)

            One further detail :
            ‘G+’ stands for diverging lens group.
            ‘G-’ stands for converging lens group.

            • NoFunBen

              And the vr group is always (-)
              I hope they add VR to all the lenses, I could use it.

        • MJr

          Group 1

        • harras

          If you have ever read the specifications of lenses it should be no question for you. Always it is written something like “17 elements in 12 groups (with two ED glass and three aspherical lens elements, and Nano Crystal Coat)” for the 16-35/4 or similar things so it should be clear that the G in the drawing MUST stand for group and in the technical drawings you SEE that some elements are grouped together. ;)

          • Pat Mann

            In these patents the groups are mechanical groups, not optical groups as in the Nikon descriptions. The mechanical groups are groups of lenses that move together in zooming, focusing and VR action, and each may include more than one optical group as that term is normally used in describing optics.

    • PhillipG

      There is a lens group in the diagram labeled “VR”, and the patent application says the design include vibration reduction, so I assume the answer is yes.

      • John

        Thank you for the clarification

    • Thai Tom

      82mm laa…..how to fit 77mm…impossibel laaa

    • Michał

      Yes yes yes! 16-35 f/2.8 with NO VR would be AWESOME.

      • Josh

        Maybe you can also switch the VR to “off”?

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

    Would that 16-35mm f/2.8 replace the f/4 or be in addition to, do you think?

    • fred

      It will replace the 17-35 f/2.8

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

        Ahh- that would make sense. Thanks for the swift response =)

  • http://snailartphotography.daportfolio.com/ benjamin

    aww.. a 24 1.8 would be nice.. the only affordable and good one in that fl is the 24 2.8 AIS.. fantastic, but not quite fast enuf

    • MJr

      Even nicer would be better performance at F2.8. Patent is for a 28mm THO.

  • PhillipG

    I’m curious about the size and weight of this new 17-35mm f/2.8 VR, if it’s ever produced. The 16-35 f/4 VR is already a physically long lens, and it looks like this new 17-35 f/2.8 VR lens would have more elements in it than the existing 17-35 f/2.8, so it could end up being large, heavy lens.

  • Unyil

    Hooraaay…….this is what i am waiting for….go NIKON !!

  • Eric Calabros

    dear Nikon, I love you, but you have DX line too, you forgot it honey?

    • Aspegic

      Don’t worry, this lens will work just fine on your DX camera.

    • Mark J.

      DX line got proportionately more attention than FX when it comes to lenses the last few years. Don’t be surprised if they don’t release too much over the next few as they need to work on the FX line.

    • maxbas

      Please a 24mm DX f/2.0 lens like the 35 f/1.8

      Dear Nikon, how come such a critical lens is missing? the 24 2.8. is not what we asked for. To be honest the lack of DX wide to normal primes makes me consider m43. I’m a NIKON guy, alway was, so please give us some qaulity dx glas!

  • FrankieB

    ADMIN: Any word on release date rumors for the 16-35 f/2.8 VR? That’s the lens I would love to have in a wide angle. I was torn between the 16-35 f/4 VR and the 17-35 f/2.8, and picked the latter for the lower f/stop, but would love the VR for hand-held shots in low light.

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

      I have not heard anything about this lens

  • http://blog.nauphotos.com Nau

    if he price is right I get it

    • Lorry

      -677

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

      As long as your price is £1500-£1800+ which is precisely where it will be at launch. This will be a pro f/2.8 zoom, not a ‘budget’ lens like the f/4 flavour (it’s all relative) so expect to pay a heavy premium…

    • Joe
  • v0

    What I want to know is the expected release date for the 135 1.8

  • Bert Dol

    Hmmmm. I love to see all these patents rolling in, but personally i think Nikon should update his line of telezoom and micro objectives.

  • Ben Kockwell

    those who bought 16-35 f4.0 are sulking right now…..wakakaka

    • MikeV

      Not so much… The 2.8 is appealing but not really necessary. I own the16-35 f4 and shoot hdr/landscape with it and I usually shoot it around f8-f18. I also love throwing my ND filter on it for some long shutters during the day. I think many people that own the 16-35 f4 use it for landscape and want as much in focus as possible.
      Although the 2.8 on the new lens would be extremely useful if I wanted to do star trail / star timelapse photography… but I’ll survive without it

    • Jonathan

      Yeah I’m sulking. Oh wait, I got rid of my 14-24 and replaced it with the 16-35.

  • Broknowsphoto

    New Nikon 24-70 F2.8 VR anytime soon?

    • Opor

      Tamron churning out one soon enough…… Canon is greedy enough to churn out a new version without IS and making Canonites fork out more cash later for one with IS

      • Johnny Andrean

        poor Canonites :(

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

        Not just a little bit more too. It’s a total rip off by all accounts, someone in the Canon boardroom is smoking something pretty strong these days if they think anyone will really spring for those prices in volume for a mid-range zoom.

  • Joaquim Prado

    28mm f/1.8 at USD 1k to 1,3k?

    • Nikon Shooter

      $300-$500

      • Joaquim Prado

        If its have low distortion or easy to correct sounds a great avarage of price if not japonese made! I bet more than $500 if not japonese made.

      • pooh

        It has 14 elements in 6 groups. Way too many glasses for a conventional f/2.8 Biogon design – you can imagine how much correction they put into this one.

        So expect a $1,000ish price tag, or higher. One comparable to the 35/1.4G and 24/1.4G.

        • no

          erm, it’s 1.8 and 28mm. no way they will charge more than $800-$900.
          comparable to 24/35 1.4? – never.

    • Roger

      699-899$

    • Pugsley

      Probably closer to $600.

  • d400

    Admin – Why don’t you keep a database of lens patents? So we can go to it and see what lenses have been patented when?

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

      +1 Would be great to see the take up rate and average time from filing to availability… Nice bit of analysis work for someone :)

    • Michael

      +1 Is there s patentfor a 300/4 with VR? Would have to have that lens!

    • ano102

      +1
      good idea !

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

      good idea

      • d400

        oh wow, does that mean you are going to do it? What about a poll?

  • mandrake

    Would Nikon release a lens that is so similar to an existing lens that’s only a couple years old? I’d rather have 2.8 as much as the next person but this sounds weird.

    • Pat Mann

      This lens makes great sense in Nikon’s lineup. It’s an upgrade of the 17-35, not of the 16-35. The 17-35 has always been very sharp in the center, even better than the 16-35, but very weak in the corners, and one can hope this provides some upgrade of that without compromising the center. We’d also like a little work on that distortion at the wide end. Nikon always seems to sacrifice this for the rest of the performance range, though perhaps I should just give up complaining about distortion and be grateful for a lens that’s exceptional on all other counts.

      I personally am looking forward to this new lens. It will be hard to choose between a new 16 or 18mm prime and a new fast wide zoom. I hope we have a choice.

  • fiatlux

    Wow, 14 elements for that 28 1.8!

    I am truly interested, although I fear it would cost much much more than the 150€ I paid for a used 28 2.0 AIS.

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

    Bloody hell! That VR module will triple the price of the lens. 28 mm f1.8 or f2 has to be affordable.

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

      Pff… my bad. Looked at the second diagram. :)

  • Marty

    Looking at the lens diagram for the 28 1.8, I actually think the design includes a VR group as well. L21 and L22 are indicated with the same up and down moving arrow, only lacking the VR designation in letters. The number of lens elements also seems to be on the high side for a lens without VR. With VR, this would be a first for Nikon. It would come in handy in low light. I’d like one on my D7000! But will it be less than 800 euros? Size may be a bummer too. Mmmm.

    • fiatlux

      Yep, those arrows point to a 28 1.8 VR!

      Worrying when you know that the Canon 28 2.8 IS is announced at 800€!

  • Thai Tom

    woww….Nikon is going all out with new lenses and 36mp body……trying to recoup loses from submerged thailand factory…….good for us and nikon too.

  • D4ve

    Admin, I’d love to see a poll to determine which of these patents is the most sought after lens.

  • PhilK

    What’s amazing to me is that Nikon is doing this in an area where all the nuclear power generation has been shut down – which was 30% of the electrical power generation in Japan, not to mention where some of the worst devastation of the earthquake/tsunami occurred. (Sendai)

    The Japanese people must be making some major sacrifices to keep the industrial machinery moving in that country, like turning all the lights off in their homes or something…

    • danpe

      It’s a bit off topic, but Japan has bought generators, oil, gas and coal like crazy creating a trade deficit for the first time in some 20+ years. The part of the electrical grid that Sendai is part of still has at least one nuclear reactor up and running, but it’ll go offline in about a months time.

      • GrumpyDiver

        These large powerplants are not “bought”, but rather custom designed and built. Delivery is measured in years, not months. Japan is more than capable of designing and building these; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Babcock-Hitachi are certainly two local companies that build conventional (coal / gas / oil fired) multi-hundred megawatt power plants.

        Smaller diesel and package boiler units are generally used for emergency power / backup only, and may have been brought in for certain specific situations, but larger units that can be used to power factories are large custom builds too.

        I understand that the last two (of 54 total) reactors are due to go off-line by the summer. None of the reactors that have gone off line have started up again, and there are some questions on when (or even if) they will go on line again.

        In fact, what has happened in Japan is that almost all of the electrical power issues have been saved through conservation measures, and that is absolutely amazing.

  • photo-Jack

    The 2.8/16-35 sounds interesting if it has as less distortion as the 2.8/17-35 while maintaining sharpness and MTF as the 14-24.
    However, I’d rather like a makeover of the 2.8/24-70 as this one imho is the weakest within the “dream-team”.

    A 1.8/28 wouldn’t be of my interest. I’m looking forward to 1.8/135 though. On APS-C this give us a (comparable) cheap 1.8/200 which would be GREAT.

    Talking about APS-C:

    Hallo Admin,
    there was a rumor some weeks ago, that the D400 would be announced in March. Do you have any information about the progress in this matter or will we have to wait until Photokina?

    I know, the D800 can be switched to DX. But I still do not have any reliable information about this will be just DX-JPG or if it will allow DX-RAW in 14 bit as well.

    • PolyNik

      All D800 image area crop modes can be saved save in RAW. For your specific query, DX-RAW in 14-bit lossless compressed results in a 18.6MB file.

      Note the distinction between image area (working in raw pixels) and image size (JPEG in FX, 1.2 crop, DX, and 5:4, each with L, M and S options). You get 4 options for file size in RAW and a total of 12 options in JPEG.

    • NoFunBen

      yes the 24-70 2.8 is the week link. the 14-24 16-35 17-35 is much better covered. a 24-70 2.8 vr if iz nano is needed before that.

      if nikon adds VR to all the f1.8 primes i will be upgrading some lenses.

  • SNRatio

    Differences (for sure or likely) 16-35/4 vs 16-35/2.8:

    1. 1 f-stop, with the new f/2.8 having much better edge performance than the present version fully open, and quite good all over already at f/4.
    2. Much more even performance than the present version and the 16-35/4.
    3. Expensive! Maybe twice the price of the 16-35/4. Which makes it even more obvious why there are two similar alternatives. But we may of course hope for something more similar to the 14-24.
    4. About the same length as the f/4, but somewhat heavier.
    5. In some ways similar to the 14-24, but with far less ghosting and flare.
    6. Better in the long end than the present 17-35. Only wishful thinking, maybe, but I think it would make sense to Nikon, economically.
    7. Extreme sharpness in the center, more like the 14-24.

  • Landscape Photo

    Tell me who will need that lens? There is a fantastic 28mm f/2.8 if you absolutely need that focal, or what’s wrong with the stellar Nikkor 24mm f/1.4 if you’re in need for a fast wide prime? You might have at least tried for a 20mm f/1.8 for some differentiation.

    For which application is this lens? Astrophotography? Not wide enough. Landscape? Fast lenses are not first priority. Fashion & action? The photographers must already covered this focal either one of the 2.8 zooms or owning a 24mm f/1.8 if in a dire need for a fast wide. For DX? 42mm eq. is not a very appealing focal while 35mm f/1.8 DX existing.

    That what is left out?

    Nikon, please don’t waste your R&D power for repeating the already achieved. Instead you may work on filling the gaps before Sigma or Tamron does. Why a 28mm while there’s an absolute need for a compact & filter-taking 16mm f/2.8 rectilenear prime.

    • photo-Jack

      +1

    • MuttonPuncher

      +2

      • MuttonPuncher

        @Landscape Photo you stole my thunder:^)

    • fiatlux

      To each its own I guess but there no “fantastic” Nikon AF 28 2.8.

      The AIS was, the AF-D is good but not great (better than the AF non-D, though). An update to AF-S would not hurt either.

      There is currently no affordable modern FX prime below the 50 1.8 AF-S. A 28 1.8 AF-S would nicely complement the recent 50 and 85 1.8.

      I guess the value of VR on a 28 1.8 is debatable, but if this lens remains affordable, I’ll certainly be interested.

    • ithink

      Sure, 28mm is always a compromise, but that’s what makes this lens so interesting in my opinion. The 24 and 35mm f/1.4 are great, but very expensive lenses.

      For example, I’m still shooting with a DX, but I’m going to upgrade to FX soon. Therefore I didn’t want to buy the 35/1.8. Being an amateur, the 24/1.4 is too expensive for me. So you see, the 28/1.8 is an interesting alternative, especially because I believe it will be much more affordable than a 24/1.8 for example :)

    • FanBoy

      You failed to understand 28 1.8G is created for both still and video shooters.

    • Pugsley

      Preumably the 28/1.8 will be half the price (and possibly size) of the 24/1.4 and blow away Sigma’s old $450 28/1.8.

      That’s a good fit in the line I think, the same way that the popular $200 35/1.8 DX lens fits in well despite the existence of a $350 35/2 as well as a $1600 35/1.4

  • Dr Motmot

    I would go for the 16-35mm/2.8 but am not fussed about VR. I was going to get the 17-35mm/2.8 but will wait a little longer. Am picking up a lot of mixed reviews about the 16-35mm/4, some reviewers traded in their 14-24mm for it and loved it and other regretted doing so. Then there is the DX 17-55mm, it all starts to get very confusing!

  • cpm5280

    Well, time to sell my 28mm f/1,4 AFD. Anyone want a great, late-serial Nikon classic?

    Sigh.

  • Anna Seed

    For work I use the 16-35mm VR 99% of the instead of my 14-24mm as it’s lighter and less vulnerable to damage on the front element. However, I use DxO to batch process all the RAW files. This makes the difference between an acceptable and unacceptable lens to me. Even at 19mm the distortion is clear to see on door frames etc near the corners but DxO takes care of that. It’s a handy walk about lens too and the colours pop.

  • Jау

    This is not ‘just another fast prime lens’ design indeed, it’s all about how to use VR in a large aperture retrofocus wideangle lens. The patent text is clear: it describes a clever way of solving the ‘amplification’ of major problems (like spherical aberration, coma, ghost images and flare) that occur when VR is used in such a retrofocus lens.

    quote:

    “BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
    2. Related Background Art
    A retrofocus lens having a leading lens group with negative refractive power has been known as a wide-angle optical system securing a back focal length sufficient for a single-lens reflex camera and a digital camera in spite of a short focal length. In such a lens type, there has been known a one having a large aperture of an f-number of 1.4 (for example, see Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 11-030743). Regarding such an optical system, request for suppressing ghost images and flare, which deteriorate optical performance, as well as aberrations become increasingly strong. Accordingly, a higher optical performance is required to antireflection coatings applied to a lens surface, so that in order to meet such request, multilayer design technology and multilayer coating technology are continuously progressing (for example, see Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2000-356704).

    However, when a vibration reduction mechanism is applied to a conventional wide-angle optical system, correction of aberration upon vibration reduction is not sufficient. In addition, there is a problem that reflection light producing ghost images and flare is liable to be generated from optical surfaces in such an optical system.

    SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
    The present invention is made in view of the above-described problems, and has an object to provide an optical system having excellent vibration reduction performance with suppressing variations in various aberrations, and ghost images and flare, an optical apparatus equipped therewith, and a method for manufacturing the optical system.”

    The patent for the 16-35mm f/2.8 VR design is interesting too as it mentions how specific problems like chromatic difference in curvature of field (at the telephote end state) are solved. So we can expect significantly better edge performance than with the current 16-35mm f/4.0 indeed.

  • catinhat

    Anyone tried Tokina 16-28 f2.8 ? It gets stellar reviews.

  • http://www.photos.teomorabito.com Teo

    Hi,
    I’m thinking about a 14-24mm to go with my soon to arrive D800 :)
    Is it going to be updated soon or can I go take it without worrying about that ?
    Thanks

    • JETELINHO

      READING YOUR POST – YOU´VE GOT NICE THINGS TO BE AFRAID OF :-) … Regards, Jet

  • jorg

    i wonder why it is not possible, to build filter-slots near to the lensmount, like in the older long tele-primes.
    the 14-24 is a huge chunk of glass anyway. make it a little longer and put a small filter to the end.

  • Donji Hogfan

    The 28 1.8G looks huge.
    124.5mm length?
    24 1.4G is 90mm!

  • Phil S.

    This 28mm f/1.8G is the lens I want most (that is, depending on quality and price, but I do expect it to be very good and I will extend a bit to purchase it). I think it will make the perfect “normal” lens for DX, and a very usuable (without excessive distortion) wide lens for FX. I hope that it is available this year, and the earlier the better.

  • Phil S.

    But, yes to Donji Hogfan, that length of 124.5mm does seem rather long — It’s not all that shy of the 70-300mm VR.

  • John

    Yikes! That’s a lot of optical elements in that 28/1.8G – it’s gonna be expensive for sure.

    Also, regarding the lens length – does that not also include the flange-to-sensor distance? For the F-mount that would be 46.5mm, so the actual lens length may be closer to 78mm. Didn’t the rumor say somewhere that it was going to be a “compact” lens?

    • John

      Yes in fact, upon reading the patent the total lens length (TL) is from the first element to the imaging plane at infinity focus. So the length of the 28/1.8 from the flange mount to the surface of the first element is 78mm – in reality it’s likely to be ~4 inches long from the flange.

  • MikeP

    Is Nikon ever going to start selling the 17-55 2.8 again or release a newer, updated version with VR???

  • http://www.triophotographic.com Dasbose

    I currently have the Sigma 28mm 1.8Ex. It’s a good lens for how I shoot. I use it on my D700, and actually like it’s FoV on our D7000. However, assuming the performance of this lens is better than the Siggy, I’d upgrade just for the quieter AF-S.

  • PhilK

    I just wish they made a dead-sharp 24-120mm. I had high hopes for the last version but it’s got the annoying ‘reversed’ zoom/focus rings, all the reviews are lukewarm and my 28-105mm AF-D still has way lower distortion and much closer focusing..

  • http://stevejwphotography.blogspot.com.au/ Steve

    Is that 16-35 f/2.8 an FX lens? I assume it is at that focal range.
    If it’s FX I’ll be VERY happy!! I’ve been waiting for this from Nikon for a long time!! Can’t wait for that one, I just hope it’s optically better than the 16-35 f/4 VR, more on par with the 14-24 would be absolutely awesome.
    I was beginning to lose hope in Nikon ever releasing this badly needed lens but there ’tis. :)

  • MJr

    This looks like it won’t be as compact as Canon’s 28/1.8 by the way. But more glass should be a good thing so that’s fine.

  • Anonymous Maximus

    I always prefer primes for quality work, and zooms for ease.

    On any day, any prime will beat a zoom within its range for sharpness, contrast & lack of distortion.

    Examples:

    * 85mm or 135mm is better than 70-200mm
    * 50mm is better than 24-70mm
    * 20mm is better than 14-24mm

  • Alan

    But why is the new 28 f/1.8g so long? 124.5mm?
    Why in the world this lens is 2.5 times longer than the 50 1.8g?

    • Manuel

      That’s a good point! Why is the Nikkor AF-S 28mm f/1.8G also much bigger than the Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.4G and has more lens elements? Kind of astounding.

  • Back to top