< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Update: Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR lens could be announced next week

The new Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR full frame lens could be announced next week. I don't have an exact date but June 15th keeps coming up.

The D600 will probably not be announced with the new 24-85mm lens.

Nikon may have another, not product related announcement as well.

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

    A lens not really needed gets out from one day to the next while desperate awaited ones keep staying in the patent drawer…
    There is a 2.8-4.0/24-85 already and a 24-70 too.
    Wonder, if this one could be a price hammer with that much glass in it. And if it still is, i doubt the IQ.

    • Mike

      Neither have VR though which is handy for video use in addition to slow speed still shots. And in the case of the former, it’s an AF-D lens which isn’t great for people choosing to AF during video and not compatible with D3xxx/5xxx cameras. The 24-70 & 24-120 are expensive standard zoom lenses for a lot of people still. May not be a sexy lens, but I bet it sells a lot. Way more than a 80-400 VR anyway.

      • JR

        VR does not help with video, do a little research. It’s still image tech only.

        • LR

          It’s my understanding that VR is a huge help with video. Is this not correct?

          • Donji Hogfan

            VR in video is not recommended for many situations, since there is a limit in the absolute displacement that can be corrected. When the limit is reached there is a sudden shift of the image back to the initial location, which is ugly for video.

            • silmasan

              Take a look at Olympus OM-D EM5 walking video IS demo. The frame gets cropped in this mode yes, but the resulting motion is quite smooth.

        • Mike

          Research? Does practical experience count? Research.

          • silmasan

            Apparently, for some, textual research is much more exciting than hands-on experience…

        • Ron Adair

          To say “VR does not help with video” is like saying “4-wheel drive vehicles Re not good for racing.” See?

        • silmasan

          Yes, VR won’t help if you dance around while you shoot your video.

    • John

      The existing 24-85/2.8-4 really is not a very good lens on 12MP FX and will totally suck on 16MP or higher. My 24-85AFS is significantly better so it’s a very good thing that they are coming out with an updated version of the 24-85AFS as a 24-XXX lens would be too expensive and perhaps a bit large to be matched with a D600.

      • Erik

        Really like the 24-85mm f2.8-4 on my D700. Better than the AFS version that I have also owned but sold. Maybe there is some sample variation out there?

        • http://micahmedia.com Micah

          …must be. My experience was the exact opposite. If I’d managed to stay in FX land, instead of going F100->D70->D2x->D300->D700, I’d probably have kept the 3.5-4.5. Quiet, fast, accurate. There was CA at 24mm, but today that’s an easy fix. It was otherwise quite sharp. Questionable bokeh at the wide I guess. But no 2.8-4 I tried was as sharp. And MF with the 2.8-4 was a painful experience compared to the AF-S.

        • John

          Yes – I tried 3 different samples of the 24-85/2.8-4 on my D700 and they all were inferior to my 24-85AFS – so I suspect you got a dud 24-85AFS.

    • Ankit Gurung
  • Ric

    Correction. Second
    vox.MaxwellSmart “missed it by that much”

    • Curious

      Why is this comment, posted early yesterday, showing at the end of the comment list?

      And also: what does it mean?

      • Rob

        When admin deletes stupid comments (things like, “FIRST!!1!!”) it screws up the order of any comments that originally replied to the deleted comments.

        • No longer curious

          Rob: ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation!

  • Brock Kentwell

    Street price guesses?

    • Anonymous Maximus

      $ 400-500

      • Bob A. Ganoosh

        Doubt that…. under the price of the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 ?
        Thinking more like $600…

        • D400

          17-70 is dx

    • ggweci

      How about $2K for the bundle: D600 w/ 24-85 VR?

      • MJr

        €1800 !!

      • D600=$1499

        I’l take two. :)

      • rhlpetrus

        Very attractive, U$2,000 for D600+this lens. I’m rethinking my D800E option. I’ll wait to see how the sensor performs.

    • l21

      It will be close to 1000, maybe 800. No way is that going to cost 500, 3 times less than the 24-70 2.8, and with the VR added as a bonus.

    • Kent

      $350-$450

  • http://gapinski.tumblr.com/ MG

    I dream of a small AF-S 24-50 2.0
    Am I alone?

    • Eric Duminil

      I guess it wouldn’t be small.

      • http://gapinski.tumblr.com/ MG

        short at least.

        • MJr

          never happening :(

          • Matt

            Why not just get a 35mm lens?

            • MJr

              Wouldn’t mind a new and awesome 35/2, or 1.8 as they seem to fancy that aperture lately.

            • silmasan

              right, the 35/1.8 should’ve been FX in the first place.

    • John

      I believe I could put such a lens to good use on a D600 – or any FX body!

    • ralph

      Very alone…. It would weigh a ton

      • John

        Hmm . . . the 24/2 AIS and the 50/1.8G don’t weight tons – I suspect it could be done. The real issue would be who would buy it with a 2x focal length range . . .

  • Michael

    Cool. This could replace my 24-85/3,5-4,5. I hope its as lightwight and good quality-wise.

  • bobby

    The non-VR version of this lens is not bad at all, but I fear its resell value just dropped by a bunch.

  • http://www.toddmyra.com Todd

    I already have the 28-105 3.5-4.5 (which is awesome!) so I don’t need it….

  • Jimmy

    I suspect that this will close to the £500 mark. I currently have the 24-85 3.5-4.5 version; not sure if the extra £300 for VR is worth it? Unless the optics are vastly improved….

  • John

    Any rumor on the price of the 24-85AFS VR?
    I doubt it’s arrival will dent the prices of used 24-85AFS lenses because I would imagine that this new lens would be at least $600 or so, thus keeping the ~$250 24-85AFS prices right where they have been.

  • Anu L

    And the previously leaked 18-300 DX?

    • FX guy has DX friend

      Good question. I know someone who’s waiting for this lens.

  • Nikon D600, WHEN?!

    I wait for the arrival of the Nikon D600. If it is produced, I believe Nikon will make it really very good at a very affordable price too.

  • Back to Nikon

    This lens should be $600-700 given that 24-120 f4 VR is $1000. Now we need an updated 80-400 with AF-S and VR II , and a 16-35 f3.5-4.5 VR. That would be a Dream Team for the upcoming D600! Reasonably priced body and lenses for the FX wannabes!

  • T.I.M

    :)

    • The Anti TIM

      hey buddy I missed you.

  • Me

    That is it, I am selling my D300s!

  • Michael II

    I think it will be a good lens and probably a good bundle lens (NOT a “kit” lens) for the D600. I think the price will reasonable and they will sell a ton of them.

    Someone asked about the 18-300 that sounds like a good lens to market / sell along with the D400.

    Just my opinions…

  • Landscape Photo

    I may have this lens for my D800.

  • AM

    Where can I NOT pre-order?

    • Reilly Diefenbach

      B&H, hah hah.

  • http://dennischan.smugmug.com Dennis Chan

    I am much more interested on when the D600 will release. lol

  • Baked Bean Face

    I wonder, the rumoured price of 1500 USD, how will that translate over the water? 960 GBP or, unfortunately, 1500 GBP?

    • http://rearrangedphoto.tumblr.com rearranged

      +1 propably 1400p and 1600 euros… Still can t imagine a 1200 euro fx camera, Sounds to good to be true

    • jorg

      with european VAT and such it mostly turns out to $ = € price

  • MegaMo

    If this new FX lens is for the new D600 and it’s somewhat lower in IQ than other FX lenses. I doubt anyone would go for a kit like that. so you’ll have:

    Super enthusiastic tech lovers = will go for kit lens and D600 thinking “FX hell yeah !”
    People that want to experience FX on the budget but care about IQ = D600 & quality lens = too expensive.

    I hope I’m mistaken. but this whole FX “budget” camera is going to be pretty expensive.

    Thoughts ?

    • Arkasai

      The 24-85 AFS that this is replacing is actually a fabulous lens that’s as sharp as the 24-70 at comparable apertures. It’s just not as fast and has more distortion than the 24-70 but costs 1/5th the price.

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

    How about a D800 without waiting forever, or a 24-120 f/4 which seems to be unavailable lately?

    • 香港人

      I feel u bro.

      I have had a d800 for over a month. But now I’m waiting for a D800E. Poor me might have to wait a week for my local shop to get me one.

      So I can safely say: “Where’s my D800E?!?!” :-O

      If I wanted another d800 I could have it. I saw a few around the local shops here… hong Kong.

      • Vin

        3rds to the where’s the E!

        I guess I will build a new 29er SS to keep my mind and bod busy this summer.

  • Arkasai

    The non VR 24-85 AFS is a spectacular lens, surprisingly sharp, with decent bokeh, but a bunch of distortion. I wouldn’t mind trading up to this VR version if I can still sell my non-VR at a decent price.

  • Ekim

    If Nikon want to churn out lens, please give us 85 1.2 or 50 1.2.

    • http://www.vuphotography.com.au vudie

      I am not sure if we need f 1.2 for these lens, the 1.4g versions are designed to their optimum performance, @1.2 they will subject to spherical aberation, more glass, slower af, heavier hence more expensive yet no real improvement in image quality. I dont mind using all the cheaper 1.8g updates primes some are sharper compare to the more expensive 1.4g. Just my 2 cents.

    • Hendog

      I’d love to see a 50mm 1.4 VR. I’d get one instantly! When I’m using it at f1.4 I’m usually getting down there with the shutter speed (below 1/50th) and up there with the ISO (very low light handheld stuff).

      • saas

        What in gods name would a 50 1.4 would need VR for ? I am an event photographer and I have shot in some dark churches indeed, and in none did I ever need to steady my 50 to prevent camera shake. VR in the 24-70 would be nice, I really can’t see the point of that in a 50.

        • Vin

          BI think that is the point, if you do want to shoot at 60/sec F4 you may need the added help on the new high mp DSLRs in low light hand held & still stay at lower iso. & not use flash, or do use flash. But I would love to test it out my self. Anyone have a new 28mm 1.8 and a D800. Shooting @ 30/sec?-vs with-vr and 60/sec?

          • Matt

            You don’t need VR at 50mm (and presumably wider than that) but you need it from 50mm to 70mm?

  • Unhappy

    I had the 24-85 3.5/4.5…………Did not like it at all. At f8 that thing looked like it was wide open……….It would stop barking, got rid as soon as possible.

    This new version should be much better???

  • http://IslandNature.ca Dave

    I think that I’m going to spend a little more and get the 16-35 VR – have already got several excellent FX lenses that I’m currently using with my D80 and want a good wide angle to go with them when the D600 is finally announced.

    I’m still betting we’ll see the D600 announced before the summer Olympics – maybe Nikon is building production capacity to avoid another D800 supply/demand pinch? Early July sounds about right from a business point of view.

  • Wilson Maldaner

    I want to see a 16mm f/2.8 fx prime that can take filters and isnt crazily distorted..

    • Matt

      Yes, please. Any AF-S f/2.8 prime in the 14-18mm range that could take filters would be very welcome.

    • Anonymous Maximus

      +1

  • Baked Bean Face

    Soooo, 1200GBP. Doesn’t sound too bad to me for a gateway to FX. I’m a landscape man so I’d be looking at selling all my DX gear and leaving me with hopefully enough plus modest saved funds for the body and the 16-35mm.

  • Vin

    New 24-85 f3.5-f4.5. I hope it has macro too, 12″ or better. Bet will best at 28mm-35mm f5.6-f8. &
    70mm-85mm f5.6-f8. It might be better just to have. 28mm. 1.8 & 50mm , and 85 1.8. But it is nice to have a zoom if you don’t have 2 cameras.

  • notagain

    A VR update to the discontinued AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5 – never understood why Nikon choose to discontinue it and leave the older AF-D 24-85/2.8-4 in the program. Why this can’t be a constant f/4 lens is everyones guess – the mistake with the 16-85/3.5-5.6 is repeated, albeit not in the same extreme form. My guess is $700-800 – just to have some distance to the 24-120/4 VR. There are a whole bunch of lenses that Nikon should introduce – but they seem to shy away from those. 70-200/4 VR for one. 300/4 AF-S VR. 80-400 AF-S VR.

    A FX D600 will be nice – as long as there is a high-end DX D400 to go along with it; the D7000 body and feature set can’t be the top of the DX line.

    • Landscape Photo

      Why constant aperture is so important? Variable aperture allows lenses to be designed smaller in size & weight.

  • C. Norris

    How many percent is this?

  • kenlee

    Admin,
    have you heard anything about the August product launch:
    http://www.nikonjin.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1627&pid=12087#pid12087
    would it be the D600?

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

      Yes, there is a very good chance that the D600 will be announced in August, maybe even earlier.

  • Landscape Photo

    All I need are the following lenses for my (future) D800:

    * 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR (on the camera most of the time), wish it were a 28-135mm instead

    * 16mm f/2.8 or f/3.5 (in case for ultra wide), not existing yet, but will happen soon hopefully
    * 50mm f/1.4 (in case for low light)
    * 200mm f/4 VR (in case for tele), not existing yet, but a moderately compact 200mm f/4 Al-s may suffice, Voigtlander 180mm f/4 is perfect but it’s hard to find

    • Sahaja

      @Landscape Photo

      Nikon’s 180mm 2.8 AF-D is actually a lovely lens too

  • Sly Larive

    The question is, will the price be good enough to justify one not picking up the new Tamron 24-70 VC?

    • Anonymous

      One reason not to pick the Tammy: it’s name.

      24-70mm VC stinks like a WC :)

      • Sly Larive

        In a french accent you could almost pass WC as VC… Vateeer Clowsette! BTW I’m french (Canadian that is) so I’m allowed to poke fun at ourselves…

        Initial reports are that it is not a flawless lens, the most dissapointing aspect being vignetting, which is surprising given the size (82mm) of the front element. Still, aside from that, a very capable lens at a good price. If the prices dips below 1K I may be interested in swapping my Nikkor. This is much smaller and VC is pretty nice for video.

  • Vin

    So where are the D800 vr tests for shake? Tools needed, wide-tele zooms with VR. Tripod. Vibrator. Hand held test simulator. Still woundering why VR would not help at 35-28-24-

  • MB

    I hope it will not have plastic mount like 18-105 VR and optics as good or better then good old AF-S 24-85. As for price I doubt it will cost more then 800$, but no less either.

  • Future D7000 user

    It’s nice to have consumer-grade lenses with VR, and remember the Nikon consumer lenses are pretty good for the price. Not everybody needs huge expensive f2.8 zooms nor want to carry them.

  • John

    NiKon 24-70 doesn’t need vr I’m a professional photographer and I have tested this against other lenses and can’t justify it in been that much better in any scenario

    I woudnt bother with this new lens it doesn’t do anything for me as regards shooting with large Aperatures I love the 2.8

  • DaveyJ

    I personally have no passion WHATSOEVER for 2.8 or any other constant maximum aperture glass. Having owned a lot of them….. and a batch of more modest price variable aperture lens for ME the results lean pretty hard in favor of the variable aperture lens with the exception of the Micro Nikkors. But I am not talking bench tests or that technical comparison, just the photo results partly based on portability, and being at the right place with a “good” enough lens. I assume this new FX lens will be acceptable and in fact I am somewhat surprised that it is not considered bundled as a “kit” lens. Typically body only availability lags considerably behind body plus a Nikon bundled lens. It was sometime before I was able to buy D7000 body only as I had no interest in acquiring yet another 18-105VR.

  • Anonymous Maximus

    Any idea for the bundled price of D800 + this lens ?

  • MB

    The design looks very similar to AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED:
    http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/normalzoom/af-s_zoom24-85mmf_35-45g/img/pic_004.jpg

    • Landscape Photo

      +1

  • I am… what I am

    Only one thing comes to my mind… remember the Nikon Series E? Great lenses! For the sceptics, they offered great performance on budget at one time people couldn’t afford to buy pro glass. Somehow today I feel we are getting back to those times, maybe a cheap FX lenses isn’t that bad idea. Yet, still referring to the Series E, same time I’m a bit disappointed with Nikon. By then they could make a 70-210mm zoom with F4 fixed aperture, all metal and glass and yet still small and light. The marvellous telephoto 135 2.8 weights 365 g… why can’t that be done today?

  • Manny Calavera

    Won´t buy the 24-85 because it´s variable aperture, I have 24 and 85 primes and I don´t need the focal lengths in between. Simple as that.

    Waiting for the 300 f/4 VR or a 400mm f/5.6 instead..

  • Back to top