< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon announcement on January 29th; additional Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED specs

Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5D ED lens

The old Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D ED lens is expected to be replaced next week

Nikon will announce their new Nikkor AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED full frame lens on January 29th (± 1 day). I am still not certain if the new Coolpix cameras will also be announced next week or later in February. Here are some additional 18-35mm f/3.5–4.5G ED specs:

  • Aperture range: 3.5-22 (wide), 4.5-29 (tele)
  • 7 rounded aperture blades
  • Angle of view: 100-63 degree
  • Filter size: 77mm
  • Lens design: 12 elements in 8 groups
  • 2 ED elements, 3 ASPH elements
  • The lens is weather sealed
  • Weight: 385 g/ 13.6 oz
  • Dimensions: 83mm x 95mm / 3.3in x 3.7in (the smallest Nikkor full frame zoom lens)
This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Pat

    Guess: MSRP = US$699 , same as 28 f/1.8G.

    • RondoX

      I’d rather have the 28mm 1.8. I would have expected this variable aperture lens to have VR to compete with the expetional Tokina 17-35mm F4.

      • RondoX

        exceptional*

      • preston

        Doesn’t need VR to compete with Tokina because no Tokina lenses have optical stabilization. A deal breaker for me when choosing the 16-35 f/4 is that it took 77mm filters while the Tokina takes 82mm. I already have hundreds of dollars in 77mm filters so this is a big deal. This new lens will be a useful budget / lightweight option though.

      • Pat

        put VR on this lens and it would be as big and as heavy as the 16-35/4 VR. I would speculate on 16-35 being as long as the 24-70 as they have to lengthen the optical path to accommodate VR.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jasonainsworth75 Jason Ainsworth

    I wonder if the old version will go on sale. It looks like it is no longer listed at Canada’s Nikon site. My local retailer (Downtown Camera in Toronto) doesn’t offer it anymore either but our major photography retailer, Henry’s, has it on their website. Adorama also has it for $609.

    • Paulo Feitosa

      Agree. Can’t see any advantage in AF-S by it self over AF-D: all 35mm and FX cameras have built in focusing motor. And my old N70 can’t used gelded (G) lenses, therefore, I’m too interested on a sale of the older model.

      • No longer Pablo Ricasso

        But I see it has aspherical and ED elements… AND AFS.
        Not bad for the same price if it works like it should.
        However, I had no idea the other one was that high.

      • desmo

        AFs has it all over AF-D
        speed ,accuracy and the ability to focus on
        the light weight(cheap) bodies

    • http://twitter.com/Emceee7 M C

      The old one has horrendous corners (FX), if you’re okay with that go ahead.

    • Bratislav ILIC

      I doubt people complaining about old 18-35 corner performance have ever actually used one on FX or on anything else … those horrendous corners are as good or better than 17-35 and though it is not a 2.8 lens it is nice little lens as it is, I hope this new one would be a bit better as it should with 1 more glass element, 1 more ED and 2 ASPH

      • andy aungthwin

        I have the 18-35, 16-35 as well as the 14-24. The 18-35 is actually quite bad on a D800 at 18mm in the far corners, but from 24mm onwards it is not at all bad. In fact at 35mm it is noticeably better than the 16-35.

        However, on a DX camera (I have the D300) the 18-35 is more than decent.

      • JXVo

        I have used the old one, both on film and on a D800. The corners are irritating when you are used to the sharp corners delivered by Sigma 10-20 on D300. It’s my only real issue with this lens.

  • peteee363

    this is the least used lens in my bag (the old one), so no need to buy the new one. i love my 14mm 2.8, also my 20mm 2.0.

    • Henry

      Wont Nikon now have 3 main lines of FX zoom lenses?

      Topline: Holy trinity (14-24, 24-70, 70-200)
      Mediline: 16-35/F4,24-120/F4, 70-200/F4 (quite some overlap)
      Entryline: 18-35, 24-85, ?? (not fixed A)

      I think that’s a pretty good lens line-up, from affordable to top of the pop

      • peteee363

        i prefer the older 80-200 2.8 to the new 70-200. the old lens has a single zoom/focus ring. when shooting real fast sports, i prefer manual focus, so i can keep the focus on where the action will be, instead of the camera trying to keep up. it is so easy to be able to zoom and focus without having to switch between two rings.

      • Sven

        You could add the 70-300 VR to the entry line…

        • Drazen B.

          Well said, both of you Svan and Henry.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jon.ke3z Jon Bloom

        Yes, and notice how close in price each of the lenses in a tier is. Entryline: ~$600, Midline: ~$1200-1400; Topline: $1900-2400. More variation as you go up from tier to tier, but three distinct pricing strata. Which is why I think this new lens will be $600-700.

  • Dave Ingram

    So is this made in China like the 24-85mm kit lens for the D600?

    • lorenzo

      I think we have to live with Nikon products made in China or Thailand.
      A while ago lenses with gold ring were made only in Japan; instead the last two I bought came from Thailand :-(
      They say the quality is the same… maybe but I’d prefer made in Japan.

      • Drazen B.

        True that.
        I own Nikon’s “f/4 trinity” and while my 16-35 f/4 is made in Japan, 24-120 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 are both made in Thailand.
        I also guess there’s different pro-level gold-ring lens classes, some higher than others. I could never expect Nikon to make their 14-24 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 anywhere else but Japan. But never say never…the anticipated replacement for the existing 24-70 f/2.8 may well come out of Thailand, who knows.

    • desmo

      the 10-24 DX is not made in japan,
      (Thailand or China its still Nikon design)
      and is an excellent lens

  • Greg Heller

    Yawn

    • No longer Pablo Ricasso

      Don’t be so sure about that. Weather seal and 2 ED elements in addition to aspherical. What if it beats the 17-35 when stopped down across some of it’s range? You know all things are possible.

      • Nikon Shooter

        It doesn’t take much to beat the 17-35 as bad as that lens is. I think the correct question is can 17-35 beat the new 18-35 stopped down? Obviously I’m only talking about the overall sharpness, not the built quality or distortions.

        What could really spoil things for the 18-35 is the excessive distortion that seems to plague consumer-grade wide-angle lenses. You can always fix it in pp, but then you’ll be looking at 20mm wide instead of the 18mm which is already not very wide.

        The internal construction of this lens points to a pretty simple design which may as well be from the 90′s. This lens will not cost more than $800 and I can actually see is selling for around $650. Anything more and the 16-35 becomes a much better proposition.

        • http://twitter.com/podperson Tonio Loewald

          So, um, how do you know what the internal construction is? If it’s simply an AF-S version of the older AF-D lens (pictured above) then your comments might hold. But given that Nikon’s AF-S updates tend to be markedly superior to the lenses they replace I’ll suspend judgment.

          1) Small and light
          2) Weather sealed
          3) Very nice focal range (obviously wider would be nicer)

          If it’s sharp…

          • Nikon Shooter

            I honestly want this lens to be everything that you want it to be since I’m not happy with any current uw zooms in Nikon’s line-up for various reasons. It won’t replace my 17-35 because at times I do need fast autofocus plus f/2.8 but I’ll be happy to get rid of my distortion monster aka the 16-35.

            The simple fact that it has so few groups and elements as well as 7 aperture blades instead of 9 tells me that this was intentionally designed to be a snoozer with soft edges and heavy distortions.

            • Joe

              C’mon. a) The 17-35 is not so bad at all. Stopped down it is good enough for a D800E. b) What do aperture blades have to do with soft edges and distortion. Stop guessing, start shooting.

            • gsum

              The 17-35 isn’t bad but is not as great as it should be given its price. It’s also very heavy and unbalances the camera. I still have mine but it has been largely replaced by an old 24mm f2.8 AI and 28mm f3.5 pre AI. The sharpness of these old metal lenses on the D800 has been a revelation (they easily beat the 17-35) although they are more prone to flare.

            • neversink

              It unbalances the camera?? You have to be kidding me!!! Then I take it you only shoot with small prime lenses that don’t have the widest aperture and you don’t go above 85mm. Hey, why even shoot with any lens if you want a perfectly balanced camera.

            • gsum

              What a bizarre comment. Are you seriously saying that a camera with a great lump of a lens such as the 17-35 is better balanced than one with a small prime attached? As for shooting at greater than 85mm – I use the 300mm f4 which has a tripod attachment at the centre of balance.

            • neversink

              What a bizarre comment. Are you seriously saying that a 300mm lens is more balanced that 17-35, even with a tripod attachment. When attached to the tripod it makes carrying the camera even more balanced???
              What I was saying is that it is not about balance. It is about photography. I find the Nikon very comfortable to shoot with, even with a 70-200 f2.8 and a TC 2.0 attached to it…..
              Yes, I love prime lenses… but I also love zoom… I care about the pictures I take, more or less camera balance is the least of my priorities.

            • Pat Mann

              The 12-24 f/4 DX has 12 elements in 7 groups and is an excellent performer, solidly built, with very low distortion throughout the range for a wide zoom – very low compared to any of the FX wide zooms. Both the 17-35 and 16-35 have huge distortion at the wide end in comparison (a bit wider, of course, but twice the distortion? come on!). If this new lens is as well designed and built as the 12-24 DX, plus weatherproofing, I’d expect the price to be closer to $900-$1000 – saving a little on that variable maximum aperture as they did with the 10-24 DX.
              Maybe now that this completes the update of the budget FX basic zoom trio, they’ll take time off and give us what we really need – the 23mm f/1.4 and 16mm f/1.8 DX primes, the 50-135 f/2.8 DX zoom, and an outstanding 400mm f/5.6 AF-S VR.

  • john

    What nonsense, where’s the d400, d8000, d7200, d9000 – whatever you want to call it.

    • QuickSilver

      Exactly! My Patience is over! I will Switch my Equippment is selling in eBay!

      • intence01

        Switch to what? Canon APS-C lineup is pretty much as old as Nikon’s and they’re also dragging their feet at releasing a new prosumer APS-C camera.

        • js200022

          The new Canon 7D Mark II is rumored to be a prosumer camera while all comments about the D400/D7100 is being like the D600, plasticky and entry-level kind of camera.

          It seems that Canon is keeping the quality of their prosumer cameras while Nikon has chosen the option of make cheaper cameras for the masses for more profit.

      • Dave Ingram

        What are you selling?

    • Mansgame

      I think it’s called the D600. DX is dying.

      • fmfm

        Nah man, DX may get a little sidelined, but it’s not going anywhere. Not until a full frame camera costs less than 1500$.

        • desmo

          it’s not going anywhere’
          you’re right
          to the point

          • fmfm

            LOL

        • Mansgame

          lol the D600 WAS less than $1500 for a while around Christmas – $2000 for the camera with the $600 lens.

          • fmfm

            Let’s not be pedantic here. That’s a package. You still can’t walk out of a store with a full frame camera at top level DX prices. And not everyone has access to those deals. I certainly don’t.

          • Dave Ingram

            Yes …. but you’re still paying $2000 for a camera and a kit lens that you may or may not want. Since the body only was still priced at $2000 you could say that you paid $2000 for the camera and got a free lens – not sure what that says about the body and/or the lens. Depends whether or not you can sell the 24-85mm lens as well – good luck with that :).

            That being said, I did move to FX when they announced that deal. Already have the 16-35mm f4 that I love using but the 24-85mm is pretty good as well and a good alternative for family walks, casual shooting. Build quality of the lens isn’t quite the same … maybe that’s why they threw it in for free.

      • DarrylJones

        Then Nikon is going to be in trouble. I will go Canon if dx is dying. I like the Canon FX much better.

        • intence01

          Really? Single cross-point AF? Single memory card slot? No 100% Viewfinder? If you want those features in Canon you have to pony up for the 5D3. The 6D was an utter disappointment. Except for wide-angle, Nikon is better off releasing everything in FX as it can be used on both FX/DX without penalty.

          • desmo

            well said

          • thomasv99

            why except for wide-angle?

            • Pat Mann

              Because there’s a huge difference in size, weight, complexity and cost for a wide lens designed to cover a 90-degree angle and one designed to cover a 65-degree angle. To get a 90-degree horizontal angle on DX, we have to use a 12mm lens, and a 12mm FX lens would be a monster – just look what Nikon did to make a 13mm FX lens. A 12mm DX lens has the characteristics of an 18mm lens on FX, only a little smaller because it covers a smaller image circle.
              With the much narrower angle of telephoto lenses, the size and weight are more determined by the maximum aperture than by the angle of view. There’s very little size or weight advantage to be gained in making them for DX only.

          • Pat Mann

            85mm and above prime and 70-200 and above zoom I agree with you, FX lenses can serve DX just fine. But for a 60mm f/1.4 portrait lens and a 50-135 f/2.8 short tele zoom, there’s a big size and weight penalty for FX. We need those in DX-designed lenses.

            • neversink

              Speak for yourself. You might need DX lenses, I don’t!!!!

            • Pat Mann

              I was speaking for the 99%. If you can afford an FX system or don’t need the reach of DX, more power to you.

          • js200022

            No really, the 6D has more high ISO than the D600. The 6D has a metal body while the D600 is plasticky. The WiFi and the GPS works great on the 6D. Nikon needs to improve the quality overall of their cameras, having a great sensor (BTW, from Sony) is just one item, it is not enough any more.

            http://thenewcamera.com/canon-6d-vs-nikon-d600-more-high-iso-comparison/

      • PeterO

        If DX is dying then so is Nikon because FX is still a small percentage of their sales

        • Mansgame

          It is right now because the price point is higher, but that is changing very fast. People have had a taste of full frame now and there is no going back.

          • http://www.facebook.com/rob.ueberfeldt Rob Ueberfeldt

            People have a taste for expensive large lenses and expensive large camera bodies? I don’t think so somehow. FX will become more niche and more like medium format over time. People have had a taste of small high quality sensors and that is what is selling now.

            • Captain Megaton

              DX is not dying. It is receding. Like my hairline.

            • KnightPhoto

              You guys are probably both right, FX is overtaking for a LOT of serious togs now, probably the majority already. But yes, for the general public, intermediate price or weight shooters, and sports/wildlife guys and yes even many PJs, the recent high quality DX IQ ain’t too shabby either ;-) The D3200 and 5200 look great and Nikon will do well to update both the D7000 and D300S lines too. Then Nikon better get hammering on lenses.

    • fmfm

      Couldn’t agree more. This is like watching paint dry.

    • desmo

      hand writing’s on the wall
      DX is consumer only,
      in the future

  • Phil

    Looks like a nice, lightweight travel lens with a very useful range. Much smaller than my 16-35mm for travel and walk around

    • http://twitter.com/Vipmediastar VIP Media Star – JZ

      I was considering this lens for city and landscapes and cars. How does it peform? My other choice would be the 28 1.8g

  • Arvid Tue Hansen

    Nice. Will sell my afd 20mm 2.8 for this one. Small,light and 77mm. 3.5 is not good but the nikon 20mm is not usable below 5,6 either.

    • clint

      your 20mm got soft edges below f5.6?

      • Arvid Tue Hansen

        I would say barely usable at f4 and ok from 5.6

  • Fab

    wheatersealing is nice, this could really be a nice travel lens

  • Joe

    If anyone thinks this is really going to be $699 they are in denial. This lens will be $1199 based on the astronomical prices that Canon and Nikon are listing for new products.

    • Pat

      Maybe not $699 cheap…this lens is NOT going to cost more than $1000, even the 16-35 f/4 VR has nano coating and VR and cost $1259.

      The Gold Ring, constant f/4, nano-coating and VR all combined cost at least $300-400 extra. I think the Nikon 10-24 DX at $899 is a good indicator.

    • 800mm f/2.8 DX VR

      It can’t possibly cost more than $900 brand new. Check out the price of the 16-35, which is fixed f/4, AND VR

    • desmo

      try $799 it won’t be $1199 thats the price point of the16-35 VR
      this should be an excellent lens but it won’t have the build quality of the 16-35 and it isn’t Vr.
      think 10-24 DX
      it will be FX equivalent

    • Mansgame

      This is a very consumer lens. $699 is about right.

  • twoomy

    Yawn for some, but YES, YES, YES for me! A small FX UWA is just what I want! I just hope it has decent image quality, especially in the corners (a common weak spot for cheap wide-angles). I know that the 14-24 and the 16-35 would better serve some, but I find them to be obnoxious for hiking.

  • rhlpetrus

    This is the equivalent to the DX WA zoom, cheap and light.

  • TomF

    Wouldn’t it be nice if we could get some indication from Nikon about an upgrade for the D300s, rather than just ens upgrades?

    • Bratislav ILIC

      We did, there will be no D300s upgrade.

      • DarrylJones

        Where was that official announcement made?

        • desmo

          sometimes you just have to be able to see these things,
          they don’t necessarily spell it out for you

      • Mate Bilic

        Not quite brate Bratislave, the replacement is in the works, just not leaked yet. Stay tuned for more on a pro-level Nikon DX camera update during the second part of 2013.

        • Nathan

          That’s what I heard as well Mate, with an italian dpreview forum member claiming a new “D400?” is currently being deigned by Giugaro (just as D800) but you know how it is, rumurs are rumors, so fingers crossed.

          • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

            If the D400 is being designed now, I doubt it will be released by the end of 2013.

            • Ronald Patterson

              I also heard the rumors Giugaro has been working an a new Nikon pro-level DX camera design, not sure for how long though, so it may well be ready before the end of 2013, who knows.

  • raizee

    I wonder if we’ll ever see a Nikon DX prime?

    • jfd

      10 2.8 DX ?
      40 2.8 DX ?
      35 1.8 DX ?
      85 3.5 DX ?

      • David G.

        Gimme a break. Only the 35mm is valid (the 10.5 is a fisheye and the other two are macro lenses).
        There’s no 24mm apart from the $2000+ 1,4G to give DX users a 35mm-equivalent lens.

        • Joe

          Get the AF-S 28/1.8 instead, it’s not that much different.

        • MattC

          What’s wrong with the 24mm f2.8d? It worked great on my D7000 before I went FX.

  • http://www.facebook.com/muganhorse Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

    Good bit pricey and we need updates this year to Nikon ancient 80-400 AF and 300 AFS F/4.

    • http://twitter.com/maninsuitcase Chris Pearson

      While I agree, I want to get a 300f4 this year. If VR adds to the price then I probably won’t!

      • PeterO

        You will never regret it. I use it on DX wide open for sports and it is razor sharp with beautiful bokeh. I picked it up used (mint).

      • KnightPhoto

        I would think VR will definitely add to the 300 f/4 price plus like any other lens refresh, they have all gone up in price at least through their initial offering period. And given the multi-year pent up demand for a 300 f/4 with VR, price will not drop for the first couple years. So I agree with PeterO jump on a used one now…

  • 5DollarFootlong

    Nice. Nikon has been killing it lately, so glad to be a Nikon shooter!

    Btw to those saying switching to Nikon. Go right ahead.

    Cheers!

    • Greg Heller

      They have been killing it if you shoot FX, try looking at it from our perspective the D300s will be 4 years old in June, and almost 6 years for D300 users. No other model has ever had that amount of wait time for the next body.

      • http://www.facebook.com/rob.ueberfeldt Rob Ueberfeldt

        Must be quite a nice camera if they can produce it for that long…

  • Greg Heller

    I’ve just decided not to buy another Nikon product until the D300s replacement is announced. They must see that there are so many people waiting on this announcement. All they have to say is there will be a D300s replacement. It is unfathomable they would treat their customers this way. I just hope for their sake the Canon 7D Mk II doesn’t steal all business that could have been theirs. It really is a horrible way to do business.

    • DarrylJones

      I agree was going to buy the replacement for the D7000 but if it is not announced during CP+ I will save to go FX. The better FX is cannon right now. So they will lose me and all the lenses that I will buy in the future.

      • desmo

        you obviously are in the dark about FX
        D600 is way above 6d feature and sensor wise
        D800 out performs 5dmk3 in all but fps

        • DarrylJones

          The iso and white balance performance is clearly superior on the Canons.

          • No longer Pablo Ricasso

            “clearly superior on the Canons”

            Really, Darryl?
            Don’t let them fool you brother…

          • Darren Patterson

            You’ve been brainwashed…or reading biased reviews written by Canon huggers.
            You’re drifting…

            • DarrylJones

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuozUxh_tOU

              This is what swayed me. Watch the whole thing. The 800 does not look good when compared.

            • Noel Hanson

              Buddy, you’re easily swayed then, or shall I say gullible.
              That’s hardly a review to base those conclusions on, it’s done by a videographer not a photographer. It’s just one of many “5D MkIII vs D800″ reviews, that’s all. But if 5DIII rocks your boat and you see advantages in that camera over a D800 for example, then by all means – go for it.

    • desmo

      go ahead buy the 7d mk2 if you can find one

  • Joe

    385 g? That would make a nice travel lens, if the image quality is good.

  • alvix

    mmmhh…385gr vs 465gr of my 10-24.. not good …I like heavy glasss.. .. :D

  • Kadidal

    No comments yet on how this compares to the $350(used) or $600(new) old 18-35? That was 11 elements in 8 groups… no VR … plastic, so light … sounds quite similar to this. That one was about $600 new, pricing on this I would think would be consistent, proportional to the 24-85VR.

    Either way, why buy this over the 16-28 28 Tokina? That is a fabulous lens (OK, I own it, but everyone seems to agree it’s terrific,and it’s $750-$850 new).

    • http://www.facebook.com/barefootintactivist Barefoot Intactivist

      This Nikon is around 40% of the weight of the Tokina

    • Agamemnon

      Because a bunch of 16-28 sample shots have rainbows around light sources for night shots, gross. I wanted to convince myself for the price, but 16-35 seems like a better package and 14-24 being similar but better, does as well. Except price I really can’t think of a real advantage? I’d love it if you could convince me.

  • Simanta

    Duh, no VR! even 3rd party manufacturers are offering ‘Stabilized’ lenses as standard feature these days. It’ll take a trip to the archives real soon. For just about the same price you’re getting the excellent 24~85 f/3.5-4.5 VR.

    • Drazen.B

      Yeah, but the 24-85 and 18-35 lenses are for different shooting purposes. While I agree with you that the 24-85 is a good lens, it ain’t something UWA freaks will be pulling from the bag very often having an option of wider angle lens at their dipsosal for those wide shots.

      As far as lacking VR, I own 16-35 f/4 and hardly ever use VR on it, but again…horses for courses and different people different shooting style and requirements.

  • whisky

    just wanted to say,

    1. eff this high profit, mass market, abomination.
    2. where’s the 80~400mm replacement?

  • David

    So may lenses . . . Nikon has too many lenses; the product mix is too large IMO.

    • Improve the lenses

      Nikon has too many useless lenses. How about making and releasing some of these:

      16mm f/2.8G DX

      17mm f/4G TS

      20mm f/2G

      a magnifying macro like the Canon MP-E 65mm

      135mm f/2G VRIII

      200mm f/4G VRIII Micro

      300mm f/4G VRIII

      400mm f/5.6G VRIII

      600mm f/5.6G VRIII

      100-400mm f/5.6 VRIII

      As it is, I´m more excited about the new coolpix cameras than the 18-35 plastic fantastic.

      • KnightPhoto

        A 600mm f/5.6 VRIII with other tech to make the barrel etc. as light as possible would be very interesting, as would all the other lenses you mention.

      • neversink

        Has anyone checked out the new 8 – 800 f/ 1.2 Nikon lens…. The tripod foot is a bit flimsy, but you can get a third-party foot….
        Amazing lens… No pin-cushing, no distortion, hardly any fall off and the best bokeh in the world…

  • http://twitter.com/egarcia Emilio García

    “Dimensions: 83mm x 95mm / 3.3in x 3.7in (the smallest Nikkor full frame zoom lens)”

    Well… my 28-200G is an smaller and lighter FX

    • Kim

      So is my 190 grams FX-lens AF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6G…

  • anon

    why do so many think dx is dead. They made a 36 mpx camera so they clearly think mpx are important.. in order to get 24 mpx out of the dx crop of an fx camera, the sensor needs to be like 50+ mpx. don’t plan on seeing that for a while…. so the need for dx still exists if you want the crop factor for wildlife and need more than 15mpx and the current dx cameras just don’t have the features of a higher end body. Not everyone can afford to spend 8000+ on 500mm or 600mm f4 lenses

    • http://www.facebook.com/rob.ueberfeldt Rob Ueberfeldt

      DX might die, but it won’t be killed by FX that’s for bloody sure. M4/3 and CX formats will have more to do with that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tremendous.panda Pan Da

    could you please rename this site to “thewebsitewhereeverybodyinthecommentscriesabouthowlongtheyhavebeenwaitngforand300sreplacement.com”

    It’s just fucking ridiculous about 3/4 of the comments is like “blahaha i’ve been waiting for an D300s replacement since the birth of jesus christ. i will switch to canon and sell all my gear because nikon sucks!”

    Seriously, whats the problem with you guys? Is the Image quality of the D300s bad just because it’s three and a half years old? No it isn’t! Ok an upgrade would bring some benefits like better high iso performance and so on but just enjoy your equipment go out and shoot and be happy!

    • PeterO

      I hope the rest of your day gets better…

      • desmo

        Pan Da’s pretty well spot on with comment

        • PeterO

          I agree, but the complainers seem to have gotten under his/her skin.

          • http://www.facebook.com/tremendous.panda Pan Da

            It’s just bloody annoying, when you read an article here and wan’t to see if there is an interesting disqusion or something in the comments and everything you read about is the bloody D300s and it’s porbably soon or never to be announced replacement.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ceasar.sharper Ceasar Sharper

      Lol, well your are half right. While out shooting birds with my 500mm and a tripod with me D800, my D300S was around my next for close up shots with my 70-200. YES, the D300s is good but is long in the tooth and needs a replacement that many loyal Nikon shooters are waiting on. I’d love to buy a D400 with weather seals and 9 FPS.

    • js200022

      LOL, it is a good comment actually.

    • Joe

      I don’t know why not everybody who complains buys a D800 und shoot it in DX mode when needed: recent technology, high ISO, 15 MP, 6 fps, great AF module, “pro” body. What is so wrong with that?

      • Drazen B.

        The answer is simple – price.

    • zoetmb

      While I agree with you about all the complaints, it isn’t like the days of film bodies, where while your shutter might have eventually worn out, the technology really didn’t change that much in the pro and semi-pro bodies and product updates were on a much longer cycle.

      I owned a D200, but it was getting “long in the tooth”. So I was hoping that Nikon would have released the D400 by now. It’s disappointing that they didn’t. I would have preferred a D400 over the D800, but I couldn’t wait any longer and bought the D800. (I didn’t like the body/controls on the D600).

      And I think there are reasons to be disappointed with Nikon lately. Their customer service completely sucks. Their recent policy of not selling parts to 3rd party repair sites is ridiculous. They quote “telephone numbers” for repairs and they take forever (they once had my 70-200 2.8 for three months!) They refuse to acknowledge when the cameras have real issues (like the dirt problem in the D600 and the left-side focus issue in the D800). And they can’t seem to make up their minds what their future strategy is for the DX line. And they also refuse to publish any kind of roadmap (although admittedly, some other companies don’t do that either).

      Nikon acknowledges published pros, but they don’t seem to care about non-pros and semi-pros who spend the same money as pros.

      The one thing they seem better at (in the U.S.) is keeping products in stock, but I don’t know if that’s because of better inventory management and/or manufacturing efficiency or because there’s less demand. But the last time I checked B&H, there were only 2 Nikon lenses out of stock and I don’t believe that’s happened in the nine years I’ve been tracking this stuff.

      I’ve never “threatened” to switch in a forum, but I have to admit I’ve thought about it. The only problem is that no one else seems to make a camera that I’d want either. I’ve never felt comfortable with Canon cameras and Nikon glass is better (IMO). If Olympus was smart enough to make a modern digital equivalent of the old OM-1, I might switch for that, but they don’t. I sort of like the Sony NEX series as a walkaround camera, but I’m not thrilled with the DSLR line. And so I stick with Nikon (and so far, I am impressed with the D800, although I really didn’t want to spend that kind of money).

      So I think Nikon needs to get their act together. We live in a world where customer service and communications with the customer is everything, especially on high-end products. Those companies who can’t be successful at that won’t survive, IMO.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mark.romine Mark Romine

    I hope 2013 proves to the year of new lenses and new flash units with radio control Nikon. We have have all the bodies that we need for a couple years now. Please continue making new primes with the nano coating, like perhaps a new 105 f2 or a 135 f2. :) Or a new 17-35 f2.8 with that nano stuff. If you do I will spend money with you.

  • dbltax

    Lightweight, compact and weather sealed. I’m all over this.

  • gatin

    Coolpix, Mirrorless and more

    Where is de D7000/D300s repleacement

    I’m starting to loose my patience whit Nikon

  • John

    Screw the 18-35mm, update the damned 16-85mm to f/4 already!

  • John C

    Well it may not be a new 80-400, but think of all the possibilities!

    For FX, a consumer grade WA zoom at $600-700.

    For DX, it works and is 27-53mm?

    For CX, as long as you want to have only single point AF, you get 49-95mm :)

    I will stay with my original 18-35. It is not the best but fine for what I use it for. If I need something better I have the 16-35 VR. The new 18-35 is not going to change that. Same with the new 24-85 VR, the original AF-S is fine and when I need better I use the 24-70 2.8, although having VR would be a bonus!

  • sunnycal

    Must be distortion free. Must be distortion free. or else it is a looser

  • Michael Choong

    I’m selling off my 24-70 ans waiting for a new VR version^^

    • babola

      You’ll be waiting a while, then…

  • Randy

    When is the next show where Nikon might introduce a D300S or D7000 replacement?

  • jake

    no other new lenses we expect to see at CP-something event?
    I ‘d like to see a new version of 35f2D or 105f2DC, with AFS and nano coating.

  • Gooseberry Face

    DX is dead? Long live DX! When do we want it? We want it now!

  • Reginald Spiffer

    And where the hell is the 16-85mm DX lens that was rumoured some time ago? I’m feeling giddy waiting.

  • jake

    I also want an UWA zoom sometimes soon, but I am not a big fan of UWA (seldom use any wider lens than my Zeiss 25f2ZF2), so this may be the lens I was waiting for a long time from Nikon.
    I consider getting the 16-35f4VR again (I had it and sold it)but it is just too expensive and big for me, I mean I do not really need it, just want it so spending 1k for an UWA zoom is not my option(I don’d mind spending 2k on a good 70-200f2.8 mm like my 70-200f2.8VR2 , though).
    if this 18-35 is really materializedl and as light as my 24-85VR kit lens , I might get one.

  • Robert Kenney

    DX days are numbered. Pressured from Mirrorless from below and falling FX pricing from above. Mirrorless camera’s are producing some excellent results today. The OMD and the GH-3 are outstanding cameras. No reason for FX to remain as expensive over time and will be the default for DSLR’s for the mid-to-upper level photographers. No reason for an entry-level consumer to purchase a moving-mirror SLR today when the mirrorless systems are more compact and produce the same or better results. Does the typical D3200 purchaser really need a mirror box? Do they really need communicability with the whole Nikon catalog of lenses? How often are entry-level DSLR users buying lenses, or do they just stick with the kit lens? Do they often shoot on anything other than the green “A”? I doubt it.
    What is the reason most advanced photographers want a DX? Crop lens reach in a semi-pro body. Nikon would rather sell you a longer lens or a teleconverter instead of new bodies. For the money lenses are a better investment anyway. For the body issue, expect a D300s-like body with the D600 sensor. The DX users may get lucky with one last D300s DX replacement, but I bet that will be it for semi-pro DX bodies. As for DX lenses? Forget it, those are dead money.

  • Super aloha

    Wondering the coast reduction will influence location of manufacture for this lens which I more favorable it to be made in Thailand set rather than ROC!

  • Back to top