< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 and 1 Nikkor 6.7-13mm f/3.5-5.6 lenses to be released on March 7th

Nikon-18-35mm-f3.5-4.5G-ED-lens   1-NIKKOR-6.7-13mm-f3.5-5.6-lens

Nikon Japan officially published the release date for the Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED ($746.95) and 1 Nikkor 6.7-13mm f/3.5-5.6 ($496.95) lenses as March 7th. The 18-35mm lens was announced on January 28th, the Nikon 1 6.7-13mm lens was introduced on January 7th.

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

    Looking forward to seeing the output from the 18-35. If this is anything like my old Sigma 10-20, I will be very tempted to pull the trigger.

    • jake

      no worry , it is at least better than Sigma 10-20 f3.5DX, it is pretty sharp across the fx full frame, its AF is a bit slow though.

  • No longer Pablo Ricasso

    They are both welcome additions. I don’t know which one is more needed.

  • MinickPhotography

    Does Nikon Rumors (or anyone else here) think Nikon will ever release a 17-55 2.8 FX lens? I loved the 17-55 on my D300 (although not quite wide enough) but it’s not so stellar on my full frame D800 (hate shooting in dx mode). I have an old Nikon 17-35 which isn’t cutting it on the full frame either (soft and lacks modern nano crystal coating) The new 16-35 f4 isn’t getting great reviews and I prefer a 2.8…and needs a bit more reach. I shoot with two bodies. One always has the 70-200 VRII and the other has a wide. A 17-55 2.8 FX would be a perfect range for documentary and event work.

    • jefferylewis

      Since the 17-55 DX is equivalent to approx 26-80mm and there’s already a 24-70 2.8 FX – isn’t that the lens you need? You loved that range on your DX camera and 24-70 is similar. Slightly wider, nano coating, great reviews and very sharp? With all those extra pixels you can crop to get the 80mm or much more on the long end.

      • MinickPhotography

        Hey all sorry if I wasn’t clear….I didn’t mean equivalent. I know the 17-55 on DX is equivalent to the 24-70 on FX. I want a true 17-55mm FX lens… that’s why I said I wish it were a little wider when I had it on the DX. I have done a mix of editorial and commercial over the last 18 years or so…. I would like to see a 17-55 range lens in FX. The 17-35 2.8 is on old design and just not sharp. The 12-24 although a great wide isn’t what I need for event work. I guess I just loved my old 17-35 and always wanted a little more range on it…and hoped a 17-55 would be possible. The 24-70 does look like a great lens and is on my radar…just wishful thinking.

        • twoomy

          I hear ya; a 20-50mm or 20-60mm FX lens would be on my camera 99% of the time. But that’s a long zoom range for a wide angle and lens makers are so entrenched in xx-35 and 24-xx designs that a crossover lens would never make it to market. But I’d buy it if it ever did.

          • MinickPhotography

            Thank you!! I do a lot of run and gun and generally have long lens on one and wide on the other so I would be covered quite well with a 17-55 2.8 (or even your 20-50mm idea) and my 70-200. Changing lens = missing shots. You are right about the ranges they offer now and probably the 17 or 20 to 55 wouldn’t see the light of day. Thanks for getting what I am looking for.

    • No longer Pablo Ricasso

      No.

    • Bratislav ILIC

      There is 17-55 2.8 lens equivalent for FX, it is called 24-70 2.8 …

      • MinickPhotography

        Right. I wasn’t clear in what I actually wanted. See above or below. Not looking for equivalent…. my 17-35 gives me a decent range but its just not sharp.. I would love to see a 17-55mm FX. Great for wide work and that longer end for event.

    • http://twitter.com/JoGorsky Jo Gorsky

      Did you know that the range of the 1755m on a DX sensor is approximately the same as the one on the 24-70mm on a FX sensor ?
      One is the same as the other on their own respective sensor size.

      • MinickPhotography

        I do know that. Sorry I wasn’t clear. I would like to see an actual FX 17-55 2.8. I like my old 17-35 2.8 but it’s beat. A 17-55 FX 2.8 would be a great range for editorial and event. A may need to get a 12-24 and 24-70. I prefer running with two bodies…70-200 one one and wide on the other. Having to change out between 12-24 and 24-70 would be a hassle.

    • http://twitter.com/JoGorsky Jo Gorsky

      The range on the 17-55mm mounted on a DX sensor is basically the same as a 24-70mm mounted on a FX sensor.

      One is the same as the other on their respective sensors.
      Both are f/2.8
      both are excellent built/quality.

    • Swade

      I’m honestly flabbergasted by this comment.

      • Minickphotography

        Why? See my clarifications with others. I want a true 17-55mm FX lens.

        • http://www.facebook.com/sandy.bartlett Sandy Bartlett

          Maybe because the 17-55 is a cropped sensor lens & certainly not stellar on the D800.

          • MinickPhotography

            Thanks but I know what the 17-55 dx lens is and its limitations on a D800. I was talking about the possibility of a 17-55 fx lens…or something close to that. That’s all. Nothing to really be flabbergasted about. If I confused some folks with my initial post I apologIze. Just hoped for a little wider zoom range option for my editorial and event work.

            • singlecoilpickup

              The 24-70 f/2.8 is really the FX equivalent of the DX 17-55mm. Something 17mm on FX zooming to 55mm FX would be a gigantic lens, especially if you want f/1.8. It’s probably not feasible in terms of cost. Buy a 14-24mm and a 24-70mm. I realize that’s not a cheap solution either, but that’s the FX solution.

            • IdahoJim

              I’ve used my 16-35 F4 VR extensively on both a D300s and a D800. I say screw the reviews sir, it’s an outstanding lens. Buy it and go make beautiful pictures with it.

              I promise, if your technique is even half way good enough to be worthy of that D800, no one will ever look at an image shot with the 16-35 F4 VR and say, “huh that’s really not very sharp is it?”.

              2.8 is another matter. But if you don’t already know why you must have 2.8 for the work you do, you probably won’t miss it.

            • http://www.facebook.com/leong.qijin Leong Qi Jin

              Nope. 24-70mm/2.8 on FX is equivalent to 15.5-45mm/1.8 on DX.
              17-55mm/2.8 on DX is equivalent to 26.5-85mm/4.3 on FX.

            • singlecoilpickup

              I know basic math, chief. The point is that for the focal range, speed, build quality, and purpose the 24-70 is as close as you get to the 17-55 of FX. I’m sorry you were incapable of rationalizing that.

            • http://www.facebook.com/leong.qijin Leong Qi Jin

              Nope. 24-70mm/2.8 on FX is equivalent to 15.5-45mm/1.8 on DX.
              17-55mm/2.8 on DX is equivalent to 26.5-85mm/4.3 on FX.

        • Csaba Molnár

          And how much are you willing to pay for it? Besides, 17-55 is equivalent to about 25-82. Now we have 24-70 F/2.8 right? So how much do you think an F/1.8 lens will cost at this focal range?How big do you think such a lens would be? That’s why people are flabbergasted at your comment. What you ask for is impossible at a reasonable price/weight.

          EDIT – sorry, I misread your comment about F/1.8 – still, at F/2.8 going from 17mm to 55mm, as others pointed out, it’s probably an impossible feat to accomplish.

    • Mr_Miyagi

      Why do you think the 16-35mm f/4 is getting poor reviews? The report on this lens at SLRGear looks excellent to me, and in a comparison against the much more expensive 17-35mm f/2.8 at DxOMark, it just leaves that lens in the dust.

      • MinickPhotography

        I have read that there is quite a bit of barrel distortion…that said I guess the biggest hurdle is going from all fast lenses to an f4. I know it has VRII which would allow for lower light shooting handheld…but I also like shooting at 2.8 at times. I agree the 16-35 blows my 17-35 away. Like I have mentioned to others I do some run and gun photography and like to have my 80-200 on one and a wide on the other. 24-70 isn’t always wide enough and 12-24 isn’t long enough at times. Changing lenses can mean missing shots for me. I think I just want something that won’t be built. Oh well. I will look bacl over the 16-35, 24-70 and 12-24. Thanks for your feedback.

        • Dave in NC

          I have the 16-35 f/4. It does have a lot of distortion, but I process the RAW files with DxO Optics Pro and this does a fantastic job at fixing the distortion. With a D800, 16-35, good tripod, and DxO, the results are absolutely spectacular.

          • MinickPhotography

            Thanks Dave. Good to hear you are pleased with it! I need to replace the 17-35…and as you see here I was hoping to get a bit more range but if they don’t make it…I can’t have it. I will be looking at the 16-35 f4, 24-70 and 12-24 to see what will work best for me. I think either the 24-70 or 16-35 will be my pick. I do a lot of editorial and commercial so a tripod is generally not an option. Do you also use it for day to day shooting? Thanks.

            • neversink

              Minck…. Good to hear you have given up on your wet-dream lens that doesn’t exist. Reality sets in.

              Why do you need to replace the 17-35?? Honestly, there is very little difference in IQ between the 17-35 and 16-35. Honestly!!! The 16-35 might have a slight edge, but hardly noticeable unless you are printing at 40 by 60 inches, and even then you have to closely inspect. I have used both, and figured the 17-35 is not worth replacing unless the IQ difference is great, which it isn’t. With the 17-35 you have a more rugged lens that is one stop brighter. I have used my 17-35 everywhere – from the tropics to the Arctic and in between and it has been a workhorse. The difference between the two lenses is so negligible in image quality that replacing the 17-35 for the 16-35 makes absolutely no sense.

              The 14-24 is incredible, but man is it heavy and there is no filter for the front of the lens. I love the lens, but it stays in the closet much more than it should. So it is an expensive piece of equipment that I use on occasion.

              The 24-70 is gorgeous but not my favorite lens although I use it more than I have thought I would. For a zoom, the image quality is superb. I just don’t love the range. It doesn’t go wide enough nor long enough. It’s a normal zoom lens. But it is a superlative lens.
              However, an incredible sharp lens is the 24 f/1.4 prime. Just to throw another choice into the mix…

              Speaking of wet dreams, I am still waiting for my 8 – 800mm f/1.4 lens to come out of production. But it would probably weigh 500 pounds and sport a radius of 6 feet.

            • MinickPhotography

              Probably wouldn’t have a wet dream about a lens but then again…my 17-35 was a great lens. Now it’s just ok. My copy is just beat. It’s been used for news for years and was beat around traveling thru Bosnia. I sent it back to NPS years ago for them to check it over. Just looking at my options and getting beat up myself on this post! A fellow shooter of mine has the 14-24 and says the same thing you do. The 24-70 is an option but like you it wouldn’t be wide enough at times. I could get it and keep the 17-35 for now. Thanks for your feedback.

            • neversink

              Yeah, you got beat up on your post, but you seem to be a good sport about it…. Since your lens is beat up, I would then go for the 16-35. Not as good IQ as the 14-24, but it’s no sloucher. I borrowed the 16-35 when my 17-35 had to go into the shop at Nikon. ((Diaphragm was stuck at f/2.8 and would not stop down.)) I really liked the 16-35 but after one week with it and hundreds of shots with it. I didn’t see any heavy duty performance-enhancements. So if it is time to retire the 17-35 I would probably replace it with the 16-35. If you can still use the 17-35, then don’t bother with the 16-35. No real advantages to it. I would then go with the 24-70 instead.

              I really wish the 16-35 came in f/2.8 Now that seems more doable than 17-55 f/2.8, doesn’t it??

              Admin — Any rumors to such a lens????

            • MinickPhotography

              I did get hammered a bit which wasn’t exactly my goal..so I go with the flow. Yes, I would have to see just how well the 16-35 is sealed…I get gear wet (not from wet lens dreams though (O:)..the 17-35 as you know is also a tank. I would definitely go for a 16-35 2.8. I thought there were rumors about that lens a while ago?! I may hold onto my current lenses and see if anything new comes out this year…if not look at the 16-35 f4. Thanks for the input.

          • umeshrw

            Dave, does dxo does better job reducing the distortion than PS ? Haven’t used it but heard a lot about dxo.

        • RamesesThe2nd

          I have 16-35 and Lightroom 4 takes care of its distortion easily. No need to worry. It is a sharp lens and it is comparatively not as expensive as other N lenses.

          • FerpectShotz

            the problem with the 16-35mm is the 14-24 which blows it away in terms of sharpness. Shooting side by side the 14-24 is more sharp at f2.8 than the 16-35 at f4. I don’t understand the need for VR on this lens which makes it heavy and large and makes it cumbersome to carry it on a hike. I think the 18-35 would be a compromise UWA with slight lose of sharpness but the advantage of lightweight which I value a lot.

            • RamesesThe2nd

              I have never owned 14-24 so I cannot really comment on how 16-35 compares to it. There are a bunch of reviews online and they all agree that 16-35 is as sharp as 14-24, if not better. The main problem with 16-35 is its distortion. VR is nice for video and I like the fact that I can use filters on it.

              As far as weight is concerned, none of Nikon’s N lenses are light lenses. D800 itself is a quite heavy camera. 16-35 actually balances really well on my D800.

            • FerpectShotz

              I had rented a 14-24 couple of times from lensrentals.com and a good friend of mine owns a 16-35 and we have compared both at 16mm shooting the same scene and the leaves and grass blades were definitely sharper on the 14-24 even when comparing at f2.8 and f4. Also the corner performance on the 16-35mm is not that great. Another problem is filters as it clips edges when using LEE filter system at 16mm and basically you will have to shoot at 18mm anyway

    • MJr

      Yes, and i want a 10-500mm F1.2. Please use some common sense. We’re already lucky to have a 24-70 instead of the old 28-70.

      • MinickPhotography

        Common sense? This is why I generally don’t post. I agree the 24-70 is a good range I am simply asking for a bit wider. The poorer performance of the 17-35 is due to the age and coating of the lens…not the range. A lens in the 17 or 20mm to 45 or 50mm is not a stretch by any means. I have been a pro shooter for a little over 22 year and digital since 2001. I guess I just know what I need/want which isn’t what others want or Nikon will ever make.

        • MJr

          There are many 17-35mm or similar type lenses, and none perform very well. Why do you think the 14-24 is the only one that does, and it’s huge. The others are by no means small either. What else are they supposed to put in there, magic elements? No matter how many years you’ve pressed that shutter button for money, or how badly you want it, hell i’d take one too, but that’s not going to make it any more possible. The range shrinks exponentially, and 24mm is right at the bottom of the curve, each step wider sacrifices a multitude from the tele end. Ignoring that is optical suicide or requires a suitcase to carry. This is true at F4, let alone F2.8.

    • Mike

      i would imagine that what you’re asking for would be virtually impossible to make. 17mm is in the Ultrawide angle range, getting all the way to “normal” 55mm from there would likely require a lens design that would be borderline impossible to create. It’d be kinda like putting a teleconverter on a current UWA lens, the results would be lackluster at best. It’s not like the camera companies wouldn’t make it if they could. Look at the 17-40 f4, 16-35 f4, 17-35 f2.8, 14-24 f2.8 etc, 40 is the longest anyones gone, and its surely not because its even REMOTELY easy to do, such a lens would sell like hotcakes if it was able to be produced for anything resembling a reasonable price.

    • Justaddwater

      The 16-35 f4 isn’t getting great reviews? That lens is often sold out and receives great feedback. The comments on this site often leave me wondering if some of you guys actually own a camera or if they are nothing more than spec geeks.

      • MinickPhotography

        I read the barrel distortion wasn’t the best. Also just not sure I want an f4 lens. I was the one who posted apparently worst comment ever about needing or wanting a wider range fx zoom. Not sure about others here but I have been a pro shooter for over 22 years (some of that in college) was chief photog at 2 dailies and occasionally shoot for AP. I am a shooter…I also need to know the specs. I think I just want a lens that’s not going to be available. First time I posted here and probably the last..agreeing with some of what mention above.

        • Justaddwater

          I wasn’t trying to offend you, I just thought it was common knowledge that wide angle lenses had some form of barrel distortion. Not to mention that the 16-35 f4 is a great lens and I would recommend it with confidence to anyone thinking of buying one. There is always the 14-24 f2.8 wider and faster.

          • MinickPhotography

            Sorry if I came off offended. I’m definitely not. I do know from using a 14mm years ago and the 17-35 now that I will get distortion..I read the 16-35 was worse than some others. Glad to hear you and another user has the lens and recommends it. I like to hear from folks that are actually using them. The 16-35 would be more practical for editorial and event work. The 12-24 is a bit too wide for what I need. Thanks for the feedback!

            • Hangman

              I sold my 17-35 2.8 in favor of the 16-35 f/4. It is a wonderful lens and my copy is sharp across the whole frame. I love it.

            • MinickPhotography

              Thanks Hangman. Good to hear the 16-35 f4 is sharp from edge to edge. I will eventually sell off my 17-35 2.8 too.

            • umeshrw

              It would be good for your kind of work. Just don’t expect distortion levels of that like 14-24. IQ is great.

            • umeshrw

              It would be good for your kind of work. Just don’t expect distortion levels of that like 14-24. IQ is great.

            • IdahoJim

              I have the 16-35 and can confirm the distortion is there. However I don’t find it to be a problem in the work I do. Granted that doesn’t include much architectural work.

              For editorial work I’d say this. I find that for me when hand held the VR does make up the difference between 2.8 & F4. At least when the subjects are moving much.

              Given how expensive glass is, you may want to try renting one and trying it out. If I recall correctly it would run you less that $50 for 4 days. I’ve found both lensrentals.com and borrowalense.com are both quite good to work with.

          • umeshrw

            I bought that 16-35 reading great reviews.( Nobody in my circle had it) I thought it would have atleast acceptable distortion levels compared to 14-24 which is fabulous. I was so disappointed at what I saw. The IQ is great but distortion is crazy considering the price. Also it is not so easy to correct in camera or even in post as they say in reviews. Almost impossible to use if tilted. I always wish I had bought 14-24. After this lens I stopped blindly believing reviews and wait till I actually can personally see a copy of equipment I wish to buy.

            • Justaddwater

              I’m not blindly taking reviews as scripture. I own the lens, and from 16 to about 20mm there is barrel distortion, but I happen to like the distortion from a creative perspective. Everybody isn’t going to use the lens in the same way I or you might use it. The 14-24 is one the best Nikon lenses you can buy. The 14-24 is in a class of its own not ment to be compared to the 16-35. Two different lenses for different purposes.

        • Steven Ng

          On D800, go to Auto distortion control -> ON

        • Csaba Molnár

          No offence, but I’m surprised that with your experience you know so little about optics. Besides, barrel distortion is a cinch to correct (hell, you can do it automatically at import if you shoot RAW, or in-camera if you shoot jpeg).

          • MinickPhotography

            Thanks. I know plenty about my gear…I generally don’t upgrade lenses on a regular basis…so started this thread looking for input before making an upcoming purchase…and got plenty of constructive criticism and some less helpful replies thru out. Thanks for your input and link to that review.

    • Merv S

      Wouldn’t a 17-55 FX f/2.8 lens be huge? The 17-55 DX f/2.8 is what, 750 grams, and already costs $1200-$1400

      • MinickPhotography

        Yeah the weight could definitely be an issue too. The 17-55 dx and my 17-35 are tanks. Weight aside if it was possible to build – which many say its not – I would definitely pay more for it given the range it would have. That and my 70-200 would cover most of my needs.

    • Csaba Molnár

      The 16-35mm F/4 isn’t getting great reviews? http://photographylife.com/lenses/nikon-af-s-nikkor-16-35mm-f4g-ed-vr

  • Nave

    This is strange since, I purchased a USA model of the 6.7-13mm at my local camera store last friday the 22nd of February.

  • Alfonso

    Some folks at DP forums already received their Nikkor 6.7-13mm f/3.5-5.6. Go overthere to see some user´s pictures with this lens.

  • Nave

    I purchased a USA model of the 6.7-13mm at a Seattle camera store on February 22nd. Must already be out.

    • Nave

      Sorry for the double post, my prior one didn’t show up till this one did. :)

      • Nave

        It was me that posted to DP forums. Am I the only one that got one?

        • PhotoAl

          I paid for mine already but I’m waiting for it to arrive. It shipped today and should be here on Thursday. I can’t wait!

        • PhotoAl

          I just looked at the tracking for my package. It looks like my lens is coming from Washington. I guess some shops there are releasing the lens early?

  • twoomy

    All I can say about the 18-35mm is COME TO PAPA! I pre-ordered through B&H and can’t wait for it. Yes, the 14-24 and 16-35 are fine, fine lenses, but I’m happy to get something smaller and lighter since 18mm is normally as wide as I care to go. This on my D600 will be a wonderfully light FX landscaper rig.

  • jake

    I tried a copy of the 18-35f3.5-4.5 at a Nikon SC and I thought it could be a very well done lens , at least it is as sharp as the 16-35f4Vr but without the terrible barrel distortion at wide end.
    Mine is coming to my house on 5th of March , I will compare it to my old 16-35f4VR and I will sell one I less like.

  • mazzy

    with the 16-35 VR F/4 on sales with rebate I don’t see any reason to even think about at 18-35 no VR, consumer construction at $750. For $200 you’ll lose 16mm, VR, Nano coating, PRO costruction. I don’t even get ’cause it is ever produced at all, want go cheap ? 16-35 F4-5.6, with decent border at least, small, cheap alternative at $500 Vs 16-35 F/4 VR at $1000…

  • Back to top