< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Correction: the new 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 will be a DX lens

Nikon-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-300mm-f3.5-5.6G-ED-VR
Correction on my last post - the upcoming new 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 will be a DX lens, probably a smaller, lighter and cheaper replacement (550 g/20 oz) for the current Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G DX model (830 g/29 oz).

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

    6.3? so DX cameras will AF at this aperture? I suspect firmware update coming to existing bodies?

  • doge

    boring

  • FrenchGuy

    Make it 10-600mm f/2.8 and I’m in !

    • Mike

      Only if it’s a pancake and FX compatible…

    • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

      And 600g. No, that’s unrealistic. 800g.

    • Tony

      Nano coating everywhere with built in ND filters!

    • Jordan

      Built in tele converter please!

  • ereshoping

    Shame Nikon cant put some effort into a prime wide angle for Dx at a reasonable price.

    • http://z7photo.com/ Csaba

      Shame that Nikon can’t put any effort in the DX line-up – both zooms and primes.

      • Esa

        Sigma is helping us…

    • Mansgame

      Kind of weird that they want to make a profit.

      • preston

        They have sold over 750,000 of the 35mm f/1.8 DX compared to less than 30,000 of the 35mm f/1.4 FX. Nikon knows there is more than enough demand to make a profit on high quality but low cost DX primes. They are just too greedy and are trying to force everyone up to invest in FX.

    • nikclick

      I lov my 16-85 VR & 24-120 f/4 VR

      Wish there was a 16-85 /4 VR or 2.8 ,so it can go with my 70-200 f/2.8

      I honestly think 70-300 VR is what needed a refresh now to compete with Tamron 70-300 VC.

      A new 70-300 VRIII would have been a welcome choice if they wated one more consumer lens than the recent 18-140 VR :(

      • nikclick

        Or they could have given a 150-500 VR DX to compliment 18-140 VR

  • http://z7photo.com/ Csaba

    This is unbelievable – another 18-300??? Where are the DX primes Nikon? Although I’m not planning to replace my aging d7000 before the end of this year, I’m more and more certain I won’t spend more money on a Nikon. I’ll keep my d800 and FX lenses for the foreseeable future (at least the next 3 years) but for my backup/secondary system, I’ll go for a company that actually understand what serious amateurs or professionals need for an APS-C system – fast, small lenses primes and better zoom options. Apart from the 35mm F/1.8 DX lens, we got very little, almost nothing.

    And no, for a secondary system I don’t want FX lenses on a DX camera. I want smallish, dedicated DX lenses – for my personal projects or smaller jobs, travel, etc. With the Fuji X-T1 closing the gap in terms of AF-C performance, I think I know where I’m heading for my next purchase.

    • Mansgame

      Maybe you aren’t aware that DX is dying and will only be for the soccermom camera. You should just man up and move on to FX.

      • http://z7photo.com/ Csaba

        Great reading skills man :)

        • Mansgame

          I can read just fine. You’re saying you want a quality DX lens and don’t want the extra 8 ounces that a 50mm FX prime has over a 50mm DX lens. Why would you even need a prime lens in the first place? Are you a serious photographer who wants quality? Then move on to FX.

          • http://z7photo.com/ Csaba

            Ok

            • zorwick

              Hagyd rá :)

          • manhattanboy

            I shoot with both a crop and a full frame camera, many times simultaneously. They have different uses, and I would argue that in hand-held distance shooting the DX camera easily trumps an FX camera.

            • AM I Am

              Now, that’s funny. April’s fool’s day was yesterday by the way.

            • manhattanboy

              There is no joke in there, sorry to disappoint. There is only so much cropping you can do on a full frame before the results are superior from a DX camera. Maybe you never shoot anything at a distance like BIF or sports, but some of use like bigger pictures rather than tiny crops. If I can, I will shoot full frame. But if it is too far then I switch to the DX and a tele lens to get as much reach as I can to prevent excessive cropping in post.

            • Mansgame

              They don’t have “different uses”. DX was cheaper. That was the ONLY use it had.

            • manhattanboy

              Show me a hand holdable full frame set-up that gives me 600mm equivalent, which I can easily do with the 7100 and a 300 lens.

            • preston

              How do you get 600mm equiv from a 300mm lens? The crop factor is 1.5x, so therefore 450mm equiv. .

          • nwcs

            But if you’re *really* a serious photographer you should use large format film and show off your amazing photographic prowess.

            • Mansgame

              I know you’re trying to discredit what I said about FX, but there WAS a lot of truth to what you said in the film days. Stephen Shore’s beautiful color photography was done in large format in the 70′s and it rivals today’s D800 pictures in terms of clarity, color, and dynamic range.

              Stephen Shore however didn’t deal with fast moving subjects in low light so any modern FX camera would beat his camera of the time for certain photography.

              Now days the serious tools are FX and MF. and the pros decide which works for their needs but there is no popular digital large format camera. Is there?

            • Art

              I agree. Serious photographers only shoot 8×10. Everything else is for wannabees…

            • Art

              I should point out that anybody who can’t get 8FPS from an 8×10 to shoot sports or BIF, clearly hasn’t practiced enough.

          • Scott M

            Please, practically no one is specifically complaining that there isn’t a DX 50mm f/1.8. We’re all complaining that there isn’t a DX prime with any of the following focal lengths: 28mm, 24mm, 18mm, 16mm. Now, I’m not expecting all of those, but are two of those too much to ask?

          • preston

            Since Csaba is too polite to tell you, the reading skills problem of yours he is referring to is that he already said he has a D800 and FX lenses for it. So quit being a moron telling him to move on to FX.

      • kotozafy

        DX dying ? And beside the existing 18-105 and 18-200, Nikon just added one 18-140, and TWO 18-300 ! Nikon is wasting too much time issuing useless duplicates, just as the “new” AF-S 50mm 1.8

        • Tankerman

          Fuji doesn’t seem to think that DX is dying, particularly if you produce high quality optical & mechanical lenses.

          • Mansgame

            Because everybody knows Fuji is a powerhouse. They recently were on the brink of going bankrupt after their film business died. Just because a few famous photographers are getting paid to pimp the new mirrorless stuff they have doesn’t mean they’re a serious camera. Unless you start seeing Fuji cameras used by wedding or sports photographers, they’re not even in the conversation.

            • Moe Ron

              Apparently you have no clue about anything you talk about. Fuji’s main business is not cameras. Think of Fuji’s camera arm as a hobby, like many people that buy APS-C.

        • UnknownTransit

          Nope, the markets dedicates what Nikon brings to the table. I suspect this to be a cheaper lens than the current 18-300mm which will likely grab consumer attention. The majority of them don’t go on NR to whine.

          • PeterO

            Possibly, but why didn’t they make this lens in the first place? Someone screwed up by thinking that the soccer mom/dad market would go for a $1,000 lens. Wrong. Now they’re correcting that misstep by offering what Tamron figured out before them.

        • manhattanboy

          Nikon now only releases lenses where no updates are needed, like another 50mm, etc.

        • AM I Am

          Somebody must be buying them as Nikon seems to be focused on updating them.

      • nwcs

        You know that DX outsells FX by over 10 to 1, right?

        • Mansgame

          How much was it 5 years ago? 50 to 1 (making up numbers is fun)? Technology always improves and photographers who want quality want FX. Once the price falls below a critical mass, your number is going to change dramatically. It’s already starting.

          • nwcs

            Most people are price conscious. FX will likely never outsell DX which will always be cheaper. For enthusiasts it may be a bit different but the majority of people don’t care. They buy based on price.

            And there are many reasons people may not want FX. The majority being that there is little visible difference in the ways most people consume images: online.

            • Mansgame

              I agree, but DX will be the absolute entry level camera’s sensor.

            • umeshrw

              As nikon or canon do not put any efforts in their DX sensors this certainly seems to be the case. Fuji on the other hand ………. Of course the absolute deciding difference between Fx and Dx is always going to be there but if the big two had put some heart in it the gap would have been less.

            • manhattanboy

              The current Nikon 24mp DX sensor is outstanding! I find that many lenses are not capable of meeting the requirements of that sensor, so I have to respectfully disagree with your statements that the DX sensors are garbage.

            • umeshrw

              Not garbage. Just not what they could have been. Check out the noise levels of 7000 or 7100 as compared to that of D300s for example. It’s a case of intentional cripling.

            • Buz9er

              I have both (the D7100 ans the D300s) and there is a HUGE difference in noise at given ISO settng. Advantage D7100. Even at per-pixel sampling

            • umeshrw

              I don’t know what to say. My experience says otherwise. Then Dxo mark confirmed it afterwards. Not to mention the ease with which I could tweak the D300s images was better than that of 7100. Not by much but it was there.

            • Buz9er

              You mean the DXOMark comparison between the D7100 and the D300s were the D300s is broken into tiny pièces in every aspect?

              http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7100-versus-Nikon-D300s___865_614

              I use my D7100 and my D600 for everything; I love my D300s, but it now sits in the closet forever; I’m keeping it because I’m sentimental :)

            • preston

              For you, or for everybody? Because I love my m4/3 camera and nice set of primes for family and casual shots for facebook and such and only use my Nikon FX stuff for professional and personal projects.

            • umeshrw

              I think you just confirmed mansgame’s statement. — for family and casual shots for facebook and such and only use my Nikon FX stuff for professional and personal projects –

      • Patrick O’Connor

        There sure are a lot of DX cameras out there for something that’s “dying.” I shoot with an FX camera but there’s nothing wrong with shooting with DX or wanting lighter,smaller, less expensive lenses for it.

      • DaveyJ

        Our team shoots DX in PREFERENCE to FX. I doubt very much if you could run with our team in terms of physical stamina but if you can ,great! But I’ll take a DX Nikon over a FX Nikon due as much to anything if you really are shooting in the FIELD weight is a real factor. In what we do actually 1080p Go Pro is the standard camera excepting the media which is huge pro gear and video is all they do. If DX is dying apparently Nikon is unaware of that. Nikon is taking a POUNDING in some trendy cameras that are NOT FX. YES we would like to use FX also but the weight penalty is pretty heavy. Also the FX glass is some of it very pricey.

  • Anzel Addams

    Just what the world of DX needed :-/

  • Mansgame

    Well that’s just great. Now uncle bob can laugh at the wedding photographer for having only a 70-200 lens “Is that all you got?? mine goes all the way to 300mm! “

    • AM I Am

      I once heard a person next to me say that her 300mm lens was really 450mm.

      • Mansgame

        Must have been one of those DX people who think it magically gives them extra zoom.

      • Gasman

        Ha ha! Let us make fun of uneducated people!

  • Carlos

    I can’t believe Nikon make this things! DX users needs more quality lenses! DX user needs 16-70mm 2.8, or 14-35mm 2.8, 16-85mm 2.8 !!!!

    • Robert

      Or why not an excellent low weight 18-55/2.8-4 similar to what Fuji provides for their X-mount? I guess it needs to be a bit bigger and heavier being F-mount Dx, unless Nikon comes up with the idea to make something similar to the Fuji X-series (i.e. mirrorless APS-C).

      • Carlos

        Nowadays DX shooters have to buy more expensive DX lenses because lack of fast DX zooms ou FX primes…Or buy Tamron / Sigma glasses.

        • Carlos

          I mean FX lenses because lack ou fast DX zooms…

  • kotozafy

    16-55mm 2.8 VR please!

    • zorwick

      hahahahaha

      • MB

        No it isn’t there, optically it is an average lens at extreme price nothing anyone would want

        • zorwick

          I have it and I am very happy with it.

          • MB

            Good for you and lucky few that own it … but most people just would not pull 1400$ for it … and on used market it goes down to 500$ … it just isn’t a seller any more …

  • nwcs

    Why not just make a dedicated DX bridge camera for all this is doing? Nikon must have a serious addiction to slow consumer zooms…

  • Dpablo unfiltered

    More whine!

  • http://500px.com/yoan_mitov/ Yoan

    And just when I thought there won’t be any more DX superzooms for a while… Ta-da!

  • Joseph Li

    OMG…..nikon dx supezoom guy gotta get fired asap…enough with the 18-xxx

  • Greg Heller

    I guess the previous version doesn’t sell too well at almost $1000, it’s only been 20 months since it was announced

  • Rhonbo

    Nikon continues to make it clear that we need to go to full frame if we want a full lens set (think wide primes). Of course it’s not just Nikon it’s the whole industry that refuses to give DX users the missing lenses (and good ones at that). Funny how the biggest selling format DX is the only format that does not have a complete lens set of pro grade primes (wide) and zooms (FF lenses don’t quite cut it at normal to wide focal lengths).
    To Sigma’s credit they do offer a few pro grade zooms for DX.

    • Guest

      Fuji tho

  • BeckyEasy

    I have Great News…Flim Flopwell has already reviewed this lens…and Flim Flopwell said it is the best lens ever! Great walk around lens..even better than the 18-200 dx.

    • zorwick

      hahahahahah

  • PeterO

    I think that pretty well nails the coffin shut for anyone still hoping for a “Pro Dx”.

    • MyrddinWilt

      How did you work that out? The pro cameras don’t sell with kit lenses and this is rather obviously a kit lens or a first separate purchase lens.

      The logical lens for a Pro DX camera would be the 80-400 VR since most of the people who would want a 36MP DX body are going to be birders. For lower resolutions the DX mode of the D800 has that range covered.

      I have no idea why so many people spend so much time talking down other people’s gear.

      • PeterO

        I should have expanded on my comment MyrddinWilt. I was commenting on the fact that Nikon is spending a lot of time and resources reiterating already existing equipment which is obviously aimed at the lower DX lines. This time and resource could be aimed at creating a superb Pro DX much like the D300 was in its day. To my mind it shows that Nikon is after the new DSLR buyer and not interested in the buyers that it has already hooked. On occasion I use DX bodies with my FX lenses and find it exactly what I need for extra reach. I wasn’t talking down anyone’s equipment. To me it’s just that – equipment. There were a few of us recently shooting a college basketball tournament and using DX to get extra reach at the other end of the court. I’m getting tired of lugging huge lenses around. The 80-400 wouldn’t work for me as I find myself shooting wide open at f2.8 to get enough shutter speed.

  • manhattanboy

    According to Nikon’s website they are calling this the “Nikkor Superslow Superzoom” for DX cameras. Glad they are responding to customers’ needs.

    • xtt2

      Superslow?? slow in focus?

      • manhattanboy

        They have slowed the aperture. Most cheap cameras can’t focus well at that tiny of an aperture, so yes, it will be slow. In general, the focusing gets more accurate as the aperture approaches 2.8 because of the physically larger cone of light coming into the AF system.

        • JXVo

          More accurate AND faster

  • Marktim

    Oh NO!!!!!!
    Not another one!

  • Capt. Ahab

    Here’s a lens Big Box retail can sell to the last few DSLR newcomers. Hard to overlook that insidious “6.3″. SIX POINT THREE. Sigma and Tamron have done it on budget kit, but wasn’t the last f6.3 lens from Nikon the 1959 1000mm? This feels significant, somehow…

  • Kynikos

    “Cheaper”, I doubt.

  • Guy With-camera

    Woop. Tea. Doo. Ever since I moved up to FX, my life has changed for he better.

  • lobsterhat

    Yay, more superzooms!!!! With variable aperture technology!!!! Way to push the envelope with such visionary concepts!!!

    What is the NEXT lens or camera they will add such earth shattering minor increments too??????? I can’t wait!!!!!

    I bet its going to be a 35mm or 85mm 1.8g in Df style – that would really make a difference in what you can do.

  • Moe Ron

    …and this is why I just moved to Fuji. Tired of waiting on Nikon to make quality primes for DX. The 14, 23, 35 combo has been lovely.

  • Peter Drage

    Nikon need to focus on creating a 16-50 f2.8 & 50-150 f2.8 for their DX System. Love my FX with 2.8 Glass but I would love a lighter option.

  • mosswings

    Considering that the 18-300 was a big heavy chunk of melted sand that wasn’t super great, this lens seems more appropriate for what Nikon thinks the typical DX user prefers – smaller, lighter lenses, and smaller bodies that don’t handle heavy snoots of lenses hanging off of them. If the D2300 is real, this would make a lot of sense, and the f6.3 actually does work on existing f5.6 bodies…just not as reliably. On something like the D7100, with its f8 central sensor, it works just fine, and if the D2300 is on-sensor PDAF, it’ll work fine there, too.

  • ShaoLynx

    T.I.M. says: What a correction on NR?!
    So, Peter NR isn’t perfect after all? What has the world come to…
    Wow, wait a minute: a DX lens? Nah, don’t care…
    LOL
    (Is it obvious enough now that this was a little joke? Since. T.I.M. No longer posts here, we have to make due with what we’ve got)

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      This one really got lost in transition :)

  • Mark

    What a good idea! ANOTHER 18-whatever zoom lens! What a good investment of time by Nikon! Such daring! Such good choice! Who ever would want anything else? 16mm dix? or even wider? a 56mm 1.2 for DX?.. Something… I don’t know.. USEFULL and reasonably priced for DX?

  • Arthur Tazo

    Would have preferred it to be a 18-300mm f/1.2 VRII FX lens.

  • http://htmlspinnr.smugmug.com/ Rick Johnson

    Crap, time to sell my existing 18-300 before the new one kills the value. Too heavy, and IQ is only good for soccer-mom photos.

  • Fred Flintstone

    Ok we get the message Nikon, DX is for the traveller/hobbyist. So who exactly is the Nikon 1 for then?

  • http://www.gradyphoto.com/ Pete Grady

    More proof that Nikon is abandoning DX pro/semi-pro. Why so few fast primes for DX?

  • Espen4u

    Depressing, but I bet this lens will outsell the FX 58 by a wide margin.

  • shieldwulf

    A smaller and lighter 18-300mm DX that goes from f/3.5 to… a mediocre f/6.3!!! Um … I’d rather recommend getting a 70-300mm, or just go for a Tamron 18-270mm. Personally, I don’t see any point in developing such a product, which is a waste of R&D and production bandwidth, rehashing mediocre in-betweens and confusing everybody as a result. No thank you.

  • Back to top