kanuck said:
Yes some very eye catching lenses in there for sure. I agree the 80-400 at F4 throughout the focal range would really be something. The cost would be very high I would imagine. Add to that the fact that it would have the newer improved focusing motor auto focus system, better VR and maybe even N coating and the lens would easily creep over $3,000. Talk about a useful lens though! 70-300 with F4 all the way would really be something as well just like Canon's lenses. Nikon has been missing this from their lineup for years. The 105mm F2 would be remarkable to imagine popping that on your F mount for portraits? Wow...

Canon doesn't have a 70-300 F4, it's a variable aperture L lens, and it's about twice the price of the Nikkor 70-300.

Yes some very eye catching lenses in there for sure. I agree the 80-400 at F4 throughout the focal range would really be something. The cost would be very high I would imagine. Add to that the fact that it would have the newer improved focusing motor auto focus system, better VR and maybe even N coating and the lens would easily creep over $3,000. Talk about a useful lens though! 70-300 with F4 all the way would really be something as well just like Canon's lenses. Nikon has been missing this from their lineup for years. The 105mm F2 would be remarkable to imagine popping that on your F mount for portraits? Wow...

The Man From Mandrem said:
16-70 seems interesting if build quality exceeds the 18-105 (high quality plastic), some good bokeh, wide aperture at portrait, and very sharp wide open. But how would it price vs. 16-85 and other lenses? If higher I think few will buy it. If lower, I worry how much of the above that lense will deliver.

Perhaps it is a 26-70 F/2.8 to F/4?

That would be reason enough, right?

TaoTeJared said:
Nikon AF-S DX VRII Zoom-Nikkor 16-70 f/3.5 seems just odd to me. The 18mm-70mmF/3.5-4.5 was a really good lens that was discontinued. The 16-85mm is a really great lens for a reasonable price as an upgrade to a kit lens and is better than the 17-70. Why this range (16-70mm) is back is beyond me. I seriously doubt it will be a fixed zoom.

The 16-85 might have been great optically, but that price is not all right at all. Nearly $700, and it's not significantly fast either.

Gareth said:
why can't you get it with the 200-400 f/4?

I can give you $7,000 reasons why I can't:) I meant by combining lens with TCs. I would love a 400mm VR that was faster than 5.6 and sharper than the current zooms.

TaoTeJared said:
I personally would prefer a 400mm F4 VR. Can't get that with anything Nikon has now.

why can't you get it with the 200-400 f/4?

i just searched to see if canon had an equivalent and saw this

http://www.canon.com/news/2011/feb07e.html

if the link is removed, the jist is;

canon 200-400 f/4 with built in 1.4 TC that can be turned on or off. In development to be released by the end of the year.

Nikon AF-S DX VRII Zoom-Nikkor 16-70 f/3.5 seems just odd to me. The 18mm-70mmF/3.5-4.5 was a really good lens that was discontinued. The 16-85mm is a really great lens for a reasonable price as an upgrade to a kit lens and is better than the 17-70. Why this range (16-70mm) is back is beyond me. I seriously doubt it will be a fixed zoom.

16-70 seems interesting if build quality exceeds the 18-105 (high quality plastic), some good bokeh, wide aperture at portrait, and very sharp wide open. But how would it price vs. 16-85 and other lenses? If higher I think few will buy it. If lower, I worry how much of the above that lense will deliver.

tcole1983 said:
I wasn't saying the 105 F2 was a macro, I was just pointing out that the macro would be a stop slower but serve a double use and probably be a better lens overall and it has VR.

I'm actually surprised as well - I thought the 135mm refresh would come first as most working pros are switching to FX. I have met only a few who like the DC lenses and many believe the 105 f2 is the sharpest lens Nikon has. If not anything, they have the 105 down pat.

I personally would prefer a 400mm F4 VR. Can't get that with anything Nikon has now. I can have a 280mm f4 with my 70-200vr and TC1.7 which works great and that is close enough to the 300mm for me.

TaoTeJared said:
+1 Gareth - We all know these will variable aperture lenses that maybe start at f/4.

The 105 f/2 is not the Macro - it is the refresh of the 105 f/2 DC (de-focus control) lens.

The 70-200mm f/4 is one of Canon's best sellers and Nikon owners have been desiring one since the 80-200mm f/4.0 & 70-150mm f/3.5 E-series lens where discontinued in the 80's. To think it wouldn't be a great seller would be ignoring what other brands offer. I know many shooters that stick with Canon because they can get high quality F/4 lenses without the price tag of the 2.8's. With the 16-35mm f/4 VR, 24-120mm f/4 VR and add a 70-200mm f/4 you would have one hell of a kit for roughly $3k. A 2.8 kit would be closer to $6k or twice as much & twice as heavier as well.

I wasn't saying the 105 F2 was a macro, I was just pointing out that the macro would be a stop slower but serve a double use and probably be a better lens overall and it has VR.

I never shot Canon, but the F4 fixed lenses do appeal to me. For those that want performance, but can't afford the pro level F2.8 lenses. As I said I would buy a reworked 300 F4 with VR.

+1 Gareth - We all know these will variable aperture lenses that maybe start at f/4.

The 105 f/2 is not the Macro - it is the refresh of the 105 f/2 DC (de-focus control) lens.

The 70-200mm f/4 is one of Canon's best sellers and Nikon owners have been desiring one since the 80-200mm f/4.0 & 70-150mm f/3.5 E-series lens where discontinued in the 80's. To think it wouldn't be a great seller would be ignoring what other brands offer. I know many shooters that stick with Canon because they can get high quality F/4 lenses without the price tag of the 2.8's. With the 16-35mm f/4 VR, 24-120mm f/4 VR and add a 70-200mm f/4 you would have one hell of a kit for roughly $3k. A 2.8 kit would be closer to $6k or twice as much & twice as heavier as well.

nikon would be crazy to release a 80-400 f/4 when they already have a 200-400 f/4. I can't believe no one has pointed it out already.

no chance of this lens. it would be huge, expensive and impractical.

a 70-300 f/4 might be alright if it was about the same size and price as a 70-200 2.8. but then it's competing, so not gonna happen.

I could maybe like the idea of the 70-200 F4. If it was around $1000 it could sell well if it was sharp like the 70-200 F2.8. I would think about it.

I think the 105 F2 is kind of redundant. I know the F2.8 is a macro lens, but that really just makes it more useful. Turn on the zoom lock so that it doesn't go into the macro range and you have a 1 stop slower lens at f2.8. Might not have VR as well. Guess most of these depend on the prices.

They will appeal to me more if I can afford any of them ;)

casperwb said:
this list does not make sense.

why would they do 35, 85 and 105 in f2 when you already have f1.8

70-200 f4 constant aperture ? why, just to make the lens cheaper, but slower, sales would be horrible.

70-300 and 80-400 f4, would probally be more expensive than the primes

This looks like a wish list of someone who's had too much coffee and is sitting up late at night dreaming.

The 35mm, 85mm (in non 1.4 variations) and 105mm primes all do not have AF-S.

Not sure why they're not in 1.8, but I'm sure if it's cheap enough no one's going to complain. And I'm sure there's an engineering reason behind that decision.

Canon has a 70-200 F4. I don't see why Nikon shouldn't have a cheaper and lighter 70-200. I would most certainly consider that lens if it existed.

70-300 F4 is iffy, but possibly doable, maybe in a large package?

80-400 F4 might be way too ungainly, but who knows? It's still due for an update.

Sales would not be horrible on that, casper. I dont know how you think that would be true. The market for cheaper, constant aperture long zooms is huge. Im not in that group, but Im not blind to the market. Maybe you should email Nikon to tell them how silly they're marketing plans are. :]

this list does not make sense.

why would they do 35, 85 and 105 in f2 when you already have f1.8

70-200 f4 constant aperture ? why, just to make the lens cheaper, but slower, sales would be horrible.

70-300 and 80-400 f4, would probally be more expensive than the primes

This looks like a wish list of someone who's had too much coffee and is sitting up late at night dreaming.

I'm not sure what the F/2 is all about. I haven't seen any patents for f/2 in anything but the 105, 135, 200 and the 35mm (all of which are already f/2 lenses). My guess the word "under" f/2 was missing in the info passed along.

TaoTeJared said:
I'm betting the only zoom that wouldn't be a variable aperture would be the Nikkor 70-200mm. I would seriously doubt to see Nano coating on any of them but maybe on the 80-400 as some have said it can flair bad.

The 80-400mm we have heard has been in the works for a while. The 70-300mm would just get the newer VR which shouldn't be too hard. The 85mm would be a much welcomed lens.

Patents are just that, and rarely come to fruition or are products released anytime soon after. I'm willing to bet you can find at least 3-4 different Nikon patents on a 50mm 1.2 lens over the years. I do remember seeing 80-400mm patents over a year ago. Maybe you could see a 1.2 in a year or two.

You're probably right- I was really interested in a 70-300 F4, until I realized how big that might be. A 70-200 F4 would be really nice, and if it doubles as a macro lens that'd be awesome too. Add the necessary VR and that might be a really great lens.

The 16-70 might be a cheaper alternative to the 16-85, good for folks who want the great optics but not the terrible pricing.

The 85mm F2 is a bit weird. Unless it's significantly cheaper than the 85mm 1.4, there wouldn't be a reason in producing it. Perhaps it's a replacement for the 1.8?

The 35mm might be in the same line as the 85mm F2, a cheaper alternative to the insanely expensive 1.4.

As long as the new 85 and 35 are FX, I might actually pick them both up along with the 70-200 if the price is nice enough as a graduation present!

God, and I thought Nikon's lens lineup couldn't get any better!

I'm betting the only zoom that wouldn't be a variable aperture would be the Nikkor 70-200mm. I would seriously doubt to see Nano coating on any of them but maybe on the 80-400 as some have said it can flair bad.

The 80-400mm we have heard has been in the works for a while. The 70-300mm would just get the newer VR which shouldn't be too hard. The 85mm would be a much welcomed lens.

smarterchild said:
I thought the 50 1.2 was on the list of up-incoming lenses.

Patents are just that, and rarely come to fruition or are products released anytime soon after. I'm willing to bet you can find at least 3-4 different Nikon patents on a 50mm 1.2 lens over the years. I do remember seeing 80-400mm patents over a year ago. Maybe you could see a 1.2 in a year or two.

>> The 80-400 could be interesting

Interesting, but not practical... at least not for me. What do you think are the chances of Nikon doing a 80-400mm f/4 CA for under $3,000? Slim to none, I'd say. I'd much rather they just update the current 80-400 to a motorized VR II version and keep it under $2k.

The 80-400 could be interesting, and maybe the 16-70. I agree about a new 300 f/4 with VR, I'd be most interested in that.

I thought the 50 1.2 was on the list of up-incoming lenses.

The 80-400 seems nice without the 4-5.6 stuff and the 105 F/2G would be a nice prime to have.

None that are grabbing my attention.

Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4G IF-ED N
Nikon AF-S VRII Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4 IF-ED
Nikon AF-S VRII Micro-Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 IF-ED N
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/2G
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/2G
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/2G
Nikon AF-S DX VRII Zoom-Nikkor 16-70 f/3.5

I would buy a redone 300 f4 with VR :(