msmoto said:
I do wonder what your nickname means, however. Oh, check on the "Security when shooting at night" thread as I see you are into dogs.....,

My nick means I am an atheist. And yes, I like dogs. Lovely species, that.

One thing I would expect to come in on the light side is weight. The 35mm f/1.4 is a top-of-the-line lens in Nikon's mind (and in mine too) and they were not ashamed to use high-quality plastic for the barrel. Some people will complain about the feel but I expect Nikon researched the target demographic quite carefully. So I think they'll make this as light as possible, eschewing the heavier construction materials of my beloved 135 f/2.

Guessing may be foolish, but I'm surprised how the price guesses are all-over-the-map. I have no opinion, but I thought that those who did have opinions would find consensus.

$1500-1600 based on the other 1.8G lenses and the 105 F2.8.

msmoto said:
This thread is absolutely without merit..... but funny...

+1

Godless said:
How come? Is this not what a Nikon forum is for?

I would hope to find more factual into rather than just ppl pulling stuff from their...

I agree it is humorous to guess.

OK, More guessing. This lens will weigh in at about 35 oz if constructed like the 135mm f/2.0. Or, if they use the newer materials, it could be a bit less. But with a filter size of 77mm, this is a huge lens. I do not know how much weight VR actually adds, but it must be something. It is the basic design which suggests the megabucks like TTJ has hinted at. WIth 15 elements in 9 groups, compared with the current 135mm f/2.0 which has 7 elements in 6 groups, it is almost a given it will be nearly twice what the current lens costs. That would be $2700.

So, I am still in the $2000 plus range. Go look at the patent....

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20120050872.pdf

the canon 135mm 2.0 is $1000

the nikon 135mm 1.8 is $3500...

i think just under $2000 is a good guess.

Godless said:
How come? Is this not what a Nikon forum is for?

Humor, but I agree, the forum is to allow us to "shoot the breeze" and enjoy each other's opinions without malice. What I am referring to (I think) is that we are all just speculating on something which may not ever materialize. But you are right on, that is exactly what the thread is for. I guess that is why I am posting a reply.

Actually, I need to go so I can start holding my breath for the new toys coming soon....

Appreciate your comments Godless. I do wonder what your nickname means, however. Oh, check on the "Security when shooting at night" thread as I see you are into dogs.....,

msmoto said:
This thread is absolutely without merit.....

How come? Is this not what a Nikon forum is for?

DutchNikon said:
mm Its gonna be intresting.

Sony / Carl Zeiss make a 135mm F1.8 that sels in the US for around $1600,-

Comparing prices for s 85mm 1.4 from Sony, and from Nikon , there is also not a huge difference between those..
So Nikon might just want to sell the 135mm 1.8 (if it ever comes...) also not to far off from Sony....

Yup, but I think the VR function is in the Sony camera not in the lens....

And somehow I think if Nikon brings out a fancy piece of glass like this with a 77mm front filter ring... just like a 24mm, f/1.4 and the 24mm is about $2400 without VR, and another $1000 for VR, well there you have it.... $3395.95

This thread is absolutely without merit..... but funny...

Gareth said:
there's no way it will cost the same as a 200/2. the main reason people will buy it is that it will be smaller and faster than the 70-200. may be the best reason yet for me to sell mine.

I too, look forward in seeing this bad boy come to life. As for price, I tend to be leaning on TTJ offer :P

Whichever every way this turns out, I will never sell my 70-200 2.8 for it.

mm Its gonna be intresting.

Sony / Carl Zeiss make a 135mm F1.8 that sels in the US for around $1600,-

Comparing prices for s 85mm 1.4 from Sony, and from Nikon , there is also not a huge difference between those..
So Nikon might just want to sell the 135mm 1.8 (if it ever comes...) also not to far off from Sony....

TaoTeJared said:
Just couldn't sleep tonight, it will be a hell of a monday.

Figure currently:
135mm is $1,400
70-200 is $2,400
85mm 1.4 is $1,700
35mm 1.4 is $1,700

VR about $1,000, f/1.8 another $1,000, Nano, etc. etc. $400. = $3,800 and that's my final offer! ;)

I'm sticking to $3395.95.

Just couldn't sleep tonight, it will be a hell of a monday.

Figure currently:
135mm is $1,400
70-200 is $2,400
85mm 1.4 is $1,700
35mm 1.4 is $1,700

VR about $1,000, f/1.8 another $1,000, Nano, etc. etc. $400. = $3,800 and that's my final offer! ;)

Opps, Godless, sorry I was editing my post, but please see above.

msmoto said:
OK, we will see how all this nonsense comes out. I am hoping it will be at around $800, sharper than my 135mm f/2.0 and be available soon....... not holding my breath, however....

I guess the price will be less than 2k, because Nikon already has enough too expensive pro primes which make less sense (businesswise) than cheaper, yet optically excellent primes which people buy by the truckloads. Around 2k is still affordable for many people.

Even if the updated version came out without VR, I´d still be tempted for weight reasons alone. The 200/2 is too expensive, bulky and heavy to carry around all day unless you are a silverback.

I guess I´ll have to get a Canon rig, while I wait for Nikon to release the new 135 AND the 400/5.6 which I have been waiting for as well.

Up kinda early, huh, TTJ? And, I am upping the anti.... to match you.... this is a $3,000-5,000 lens most likely kinda like the 200f/2.0. It always amazes me when one goes from 1.8 to 1.4, or 2.0 to 1.8. or 2.8 to 2.0, the almost doubling in cost. Thus another calculation is $2800 plus VR at $500, mmmm... $3300. Are we going to get a pool going? Ha, ha, ha.

DutchNikon said:
mmm Not so sure about that, it looks like Nikon is working on a xx 1.8 range that's affordable now.. :

28mm 1.8 affordable ?? / patent stage...)
35mm 1.8 affordable / realy cheap
50mm 1,8 affordable / realy cheap
85mm 1.8 affordable / just outside realy cheap for the offerred goods.. :-)
135mm 1.8 Affordable ?? / Patent stage ..

I truly hope this is an ongoing patern.... :-)

1.8 at this range is not even in the same league as a the other 1.8s. There is a huge difference in optics and is a whole different ballgame.

I'm with Msmoto on this one as well. I think it would add at least $1000. VR, 1.8, Nano coating, afs, etc.

Of course it is just a patent - There are over 500 patent submissions just in the last 3 years - Not many ever make it to market. Nikon is a patent company - they file everything even if they have no intentions to make it just so no one else could of has to pay them for the rights to use it.

Anyone else remember the 85mm 1.4 VR? That patent was filed as well - around 3 years ago before the release of the 85mm 1.4 G was released.

The problem with the teleconverter issue is in the rear element of the lens. And, my guess is the new 135 f.1.8 would most likely have the same problem as the f/2.0. The rear element hits the teleconverter, thus destroying both if inadvertently used incorrectly.

El_Pickerel said:
"different" option... it has a tripod collar, but it also can't be a 135mm f/1.8, and it lacks VR.

True, but the 135mm F1.8 could never become a 600mm F8 either (300mm + TC20E III). As for VR, meh.

I absolutely love the 135 f/2 DC. This lens would have to absolutely knock my socks off for me to upgrade. Even the stuff I should hate about the f/2, irrationally I've somehow decided I love. It's not "heavy", it's "solid". It doesn't "only open up to f/2", rather, it "intelligently chooses f/2 as the jumping-off point for DC". Blah blah blah.

I hope this new lens serves a happy market. I'm likely going to keep cuddling what I have.

PB PM said:
Of course the 300mm F4 is a better option because it has a tripod foot for improved stability.

"different" option... it has a tripod collar, but it also can't be a 135mm f/1.8, and it lacks VR.

Of course the 300mm F4 is a better option because it has a tripod foot for improved stability.

It'd also be great if it could accept a teleconverter... if it went well with the TC-20Eiii that combination would be more tempting than the current AF-S 300mm f/4

DutchNikon said:
mmm Not so sure about that, it looks like Nikon is working on a xx 1.8 range that's affordable now.. :

28mm 1.8 affordable ?? / patent stage...)
35mm 1.8 affordable / realy cheap
50mm 1,8 affordable / realy cheap
85mm 1.8 affordable / just outside realy cheap for the offerred goods.. :-)
135mm 1.8 Affordable ?? / Patent stage ..

I truly hope this is an ongoing patern.... :-)

Yes, I have the new 85mm f/1.8 and it is really nice. But the 135mm f/2.0 was almost $1400, and no VR. SO, faster add about $500 + VR, another $500 and there you have it.... And as TaoTeJared said... maybe even another mega buck lens over $3000. I think the jump from 1.8 to 2.0 is really big and with the VR added......

OK, we will see how all this nonsense comes out. I am hoping it will be at around $800, sharper than my 135mm f/2.0 and be available soon....... not holding my breath, however....

jerl said:
I would doubt that a 135/1.8 VR would go for less than $2000, with $2500 as a more realistic estimate I would say.

mmm Not so sure about that, it looks like Nikon is working on a xx 1.8 range that's affordable now.. :

28mm 1.8 affordable ?? / patent stage...)
35mm 1.8 affordable / realy cheap
50mm 1,8 affordable / realy cheap
85mm 1.8 affordable / just outside realy cheap for the offerred goods.. :-)
135mm 1.8 Affordable ?? / Patent stage ..

I truly hope this is an ongoing patern.... :-)