Lenses rumor

This is from a rather unusual source - Google groups. According to this source  a lot of "big guns" are coming next from Nikon (all FX):

Nikkor AF-S VR-II 200mm f1.8D
Nikkor AF-S VR-II 300mm f2D
Nikkor AF-S VR-II 400mm f2.5D
Nikkor AF-S VR-II 70-200mm f2.5D

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

    I personally do not put much credit into this rumor. The biggest issue for me is that they are all listed as “D” type lenses and not “G”.

    It would appear to me that if it were Nikons intent to revert back to the “D” type lens, they would not have just produced the prime AF-S 50mm in a “G” type. It seems that this also would have been in a “D” type if this was going to be their direction.

    This is highly suspect!

    • fotomik

      Oh, good catch. Hwo many AF-S lenses are “D”-type anyways? Do they exclude each other?

      • fan

        not sure how many, but at least one:
        AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D

      • Anonymous

        Don’t forget
        AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8D
        AF-S 80-200/2.8 D IF-ED
        AF-S 300/2.8 D IF-ED
        AF-S 300/2.8 D IF-ED II
        AF-S 300mm f/4D ED IF
        AF-S 400/2.8 D IF-ED
        AF-S 400mm f/2.8D IF ED II
        AF-S 500/4 D IF-ED
        AF-S 500/4 D IF-ED II
        AF-S 600/4 D IF-ED
        AF-S 600/4 D IF-ED II

      • George

        Well…both yes and no.
        Stirctly speaking, AF-S actually has nothing to do with D-type though, while G-type lenses is inclusive of D (ie. it also relays distance information)

        It’s been mentioned in Nikon’s lenses bronchure here:

        It’s also worth noting that all AF-S lenses are either D- ot G-types, so in other words all AF-S lenses in effect has the feature of a D-type.

      • Michael-Heinrich

        D-type lenses provide Distance information for metering since F90/N90 in 1992.
        All the AF-S lenses are D-type.
        G-type lenses are all AF-S.
        Recent G-type lenses do not have “D” on them, since all of them are.
        But “ED” is still on the lenses equipped with ED (Extra-low Dispersion) elements, not to confuse with D.

    • savvo

      Seems eminently sensible to keep the ‘D’s going at the high end. There’s probably a significant number of pro’s out there who prefer an aperture ring. I certainly think it’s a glaring omission from the new 50/1.4

  • fotomik

    Yyyyaaawwwnnn. As if 80% of Nikons userbase could care less.

    (Okay, as if I could care less. But would you buy 40% of users?)

    But on the other hand, f:2.5 zooms? Now that’s original, never even heard rumors about that.

    Maybe an AF-S VR 24mm f:2.5 should be in order also… ;D

    • Henry Nikon Fan

      This also is an excellent point, who will be purchasing these types of lenses and in what quantities.

      The only lens that makes any sense to me is the AF-S VR II 70-200mm and only if the corners are more sharp on a FX body than the current model.

      Also I would hope that the f/2.5 makes the lens with less weight.

      If these items are not addressed, then why design this lens again.

  • fotomik

    A faster maximum aperture a lens less weigh does not, young apprentice. Quite the opposite actually.

    • Henry Nikon Fan

      True, but one can hope!

  • Zoetmb

    This has got to be a joke. Aside from the “D” issue, the posting claims that the filter size for the 300mm will be 158mm!!!. 158mm!!???? Nikon’s largest current lens takes a 77mm filter.

    This fits in the category of Nikon introducing “something BIG” at WPPI, which turns out to be a Blues Traveller concert.

    • Zoetmb

      One other point about the D/G lenses: Especially on expensive lenses, I do think it was stupid for Nikon to eliminate the aperture ring. How much manufacturing cost could possibly be saved – a few dollars? While I think people over-criticize the “G” lenses (because on modern cameras, the ring has to be locked anyway), I think Nikon should keep the aperture ring if only to silence critics who have an emotional attachment to the ring. And it could get a few more sales to those people who want to use the lens on an F2 or F3 or whatever.

    • Bucko

      Actually, all the long lenses use snap-in filters, so the front diameter would be irrelevant.

      In fact, 300/2 Nikkor did exist in the past. It was a special order lens produced in very low quantities (a few hundreds altogether). It was also rather expensive as you can imagine from a special order lens. It came with it’s own specially constructed 1.4x teleconverter, with serial numbers matching the lens’.

      So while it is theoretically possible that Nikon would reintroduce this lens but the rest of the list makes it all pure fake. Would Nikon release 4 lenses under current economics where at least three would run for minimum $5-6k? I highly doubt. Though, there is the D3X also…

  • lox

    This is pure fake. How to handle a 200 f/1.8? Regardless of it’s weight of 3.6 kg – it would cost not less than 6k EUR. What is the main advantage of this beast over the old 200/2? I don’t see any.

    Same story with 300 f/2. The diameter had to increase by 40%, compared to a f/2.8 model. That would make it twice as heavy, and 4 times more expensive. I don’t see a chance for that one.

    Good point also: No more D Lenses. All new or updated Lenses came as G models. Why now walk the opposite way?

    It’s fake, that’s for sure.

  • Looks more like a wish list than a rumor… I would bust it out of the way!

  • Henry Nikon Fan

    I think there is some truth to the fact that all future pro and semi-pro camera bodies will be FX based and not DX based. More and more I hear and read that this will soon be a total reality.

    I have just sold my 17-55mm DX and will sell my 10.5mm DX and 12-24mm DX lens soon. I have also just purchased a 24-70mm and will use it on my D300. I will wait for the next replacement of the D700 and purchase that. Or if the price is too high for the newer model, I will simply purchase a D700 then.

    I think that DX will remain for many years to come, but only at consumer level and nothing above that.

    • You may hear it “more and more,” but that could just be from the same few people saying it over and over…

      • Anonymous

        Going to agree with you on that one. It seems to be same extreme people saying about FX over and over again.

  • bigmouth

    hmmm, i wonder if canon release a L lens with no USM in it…

    DX is dead? That is like to say God is dead, except the rumor giver is not exactly Nietzsche. He’s a bit crazy nonetheless.

    • Henry Nikon Fan

      I don’t think that DX is dead, just that it will remain at the consumer level. It has been years since a new pro DX lens has been developed. Most all of the current DX lenses that are available are not pro level lenses.

      • i understand the point about the DX Lenses, but quite frankly from a professional standpoint it doesn’t make sence to completely eleminate the DX Camera bodies (even from the Semi-Pro market). Most pro’s (and Semi-Pro’s) using the DX Body D300 are using FX Lenses anyway, so there is no true reason to continue developtment of DX Lenses outside the Consumer market where people are more concerned with Size and Weight. but in the Pro and Semi-Pro market, too many people rely on the 1.5x crop factor built into the DX body. Sports Photographers, Nature Photographers, Etc. So many people who have come into the industry with Digital and are accustomed to what a 50mm Lens looks like on a DX digital camera, simply will not be happy with how it looks on a FX body because they dont want it that wide. just like when people who had been photographers for years when the Digital tansition came and they couldn’t get used to the fact that their lenses acted differently…

        no, there will always be a place for a DX body in the (at least) Semi-Pro market, to remove that would be (IMHO) a very bad decision and a mistake on Nikon’s part.

        • Tob

          As the total pixel number will keep increasing over the years, the advantage of the DX sized sensors will melt away. The 24MiP FX sensor already carries a 10 MiP DX sensor. So “soon” there won’t be reason left to use a 12-16MiP DX sensor. (when the 20+ sensor make their way into non straight pro bodies.)

          The only case where I can see a new DX sensor to be released in the future, is when the current silicon is replaced by something else. Maybe that black silicon that was discovered recently, maybe something else.
          But here it might make sense to start with smaller sensors again.

          • Sloaah

            It still remains that DX has both a price advantage and size advantage. Something in the form of the D40, but with an FX sensor and still at a low price is far-fetched. While sensor technology will continue to get cheaper, DX will always be less expensive.

            Secondly, as FX sensors increase in pixel density, they will out-resolve lenses in corner sharpness. Meanwhile, DX cameras can increase pixel density with fewer side effects, as it higher pixel density is required to fully resolve lenses in the centre of the frame.

            Another problem with FX is autofocus; the D300 has af points spread right across the frame, but the D3 and D700 have these closely bunched in the centre. This issue is not likely to be solved soon, as it has always been a problem, and while it is not a deal killer for most, some will prefer DX as a result.

  • replace D with G

    the only one that seems credible is the update to the “old” 70-200mm. It is a great lens but with the 14-24, 24-70 performing so much better on FX (since they are newer and were designed with FX in mind), the 70-200 is surely high on the list of updates. f/2.5 would be interesting but doubtful

  • Macxtor

    This must be pure fake. Why all those crazy zooms when most people want new usable lenses like AF-S 14-24/2,8 (That works with filter), AF-S 100-400/4 VRII , AF-S 100-300/4 VRII or AF-S 150 Micro VR.

    • Maxime

      Just how big would that 100-400 f4 be? Isn’t the 200-400 big enough already?

  • Yeah, this list is crazy talk. The 300mm f/2 HAS been done before; but not for particularly long if I remember correctly. I would like to see a regular AF-S VR II 70-200mm f/2.8G with nano-coat that is better suited for FX work, but other than that, I’m not sure what else would be coming. Maybe a new 200mm f/4 Micro, with AF-S, VR, and nano-coating.

  • I heard about a 600mm F0.1. Sounds good for me. Just the lens I need.

    Too much ridiculous rumors kills the interest of having rumors… no?

  • Pablov

    I would like an updated or upgrade for the 70-200 f2.8G AF-S
    For me it would even be great a 70-200 f4 AF-S with weather seal, and of course improved optics…

  • handsome boi

    this must be a joke…april fool comes a bit early

  • On the topic of the 300 f/2, I’ve held one and it was quite the monster. 18 pounds and massive. In relation to a 70-200 f/2.5, I’d buy one instantly!

  • Crabby

    If Nikon had ever wanted to build any of the listed lenses, they would have come out with them *before* the Beijing olympics.

    Nikon is far more likely to build lenses that people actually want to buy and are able to carry, e.g., VR II models of the 300mm f/4 and 80-400mm.

    What sort of substances do they pass around on Google groups anyway?

  • SimonC

    A 70-200 f2.5 would require a larger than 77mm filter at the 200mm setting. This would not go well with most people. I think these lenses are wishful thinking.

    Also, why replace the 400 f2.8 VRII, which just came out in 2007?

  • dino

    it MAY be true, but it’s a very strange move. Probably the one really coming could be the 70/200, and/or the 200 F/1.8 but about the others… well.. no idea. For a small increment in F/stop there would be a huge price increase.. besides.. 400 wasn’t upgraded just 1 y and half ago?
    Probably there’s some truth in the whole post but the time will show where.

    • rhlpetrus

      “Kamera & Bild is reporting three new lenses to be coming from Nikon: AF-S 35mm f/1.8, AF-S 135mm f/1.8, and AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. ”

      All make sense, even though f/1.8 looks a bit weird for a 35mm. Either f/2, a very classic design, cheap to make, or the faster f/1.4, which would have more appeal for those already having the f/2.8 zooms.

  • PHB

    Looks like total guesswork to me.

    I can see Nikon changing out the high end glass to introduce the very latest VR technology. But I can’t see major effort going into such low volume lenses when the introduction of the D3 and FX series cameras is creating demand for pricey high volume lenses.

    My prediction would be that Nikon will change out lenses according to demand and ease of making the necessary manufacturing changes. Which is not so much a prediction as a statement of the obvious.

    The lenses in most need of modification are

    80-400 needs to focus faster.
    70-200 needs to have fall-off at the corners fixed.
    The primes need AFS upgrades.
    They need another couple of fast primes. a fast 28 and a fast 135 would be nice.
    They need a cheaper ultra-wide DX lens than the 12-24.

    That is pretty much it.

  • savvo

    Just a small niggle: that’s not Google anything, it’s usenet. If you never heard of it it’s how we used to talk on the ‘net before webforums and blogs were thought of.

    It’s now a dusty old corner of the ‘net where a few old gits like me hang out and have the same old P&S vs. DSLR arguments over and over again. Occasionally someone will post a really wild rumour and claim they heard it from a friend on the inside.

    No real information came out of usenet for many, many years.

    • savvo

      In fact, one only needs to read a few messages into the thread to find that it’s a forged hoax.

      I thought it wasn’t ASAAR’s usual style.

  • Henry Nikon Fan

    Not many people are having too much issue with the “D” type lens vs. the “G” type lens that I stated in the first post. I think that this is the real story teller here.

    I was in a large camera store here in Southern California yesterday afternoon and overheard a conversation between a customer, sales person and a Nikon Representative. The customer was looking for an inexpensive telephoto lens for his D90. The sales person brought out the 70-300mm G VR lens for about $500.00 and the customer thought that was too much money. The salesman then brought out a 70-300mm D lens that he stated had just been reduced in price. The customer asked why and the Nikon Representative stated that they are starting to phase out all “D” type lenses.

    So, with all of the new lenses that we have seen developed over the past several years being “G” type, why would they now start developing new “D” type lenses?

    I THINK NOT!!!

  • Jørgen

    This roumor could as well be moved to the humor-section.

  • Anonymous

    Uh, a 400mm f/2.5 would be massive. Think Sigma 500mm f/2.8.. it looks like a rocket launcher.

  • D lenses?

    worst rumour yet.

  • gs

    There is already a brand new 400mm f/2.8G AF-S VR II which is massive — which is both massive & expensive. AN f/2.5 version would be slightly larger and heavier — not to mention somewhat MORE expensive. Same goes for the 200mm f/2.0 — why would there be a new f/1.8 version — makes no sense.

    The 300 f/2 remake is a possibility ( remember the rumor about the 200-400 f/4 and everyone said on way – would not be done – then it showed up). Figure that a new 300 f/2 AF-S VR II would sell for at least US$35,000.00 — serious special order. The original 300 f/2 manual focus sold for almost $30K new.

    The 70-200 f/2.8 is due for a remake because of its edge problems on full-frame. However, it is unlikely that the new lens would be an f/2.5 — again, that would add to its weight and diameter.

    The other rumor about the 35 f/1.8, 135 f/1.8 and updated 80-400 makes much more sense.

  • Wow, clicking THIS link in my RSS bookmark was a waste of my time… I’m surprised these ridiculous lenses weren’t relegated to the “humor rumor” section.


  • Jim Jim

    The list is correct, only it misses a few more lenses that will also come:

    Nikkor AF-S VR-II 180mm f2.5DG (Yes DG, with detachable aperture ring)
    Nikkor AF-S VR-II 500mm f3.5DG
    Nikkor AF-S VR-III 80-410mm f3.2-5.0G ED (VR-III, works until 8 stops, able to shoot through the lens cap)
    Nikkor AF-S VR-III 22-70mm f2.6 3D ED (A twin lens, shoots in 3D)

    Expected release: very beginning of 2Q09

    • Jim Jim

      Oh, and I forgot, the 22-70 requires the D3X to shoot 12+12 Mpixel 3D images. Will be the new kit-lens for the D3X from the beginning of April. Cool stuff!

  • Daf

    Nikon have announced the updates to their UK pricelist:

    Only VR II giveaway/misshap I can see is :

  • alex

    This page is getting worse….
    A site about rumors is a cool thing but not if there is absolutely no
    reliable source. 400/ 2,5? Ridiculous!

  • Back to top