The new Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX available for pre-order

353_2183_af-s-dx-nikkor-35mm-f-18g_frontHere is the link many readers have been asking me about: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX is now available for pre-order.

I will be updating this entry as more stores start selling this lens (sticky post - scroll down for the latest rumors).


This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Well, it looks like my little d60 might just get a new prime sometime soon!

    • yes, I read somewhere that they should be shipping mid March

      • Tom

        Photography Blog says 6th March

  • Nikon Fan

    Does anyone know if it has a metal mount or not? The picture provides just a small hint that it has a metal mount, but I cannot tell for sure.

    • Caprea

      Well, the specs says metal mount:

      I also thought it was plastic, judging by the photo, but…

      • Nikon Fan

        Thanks a lot, I had not seen the Nikon Global site. I had only looked at the Nikon USA site and I did not notice that comment there.

        • Caprea

          There was some confusion about the number of blades, too. One of the press releases said 9, but it seems more logical to be the default 7 (which is on those specs) at this price range.

          Now, I’m dying to see a gallery of pictures…

          • Tom

            US site says nine in the blurb, 7 in the specs.

            Europe says all elements move during focusing, everywhere else lists it as RF (rear focusing).

            200 grams on some sites, 210 on others.

            Gotta love the internet for unreliable info…..

  • Zoetmb

    I thought the rumors were total b.s. – I was totally wrong about the reality of this lens. Personally, I think Nikon has lost their minds. I don’t understand the strategy for this lens.

    D40/D60 buyers won’t buy it unless they get sophisticated enough to realize how slow their kits zooms are. D80, D200, D300 owners won’t buy it because most of them are thinking of upgrading to FX at some point. So what’s the market? Wouldn’t it have made more sense to produce a new FX 35mm that everyone could use (crop mode aside)? I realize that an FX version would be more like $500, not $200, but since Nikon can only manage to get out X lenses per year, I don’t see the point of this one.

    And especially not as a WPPI announcement.

    • DrJ

      First of all, there seems to be a lot of people that can’t understand the logic of this lens, complaining that they didn’t get their FX version.

      The logic goes: nobody with a D40/60 will buy another lens. They only take pics of their grandbabies and don’t even know what they would buy this lens for.


      I know exactly what I’mmm looking for, I just have zero desire to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on this hobby of mine. Why should I have to buy a pro lens? The attitude reeks of snobbiness, no offense.

      Second, I’m fairly certain that Nikon will eventually release a fast, wide prime for you FX people or hopefuls. Perhaps even a new version of the much-vaunted 28mm 1.8 or 1.4. I hope they do for anyone that this lens doesn’t satisfy.

      Quite frankly, I don’t see why they shouldn’t cater to both pros and amateurs. Seems like good business sense to me, especially in this economy.

    • dan

      You are out of touch. I’ve got a d40x and I just ordered one for it. I’ve got a d300 too with no immediate desire to move to an FX system. I’m still selling plenty of images with the DX gear and there’s something to be said for it not weighing a metric ton when it’s strapped on my back in the wilderness. Get back to the wedding photography or whatever it is you do.

      • Tom

        I’m gonna get one too.

        I expect it will be offerred as an alternative kit lens to the 18-55 too.

        It’s gonna sell really well and when the FX 28 f1.4 comes out with ED etc costing US$800+ then maybe people will start to understand that FX and DX are not the same market.

        • Juergen

          “and when the FX 28 f1.4 comes out with ED etc costing US$800+ then maybe people will start to understand that FX and DX are not the same market.”

          That price point seems much too low, read where Ludovic Drean, Nikon Product Manager for lenses, Europe, said “… an FX 35mm F1.4 …might cost €1400 …”)

    • Anonymous

      I own a 40.
      I want a fast normal prime.
      I was planning to switch to the D90 just to be able to autofocus with a fast normal prime. At best, 35mm f/2 + D90 body only is about 1000 Euro.

      Now I can buy this lens for 250 Euro.

      What do you think I will do? Buy another expensive digital camera which will allow me to make exactly the same photos and will be obsolete in 2 years, or just buy a lens and keep enjoying the camera that I already have?

      P.S. I bought the camera AND learned (more or less) how to use it, just for making family photos. HOWEVER I want a fast prime. Am I so atypical?

      • Juergen

        “Now I can buy this lens for 250 Euro.”

        In Germany the initial street price will be just some cents below 200 Euro.

    • xkoosme

      “D40/D60 buyers won’t buy it unless they get sophisticated enough to realize how slow their kits zooms are.”

      Stop dragging your nose on the ceiling, Zoetmb.

      I own a D40 and I’m getting one of these as soon as they are available. I had thought of upgrading to one of the higher-end Nikon DSLRs just so I could use an AF lens and not need an AF-S lens. I’m “sophisticated” enough to know that the D40, D40x, and D60 require lenses with built-in motors in order to auto-focus (AF-S). I can’t wait to use this lens to adjust the depth of field in all my photos with it.

  • ha

    Agreed. this lens will sell. I’m an FX guy but I can appreciate the fact nikon sells more DX glass than FX. This lens will help the company and if nikon does good, then I get the lenses I really want sooner than not and probably at a more competitive price.

    People forget a lot of the profits from this lens will be put back into R&D for the things FX people are begging for.

    • Caprea

      And it’s certainly good to see Nikon paying attention to primes. It was a really good surprise. Now I only hope that the lens quality is up to all this buzz.

  • Dean

    Does anyone know the filter size for this?

    • Caprea
      • Dean

        thanks for the link.

        Sorry for this second question, since I’m a total newbie, and just got my D90 two days ago.

        How do step up rings? If I get a NC filter that’s 67mm for my current 16-85mm, do I use a step up ring to use this on this lens if I get it? Or do I have to get a 52mm filter and then get a step up ring to fit it on my 67mm? Or would it be a better idea to get a filter for this lens itself.

        • Greg Tommers

          You would get a 67mm filter and then use the step up ring to allow it to screw onto your 52mm lens. But honestly, unless you want to be changing filers ever time you change lenses, it probably makes more sense to just get a separate dedicated filter for the 52mm lens, which should be pretty cheap in the 52mm size. Or you could get no filter at all. It’s hardly necessary if you take good care of your equipment.

          • Nikon Fan

            He is right, you should just buy a separate 52mm filter to use for protection.

            You would only use the step up ring if you are going to use other specialty filters that you would then purchase at 67mm. In this case you would only need to purchase one set of filters.

          • Nikon Fan

            You also want to make sure that you are going to stick with the 67mm size. Most of the pro lenses are 77mm. So before you start to invest in filters make sure that you think through what your ultimate goal will be in lenses.

            If you do not, it could get expensive with so many different sizes and types of filters.

            Good luck!

        • Nikon Fan

          If you want to use your 67mm filter on a 52mm diameter lens you will need a stepup ring that will go from 52mm to 67mm. Then you can use your 67mm filter on your 52mm diameter lens.

          • Caprea

            Indeed. I put a UV Hoya Super HMC or Pro1, one for each lens I own, since I rarely put them out. But for polarizers and other expensive filters I just try to keep a 77mm e use stepdown rings, it saves space and money.

  • Anonymous

    why is everybody arguing over “why isn’t it FX” and “why is it DX?”?

    there are 35mm f/2D AF for you FX users or if you want faster… MF 35mm f/1.4 AIS is more than enough

    • Nikon Fan

      Everyone wants the latest and greatest to be what they want!

      • Tom

        And they complain like spoiled kids when they don’t get it.

    • peter

      cos they are whinging idiots. this lens is only $200 for christs sake. if it was a true FX update to the 35/2D then it would have been more like $600+. i cant see whats so hard to understand about this, its basically the “new” nifty fifty” that so many know and love. this is a brilliant move by nikon, absolutely brilliant. this is why they are the current market leaders…its certianly not from listening to internet fanboys and gearheads with no bloody clue.

      there will be a 35/1.4 afs at PMA for FX and it will cost around $1k. bank on that. then the same whingers will be here complaining that it costs too much. you cant win with these petulant children.

      • Juergen

        Personally I fully agree with your post’s first paragraph!

        “35/1.4 afs at PMA for FX and it will cost around $1k.”

        That price point seems to be too low, read where Ludovic Drean, Nikon Product Manager for lenses, Europe, said “… an FX 35mm F1.4 …might cost €1400 …”

        “bank on that. then the same whingers will be here complaining that it costs too much.”

        Oh, YES, they will! Everywhere on the internet.

        “you cant win with these petulant children.”

        It was YOU who said that… 😉

        • Juergen

          Just to clarify:
          “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” was not written by me, but comes from NR.

          • Juergen

            …and now the NR comment is gone – strange…

          • Juergen – sometime the spam filter catches some comments and asks me for approval – I just approved yours. Usually this happens when there is a link in the comment.

        • peter

          i think that comment about 1400EUR serves 2 purposes:
          1. makes the current move seem all the more logical
          2. prepares people for an expensive lens in the future so it minimises the outrage when it happens.

          besides, 1400 wont be too far off the mark in price. europe and Oz always gets shafted in price. 1400EUR will likely be around the $999USD. eventhoughthat doesnt match up to the direct exchange rate, it rarely does. $1000 for a 35mm prime is breaking a phsycological barier that few will find palpable. i would also suggest that if it is not a true IF AF-S lens with the associated superfast AfF speed, (as opposed to the 50/1.4 which is not fast enuf without IF), then its gonna be a hellova hard sell.

          regardless…nikon is on the right path here. its slow sure, but at least there’s movement at the station. a 35/1.4 afs would be a lens that would rarely leave my camera.

  • I for one will likely buy this lens for my D300 and D80. I’ve been eyeing the Sigma 30mm 1.4 for over a year, but thus far have refused to pull the trigger because of the price. For approx. 1/2 the price of the Sigma, I’d be getting *almost* as fast a lens. I’m a lot more likely to pull the trigger and order this straight away than wait for a deal on a 30/1.4.

  • another reader

    I’m buying this for my D300 too. But, for those who are confused at Nikon’s strategy here…first Sigma came out with the 30/1.4 and 50/1.4 with motors, and D40/X/60 users were all over both of those lenses, but specifically the 30mm. Nikon’s 35mm had no motor, and thus they had no normal prime lens for the largest target audience they had for DSLR’s. Now, I agree that there are a lot of people using those cameras who are just gonna stick with the kit lenses, but if they go to Ritz camera and see that this prime is much better for their kids than the 18-55, they’re gonna buy it. Especially if it’s only $200. This was a brilliant move on Nikon’s part. They told us that DX is still alive and kicking, that there WILL be a gold-ring 35mm f/1.4 or whatever for a much higher price for their (much smaller) FX target audience in the near future, and they told us that Sigma is no longer the top dog for all the people with D40’s looking for a fast prime.

    • Anonymous

      One complaint….

      200$ is about 160 Euro.

      Why is the suggested European price set at 250 Euro?????

      I can understand different systems and rates for the VAT, and so on, but… WHY SO MUCH DIFFERENCE?

      and this is not an exception, but rather the rule, I must add.

      • Juergen

        Let’s get the facts straight:
        Nikon Germany states the RRP (MSRP) is 229,– Euro, NOT 250 Euro.
        Also that price includes 19 percent German VAT, so the net price is 192,44 Euro.

        However, the initial German street price will be just some cents below 200 Euro (199), making the net street price is 167,23 Euro. Plus the USD price is without any sales tax, depending on the exact location of the buyer this can be an additional 6 percent state sales tax plus local taxes, New York this adds up to a total of 8.375%.

        So please always check the facts before complaining!

        • Anonymous

          Please correct me if I’m wrong but I think the EU has higher import duty on goods from Japan so I believe Japanese stuff will always cost more in the EU than the US even if the sales tax was the same.

  • so

    I think it is the best move Nikon ever made. Why release a lens like Canon’s 35mm 1.4L and price it for $1000+ which only FX users will buy. Make the lens light, affordable and present it to a dx user and you have yourself a hit. Besides most of Nikon money comes from the sale of dx cameras such as d40, d40x, d60, d90 and not to mention d300. It is only logical to take care of the needs of those users :P.

    FX people you will get your lens just be a bit patient. Besides I don’t see the fuss over 35mm 1.4, I would prefer 50mm 1.2 🙂

  • D90

    Please don’t forget to cover european pre-order option! Thanks!

  • Possible I something have missed….
    *with what Nikon plant will go? (Сountry)
    just MADE IN ?

    • Anonymous

      China, what else?

  • Anonymous

    It doesn’t have the VR system included 🙁

    • DNHJR

      VR for a 35mm lens???? LOL

      It’s not needed and not everthing needs VR. Hell the 18-55mm VR does not need it. I never used it.

      You really only need VR for 100mm and over.

  • Magistos

    I have a D40. I love it. I’ll be getting this lens later this year. It’s a great move, and I am happy to see Nikon supporting both FX and DX.

    I already blew my photo budget for the last six months on the 50/1.4 G. Which I love. It’s perfect for portraits and other things. I know what I am doing, and may eventually step up to a D300. But I can’t see why I would go to FX, as I will only ever be a “professional amateur”/hardcore enthusiast. It’s not my job, but I like taking VERY good photos. It’s art for ME. I don’t need pro lenses for that.

    There are plenty of D40(x)/D60/D90 people who know what the heck they are doing. We have simply set our own budget points. There are a lot of us. And we will spend money at the right price point.

    And to the person above me – VR on a 35 prime? WHY? I hope you were being sarcastic. (Or am I missing something obvious here?)

  • bigmouth

    It’s my impression that full frame lenses don’t necessarily work as well on DX sensors as they are on full frame sensors. In other words, DX optimized lenses such as this 35/1.8 will probably perform better than the standard 50/1.8.

    I know for fact that some Canon L lenses perform poorly on their EF-S cameras but work very well on 5D.

    This gives another reason that Nikon should continuing developing DX format lenses. Because of the smaller image circle, DX lenses are probably easier to design and make than full frame glasses too.

    • Anonymous

      I have a 105 VR and a 70-300 VR both of which are FX and perform very well on DX. And the 70-200 FX is said to work better on DX than FX …..but for sure a DX lens will work better on a DX body than an FX body.

      It’s good to be a DXer !

  • Macindows

    Just for clarification:

    A 35mm FX lens gives me 52mm of focal length on a DX camera, due to 1.5x crop value. 70mm gives me 105mm and so on…

    Now why are they saying that this lens gives me 35mm on a DX camera and 52mm on a FX DSLR? I’m confused…

    • bigmouth

      35mm DX lens will not work on FX because smaller optics gives you smaller image circle that covers the sensor. If you put it on FX lens, it will create images that have severe vignetting effect (dark outter edge). However, if you insist on doing that, you still need to convert the focus length using 1.5 corp factor.

      35mm FX lens, such as 35/2 will give you exactly the same focal length as the 35/1.8. However, if you want the same look of 35/2 on a FX body on your DX, you will need a lens of 24mm.

      • Macindows

        Thanks, that’s what I wanted to know.

        But in the end, what’s the purpose of buying this lens then? Just for comparison: If you bought the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, you’d get a fantastic lens and even had 5mm extra of focal length. On top you can easily use the lens on DX and FX DSLRs. On the other side, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 can be only used on DX DSLRs and basically acts as a 52mm lens. So what’s the point?

        • I believe Sigma 30/1.4 is also DG which is equivalent of DX meaning it won’t work on FX either. Sigma 30/1.4 does have a quicker aperture ring (60% more light pass through compare to 1.8). However, sigma 30/1.4 has some disadvantages: 1) it’s twice as expensive, 2) sigma lenses suffer from some mysterious back/front focusing problem – probably due to cpu compatibility to nikon’s body commands 3) sigma lenses often produce strange yellowish photos nikons lens is more natural in terms of white balancing. So I think in this case, Nikon 35/1.8 is probably going to win the match.

        • Depending on how you look at it, with the sigma you could be getting 5 extra or 5 less mm’s of focal length

          • well, 30 x 1.5 = 45 and 35 x 1.5 = 52.5. So 35 is closer to 50mm normal than 30mm.

  • Cache

    Hey, you guys will be interested of these pictures:

    The AF-S 35mm F1.8 G DX used on a D3 body under FX mode.
    It seems this lens has a image circle almost big enough to cover FX frame at F1.8. The pictures show little vignetting. And under F11, the image circle is small and there is obvious server vignetting.

    What do you think? Good enough to use on a FX body at large aperture?

    BTW, the poster who took these photos forgot to take off the lens hood.

    • Lance

      Looks pretty decent at longer focus distances… at close focus it vignettes pretty badly.

    • Thanks!

  • Art

    Hmm… I wonder if ANY of the lenses that are going to be released soon are going to be non-AFS. Seems like everything lately has been AF-S. Its about time really for Nikon to get with the game and catch up to Canon’s AF system…its only been what, 20+ years since Canon has had all their lenses driven internally… I don’t even mind the screw system, it just seems like its behind the times.

    FWIW I’m one more D300 owner picking up one of these…

    • Lance

      +1 for my D90.

    • Lance

      Anyone heard Canadian pricing yet?

      • Juergen

        in the meantime Nikon Canada is back from deep sleep and so they state 279.95 Canadian Dollars MSRP.

        • johnny

          Again getting screwed by the exchange rates.

    • NikonMan

      I think you might be confused – AF-s lenses HAVE got the motor in them!

      BTW: I’d never swap Nikons AF for Canons, Canons AF is known for missing the focus point with fast primes! right when you need them to be perfectly accurate.

  • Tomaocron

    I see there are lots of people here commenting that they would like one of these…well I think that 35mm is a BORING focal length on DX AND FX. I’m waiting for both the 24mm 1.4 AF-S and 85mm 1.4 AF-S, both for FX. Anything in between seems mundane to me.

    • Why a 35mm? Because the field of view crop is going to give you something very close to a standard 50mm.

      And just to make you laugh, your preferred 24mm? On a DX sensor it’s the equivalent of 36mm. How BORING.

      • Rosco

        “On a DX sensor it’s the equivalent of 36mm. How BORING”

        I’m really pleased that Nikon brought this lens out, but I’d love a 24mm too. Either FX or DX then I could have my beloved 35mm back. on the D300. My favourite lens for doco work. As long as it’s sharper than the current 24mm 2.8 AF I’d be a happy camper.

        I very nearly bought a Sigma 24mm f1.8, but have held off in case the old 24 is replaced. I use the 12-24mm especially because it is sharper than the older 24mm.

        It’s great to see Nikon is showing its committment to the DX format. Even though I think i’ll be buying a D700 this year.

        • A 700? You make me jealous.

          And I’m with you on the 35 1.8, I’ll be picking up one as well, the Sigmas were tempting, but I’m glad I held off.

      • Tomaocron

        I said I wanted the 24mm for FX not DX =)

  • I think this is great, Nikon is trying to edge up on Canon in this photography game, and there really doing it again!

    I’m sure they know what there doing, we just have to trust in them, and tag along for the ride like we’ve always done. 🙂

  • kikmeister

    check this out, if your wondering why this lens does not much sense still..

    • bigmouth

      this like does *make” much sense. The article you provided did not contradict the marketing strategy behind this lens. Logically speaking, FX body owners will not buy this lens. They can afford a $3000 body, they can afford a $450 50/1.4 AF-S, or the current 50/1.8D is good enough.

      AF-S DX 35/1.8 is a very smart move. It accomplished several things: 1) it gave DX owners the confidence that Nikon will continue to support/develop for them – this is a big advantage over Canon who has a habit of ditch older formats in favor of something completely new and incompatible. Nikon’s tradition of retro-compatibility continues. 2) it gives a new boost to the D40/60 line which account something like 70-80% of all Nikon DSLR sales. Many people opt for Canon Rebel because the lack of lens choices. 3) Judging by the overwhelming response (whether it’s positive or negative) here and elsewhere, this lens is already a run away success.

  • Zoetmb

    OK…DX users who are interested in photography enough to post on this site want the $200 AF-S DX lens. I get it. But you are not the typical Nikon consumer. Nikon only sells 1.39 lenses per body over the course of a year and that INCLUDES the pro market. So MOST D40/D60 users NEVER buy another lens aside from their kit zoom.

    • Wim

      It seems to me that this is exactly Nikon’s goal with this lens: to make it the first second lens for a lot of the D40/D60 owners. The sales pitch is pretty convincing for even the most casual user: “Well, sir/madam, with this lens you will be able to make much better pictures of your family indoors. Why don’t you try it for less than $200?”

      • peter

        exactly. so many people own the 50.1.8 for that exact reason cos most noobs say “how do i get the background to blue more in portraits” or “how do i get pictures in lower light” the answer is a fast prime but they could never AF with the d40 so out went that market.

        the reason they never buy another lens invariabley is cos there were limitations to what they could buy that was affordable, could autofocus and convenient. ie: small and light.

        this also ties people into the system more. biy a couple of lens’ and all of a sudden people get much more committed to sticking with nikon for their next body or even getting a better taste of enthusiast type photography which leads to more potential lens purchases.

        there is no down side to this for nikon. neither is there a downside to us as consumers cos this is just the beginning of lens upgrades. remember that FX for nikon is only 18months old and their “big” model is less than 6months old. theres only so much that can be churned out in that time.

    • Gustav

      People haven’t bought another lens was because there was nothing (fast) available for them that wasn’t over $1000. Before the AF-S 50mm a couple of months ago the cheapest fast lens from Nikon with a focus motor was their macro lenses or the $1400 AF-S 17-50mm f/2.8.

      This could also be sold as a kit lens. In the past 35mm cameras came with a 50mm lens – not a slow zoom. If I was buying a camera today, I’d get this instead of the 18-55 zoom.

  • a new 35 AF-S for FX please :), f1.4

  • bigmouth

    Ken Rock has spoken … and boy did he made a fool out of himself. I’m not sure if he even read the details of the lens before he made his opinion piece. Not only he made several clear mistakes (such as he thinks the lens doesn’t have manual override in auto focus mode).

    What got me wondering is that his site is clearly attracting tons of traffic and in turn he made substantial gain from the referral links on his website to those camera vendors. The money is easy money for him.

    • Gustav

      Good for him. I wish I could post my opinions and get paid for it. Well, I guess I never really tried.

      People are too hard on Ken Rockwell. If he makes a mistake, tell him so. If you don’t agree with him, feel free to let him know. I just don’t get the bashing him in forums he doesn’t even participate in. That’s just mean. There are lots of people with opinions I don’t care for, but what would it say about me to complain about them in other forums? It would say either I’m jealous or have low self-esteem – I’d like to think neither.

    • could you provide a link? I’m having trouble finding the exact page.

      • Actually im usually a fan of his writing but this time it seems like he rushed to get this one out so he could get all the traffic. He spent half the review arguing with himself going back and forth in his support for it. If i didnt know any better and was going to buy my first new lens besides the kit, i wouldnt know what to think.

        • What amazes me is that his site is constantly ranking #1 on Google search engine when search for various lenses. His review is perhaps more geared toward non technical non professional crowd, lots of opinion and very little technical data if any.

        • Gustav

          His conclusion: “The 35/1.8G ought to be perfect for use on the D40/D40x/D60 for both general and low-light use. I wouldn’t buy it for use with any other camera, since all the other cameras autofocus just fine with the 35mm f/2 FX/DX AF and 50/1.4 AFS, both of which will work on FX when you go there.”

          I fail to see what’s so confusing about that. If you’ve got a D40/40x/60, buy this lens. Otherwise, use one of the plenty AF (non AF-S) primes available. That’s exactly what I was thinking.

          • bigmouth

            What Ken Rock missed was the share significance of this lens. Maybe it’s not going to be a 18-200 kind of marketing punch, the introduction of AF-S DX prime is without a doubt a huge thing. Ken Rock made it sound like a small joke and nothing to be worried about. In fact, in his entire writing he has an attitude of DX is a “handicap”, FX is the future. I think he’s missed the Nikon’s intention completely and is thinking more in the line of Canon now. He thinks most people are like him, posting some casual reviews and opinions online, make easy money from Google ads and all the vendors, marry into someone wealthy, then he can afford everything Nikon can throw at him (except the D3x). Most of us aren’t like that.

  • It’s not about this new lens… just to tell that Price Watch should be updated.
    Nikon’s D700’s price at B&H is US$ 2449.95…

    • I just updated it a week ago when the prices did go up as a result of the price increase. Is there a new round of price increases?

      • Dunno, but D700’s price isn’t US$2,349.95 anymore… there was an one hundred increase. Now it’s US$2,449.95. Almost bought one… being from Brazil I gotta wait someone to fly over and bring one to me.
        Brazilian price: US$4,785.00. Sad, but true.

      • peter

        aussie price for d700 will be $4k apparently. its currently $3300. the 50/1.4G has already gone up from $585 to $835 due to nikons price increase and the aussie dollar falling.

        • Man, I need an angry avatar like yours!
          Nikon prices in Brazil sucks!
          And Peter… Please accept my most sincere condolences on the loss of Aussie’s families.
          Be safe!

  • kumo

    I think that a lot of DX camera users would buy this lens due to the price as well as marketing push. This lens would be sold in Japan for 34500Yen (approx $300 in current exchange rate) so the $100 price difference between Japan and USA would also think that the primary target for this lens is USA (Europe too?).

  • Back to top