Nikon AF-S Nikkor 10-18mm f/4 G ED N?

I will be updating this post as I get more info on this potentially new lens Nikon AF-S Nikkor 10-18mm f/4 G ED N. 

  • Origin: someone claimed that the picture was found in QQ groups (QQ is something like MSN messenger in China).
  • jeff-c could not confirm or deny this rumor on dpreview.


  • Here is a comparison between the two lenses (10-18mm and 14-24mm), once scaled to the same size and the 14-24mm is placed on top of the 10-18mm (sent by a reader - thanks SM):


  • Could it be fake? Here is a comparison with the 14-24 and the 12-24.


  • I think this next picture is the money shot - it looks real to me, but again the question is: does it make sense for Nikon to produce this lens?


  • I do know one thing: our polls have always been accurate:



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

    now THIS is a lens worth hoping for!


    • Tom

      As pointed out by another poster, the 0 next to the ten looks a little suspect and there is no DX marking, so it is a 10-18 FX ? Hmm…

      • thank you

        Hmm is right. lolers

        • Tom

          Well over half of the people here think it is real – and 2830 have voted so far. So I can see why someone would go to the trouble of photoshopping the 14-24. It’s a great way to spend your time if you are one of the former Nikon employees in China or Thailand.

          For me, it’s the blur area on the RHS of the lens that tells me that this pic has been played with. Why play with a shot if you want to post it as real ?

          Maybe someone knows a 10-18 is coming but doesn’t have a real shot of it so they made this ? Who knows ?

          Besides which, I’m not sure if I care either. This lens would be horribly expensive and way out of my budget so it isn’t a big seller at a time of financila crisis. It seems like it might actually be bad news in a sense. Let’s hope it’s fake ! 🙂

          • thank you

            so you hope it fake cause you do not have cash for it? i no follow the logic.

          • Tom

            This lens would cost a lot in R&D – it’s a whole new thing. In good times it might not make a lot of money because of the low volume of sales for an obviously expensive specialised lens. But in times like these it would be likely to run at a loss. Losses are not good news for any Nikon fan.

            That’s why, from one aspect, I hope it’s fake. Then again, it’s more kudos for Nikon if it’s real. With some of the best bodies and lenses, do they need the kudos or would a bigger profit margin be better ?

            Just my thoughts…

  • Bart Montinola

    DX or FX lens?

  • dino

    I assume it’s true.
    of course one can play with letters and general shapes only but heck if this is a photoshop, kudos to who did it…

  • dino

    The finesse looks the reflection of the flash on the lens glass (where’s the distance) as if it would have really been photographed a real item

  • Sam27

    even no DX mark…. no way 10-18mm for FX!

    • markdphotoguy

      Full frame zoom fisheye. It’s technically possible. Just don’t know if it’s practical.

      • RThomas

        Pentax has a 17-28mm full-frame fisheye zoom, and Tokina makes a 10-17 DX-format fisheye zoom which apparently covers FX at some focal lengths. Nikon may be trying to continue taking a bite out of other manufacturers’ markets by offering equivalent lenses. Now if they would just bring out some more AF-S fast primes!

  • Calvin

    I hope so, but very unlikely that Nikon will sacrifice 14-24… 10-18 FX is really more appealing as f/4 is good enough for shooting landscape. And I also questioned the technique to make 10-18 f/4.. it is really unprecedented.. the widest zoom for FX so far is 12mm begins with f/4.5…

    If it is real, I also hope 18-85 FX f/4 will follow… 🙂

    They will drive me crazy for Nikon! ^-^

    • Pablov

      I’d like that f4 too !

  • Sam27

    Even there is no DX mark.. It is no way the 10-18mm for FX!

    • Anonymous

      nikon 4.5mm fisheye existed and it’s possible.

      • Ravell

        Didn’t they need a few elements intruding into the mirror box and could only be mounted with mirror lockup?

        Would be absolutely amazing if Nikon managed to develop an FX lens that wide without intruding lens elements! I highly doubt the lens is real, but on the oter hand the photos look vrey convincing.

        I can’t tell really. All I can say is it’s a lens I would LOVE to have. 🙂

      • Anonymous

        Rather large lens hood for a fisheye, man… fake, 100%.

  • GingerJimmy

    10mm on FX

    that would be… amasing.
    120 degrees wide
    can’t tell. but looks real.

  • This lens would make a nice architecture kit together with a D3x. I also know landscape photographers who would die for an FX zoom like this. 10 mm is just insane, like a 38XL on 4×5. Apart from those and a few other applications, such a lens is too esoteric to find wider use. Expect it to be priced accordingly.

    • steve

      This will have waaaay to much distortion for architecture photogs. My thoughts are that it is real though – damn shame it’s another lens you can’t use with a polariser though!

      • toughluck

        Why would you want to use a polarizer on an extremely ultra wide angle like that??

      • A polarizer on a lens that wide would put a hideous dark spot in the sky. It would wreck the picture in almost all cases. Polarizers are great on shorter lenses, but produce grotesque and uncorrectable images with ultra-wides. Not even usable as special effects. Tried it a number of times and then scrapped it.

  • Shayzorblade

    Rectilinear zoom like sigma’s 12-24 for fx? Fisheye zoom like tokina’s 10-17 for dx?

    If this IS rectilinear that’s quite a feat of optical engineering for an fx zoom. Although I suppose that f/4 might give them leeway. Either way, this is a lens that would generate quite a bit of attention.

    Anyone care to calculate the FOV for 10mm fx?

    • Shayzorblade

      Nvm, 120 degrees

      • mio

        must be more than that – the Sigma 12-24 has 122°

        • RThomas

          Diagonally, the FOV would be 130 degrees; horizontally, 121. The Sigma 12-24 (which I own) is 122 diagonal, 112 horizontal.

  • Kerni

    If it’s a real FX machine, it should be very interesting for everybody who use both full-format and APS-C bodies. At this lenght and at f4 it is maybe not so easy to get the background blurred when you focus superficial objects. Obviously, you can’t mount a polarization filter.

    As FX lens i guess it will cost about 1500€/1900$. But there are also some rumours about this Sigma 10-20 f2,8 … maybe also FX…?

  • I hope it’s real…

  • d4-owner

    Lol…. Jost calculated the Hyperfocal Distance at 10mm-f/4 = 84cm.
    So you don’t really need to focus at 10mm! 😛

  • I think it is real.
    Would make a new push to the eytreme wide.
    And most of all makes Nikon underline their already superior wide angle range towards the competition.

  • Sebastian

    I think it’s a fake. The unsharpness of the on-the-table shot looks a bit off to me.

  • Chad

    Maybe I am too much the skeptic, but the last picture (the one on the wood table) is a dead give away to me. These are renderings. I know… I know… they look pretty real. Check out some of the renderings made by this product:
    That is my guess. But, that doesn’t make it not real. Nikon surely has enough money to do visualizations of real products early in development, I just don’t see why they would create the picture on the wood table.
    As a matter of fact that picture on the wood table is really a sticking point for me. It wouldn’t serve well in advertising so why would nikon take it? And it obviously is using a fair amount of focal plane shift (available in Maxwell BTW), the DOF is so short that maybe it could be the 85pc micro, but I bet it would have to be 4×5. Who would bust out the 4×5 and then lay the thing on a table and let one anisotropic highlight run up the middle? A CG artist, thats who. Thats my guess anyways.

  • cas

    If this is a real, FX lens… I WANT ONE! You have no idea.

  • Michael

    If it is a fake that is one great Photoshop job! It looks and good and would make a great addition to my kit!

  • RM

    The bottom picture is totally fake. look at the grain structure of the wood and you will notice what looks like joined slats (butt joints) of wood just below the zoom ring. Now look at the rest of the desk – no more joined butts anywhere. Someone spliced in the zoom ring from a different lens and the grain structure of the wood table gives it away.

    • RM

      Correction, make that the focus ring, not the zoom ring. Still Fake.

      • RM

        Also, I think the level of bokeh (blur) in the image is not possible unless manipulated in PS (with gaussian blur tool). The blur is very uneven and does not run in the same direction along a level plane, rather it runs slantwise along the edge of the lens. Definately manipulated.

        • fotomik

          … which is exactly why products are often with T/S-lenses or cameras with movements.

    • Stephen

      Okay guys. Stop knit picking. I have a desk with fake wood venier that looks exactly like that. They create random wood but so that it looks like it’s real. Other wise, the bokeh is fine. I have use tilt shift lenses that do that. Which is normal for product photography. However, I don’t think this is a product shoot. look in the foreground, its very much in focus all the way up to the edge. My guess is bad focus job.

  • Fake. Look at the table. Look closely. Everybody should see that.


    Can’t believe no one saw this. The wood counter top has a seam on it and the wood grains do not line up. So, 1) this is a fake or 2) and very bad counter top job.

    • drp

      wood surfaces are often made of planks – the table is least is probably real

      • johnny

        I concur : today’s table technology can support several planks

  • fotomik

    I don’t know man… IF this is a fake, (and there IS something funny about that tabletop-picture, now that I’ve stared at it for a while) then someone is going through an AWFUL lot of trouble.

    Look at the M/A-switch, for example. It’s not the same as the 14-24. Which would, of course, be the first place it would be looked for. But does it match any other Nikkor? I don’t have any more time to go looking for pictures.

    But then again, there have been pictures before that were called fake and OBVIOUS PS-jobs, that turned out to be the real thing…

    But then again, a 10-18mm FX lens? How un-probable is that?
    Holy moly, this IS a good one. Hats off to whoever is behind this if it’s not real.

    • Stephen

      Totally agreed. Frankly the reason why the table looks fake, is because it is fake. Its plastic foe wood planks. I’ve been looking for the switch and haven’t found anything real close. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t, but I just don’t think so. Anyway, jeff-c has rarely been wrong, so I tend to trust him.

  • Tony M

    Whether this lens ‘goes against the grain’ 🙂 or not, seems like a sensible addition for a camera like the D3X designed for the type of application this lens would be used for.
    On the ‘sensibility’ factor I would say it makes sense.

  • Ha ha guys, couldn’t this just be a bad counter job? 😛

    You know, wood lines don’t match up if they used two pieces of wood. But this looks like fake-wood to me. I’ve seen fake-wood furniture in real-life, so I just assumed it was that.

    • I for one am very excited!

      “Nikon always has been beat fairly and squarely by Sigma’s offers: the unique 30mm f1.4 and the 10-20mm ultra-wide. Sure they were DX only, but they were so EXCITING! Nobody else had anything remotely close!….

      …..Of course, Nikon can’t let things stay that way, can they?”

    • Bret

      Actually, the lens may be on the floor. My wooden floors have seams just like that in between each set of… planks I guess you could call them. But this seam does look a little big suspicious, it looks slightly bent… but
      It’ll be interesting to see how expensive they put this if it is FX, and I’ll also be interested to see whether the rumored sigma 10-20mm f/2.8 will be FX and what price they’ll want… $899 or whatever it is for the new 24-70 HSM is ridiculous, I know it’s a good lens, but double the price of the original just for HSM? no way.
      Either way, if this is real, then it is a very very well done photoshop job. Lots of attention to detail, must’ve spent a good amount of time on it.

  • Adam

    One of the common problems us Canon shooters have always mentioned about Nikon is their lack of affordable (i.e. f/4) constant aperture zooms.
    Canon has a few (17-40, 24-105, 70-200), and this has stopped a lot of people switching camps.

    Maybe Nikon have caught up and are addressing this problem.
    An f/4 zoom on a D700? Sign me right up.

    • Maxime

      For you soul’s salvation, I hope it is real 😛

  • johnny

    DPreview’s Jeff-C wont confirm or deny the authenticity of this lens

  • The last photo looks like a rendering using Radiosity…

  • Stephane

    Tabletop is faked: not only is there a seam… the “blurinness” on each side of the seam is different. You wouldn’t see that if it were a plank.

    10mm for FX seems crazy, I own the 14-24 and a D3, and a 10-20 DX Sigma as well as a 10.5 DX fisheye Nikkor for my D80. 10mm rectilinear for FX is just crazy. Either this is a DX lens (that would actually be cool, I might have to buy a D300 after all) or a (very nicely done) fake.

  • niko58

    You guys should quit trying to use the “wood” table to determine if the picture is real or not, as it looks just like the cheap (mis-aligned) laminate countertop in my kitchen…unless my kitchen is also fake…which I gues is possible, since some of the meals my wife prepares there seems to be fake also.

  • noelet

    it must be a dx… but if so, what was nikon thinking?sigmas and tokinas and tamrons have it already… but if its a dx and hopefully a cheap plastic body, now i can complete my nikkors without resorting to 3rd partys…

    or if its an fx… then this would be a transitory lens… can be used as an UWA on dx and a fisheye? on fx.

    oh nikon, pls leak more details…

  • JD

    I don’t see why it couldn’t be real. Though, waht I’d REALLY love is if they came out with a Nikkor 10-24mm F2.8 G AF-S ED for FX 🙂 I have the Nikkor 24-70mm F2.8 G AF-S ED, so that would complement it very nicely, and I’d have a potential clean path all the way from 10mm to 200mm by eventually getting the Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8 lens. Probably nothing more than a pipe-dream though 🙁

    • GingerJimmy

      yeah.. the 14-24 2.8 has such a narrow FOV it’s almost useless…


  • alexipharmic


  • Does this thing need a tripod mount? It looks huge!

  • I will buy it

    as an owner of the 14-24mm, sometimes I wish it went to 12mm.

    10mm would totally rock. you could even use it on the DX toys and get 15mm equivalent!.

    I’d so get this if it is real.

  • If this is fake, I would say that this is the best fake we’ve seen so far
    I still think is real, but let me tell you – this one will be expensive.

    • connor

      Totally fake, look at the blurred overlapping edes? and what about the focus ring, look at the horizontal slits across the vertical grips on the focus. absolutely fake, but great photoshop-age.

  • Zoetmb

    The table doesn’t bother me: it just looks like a cheap fake wood-grain laminate in which the edges don’t line up. However, that only makes the shot legit if it wasn’t taken by Nikon or a Nikon marketing firm.

    But what’s that yellow square that seems to overlap the infinity symbol? There’s something that’s not quite right there.

    I’m gonna’ say “real”, but I was wrong about the 35mm DX and I was wrong about either the D300 or D700 (whichever one had the brochure released from some Chinese printing plant) — I thought the 35mm didn’t make strategic sense and there were so many typos and printing errors in the brochure that I thought it had to be fake, so what do i know?

  • P3te

    As said, look at the “10” white mark, obviously fake!

    • Chad

      I agree it doesn’t quite look right… but I wouldn’t call it conclusive.

      The bokeh on the table also doesn’t look right… it looks evenly blurred across the image.. instead of an increasing gradient.

      Just doesn’t look right.

  • a

    i’m calling fake on this one.

    something in the photos just don’t seem right. if you look closely, the numbers and other stuff don’t line up….

    at first pass i thought i was looking at the 14-24mm…. maybe it is.

  • niko58

    If a fake, then I think it is an excellent fake. if real, then I think it will be an excellent lens. Expensive? The cost should be less than the 14-24, just because of the typical price diffirential between f/4 and f/2.8, however, given the apparent same build quality, it may not be that great of a price diffirential. In any case, I hope it is real and that it compares optically with the 14-24..

  • I will be surprised if this is a fake seeing as the table shot would be hard to fake. Hopefully we’ll see a 18-55 or similar lens following this as Nikon usually make a set of lenses like they did with the 12-24 & 24-70.

  • Mar

    A 16-35 could be a great choice.

    • what for

      you know that curved buldge is probably what helps it do what it does.

      It is like asking for a car that can do 200mph, give you 50mpg, and cost the same as a kia.

      the 17-35mm is an excellent lens which is more suited to filter dependant guys. For protection, lens cap comes standard.

    • GingerJimmy

      what’s wrong with the 17-35 2.8?

  • niko58

    If it is nothing more than a photoshop’d 14-24, then they did an excellent job modifying the hood…

  • shivas

    This looks like it’ll be FX and DX (G nomenclature?), and looks very real to me. . .it would hands down WHOOP the 14-24 in viewing angle (114 degrees for the existing 14-24), but, who cares, most people shoot wide open during the day with these; I used the 14-24 in low light situations, but clearly primes are more fit for that.

    I suspect pricing, especially with the 14-24 going up to $1600-1900 in most places, should fall a shade below, just above the 12-24 f/4 ($880). MY BEST GUESS: $1199.

    • Lars

      Try $2500. This one won’t be cheap. This is an extreme optical design, likely optimized to resolve for the D3x across an FX frame.

      • Maxime


      • shivas

        really, $2500??

        I really think this is a step up from the tired old 12-24 f/4. . .probably same number of elements and layout, it should just be a hair higher. . .I think if they trump the 14-24mm in price, they’ll kill those sales and have to really justify this one to the “specialist”

        given the recent release of the 35 1.8 for DX only, they want SOLID money RIGHT NOW, so price of entry, expanse of target audience are key business strategies. . .they probably saw the Sigma 10-24mm KILLING their 12-24 market space, and are going to go head to head with this fixed f/4 killer. .

        THAT IS, if this picture is real. . .strategically, it makes sense though. ..

    • huh

      “would hands down WHOOP the 14-24 in viewing angle (114 degrees for the existing 14-24),”

      converselly, the 18-24 range is nice to have and it is still very wide without distorting much. Such range is very desirable in landscapes. If this lens is real, it is not replacing the 14-24mm (which is not even 2 years old), just complementing it. Not to mention f2.8.

      “I used the 14-24 in low light situations, but clearly primes are more fit for that.”

      I wonder if you used it as much as you claim. Except for weight, the 14-24mm zoom has superior IQ to both the nikon 14mm prime and canon 14mmL PRIMES! AND it lets you zoom compose AND it is f2.8. So I’m not sure what you mean by “appropiate” in this context. But don’t let this owner tell you so. Just research.
      You can find similar conclusions all over the web. It is no wonder the 14-24mm is often called the new standard for which all other wide angles zooms are judged (and even primes!)

      The 14-24mm rarely leaves my D700 these days and I do not expect this new lens to match it in terms of IQ. But please nikon prove me wrong! I’d love that.

      Yet, it will be a very good complement for when you need extreme super wide angle, and do not need the speed of a 2.8 lens. If it is not a fake, I see myself using it when my 14-24mm is not wide enough…if there is such a thing.

  • I was saving up for the 14-24… Now if this one would be real… WOW! Exactly what I need for my panoramic images (see my website), 10mm on FX!!!

    But looking at the hood… The 10.5mm DX needs the hood sawn off in FX, but this hood seems a bit large to me for 10mm….

    And if I superimpose the pic of the 10-18 over the 14-24, the body of the lens is EXACTLY the same size. Highly suspect.

    Furthermore, the pic with the white background seems a genuine Nikon pic at first sight, but upon closer inspection there are some flaws. 1st, the lighting only comes from the left; all the other newer Nikon lenses have light from left and right. 2nd, there is a lot of white background bleed at the edges of the hood, while all the other newer Nikon lenses have a wel defined edge against the background. 3rd, there is a reflection of the light in the distance scale on the left. 4th, it has the body side lens cap on the bottom, all the other newer Nikon lenses have not.

    Conclusion: a photoshopped home made picture of a 14-24.

    • Juergen

      I agree. But good photoshop work.
      What looks flawed is the lens front protection, it’s petal-shaped and there’s V-shaped cuts between the two longer and the two shorter parts (sorry, hard to describe). When one looks at the first photo there seems to be more space between the golden ring and the bottom of one of the V-shapes than in the photo where the lens lies on the table.
      Also the rounding of the hood close to the front rubber focus ring looks uneven. Plus some more things.

  • M

    Mad Photoshop skills , fake for sure…

  • Anonymous

    everybody, wake up and smell coffee.

    do you REALLY NEED that wide?

    a lot of people finds 14-24mm WA-A-A-A-AY too wide on FX. for DX users, that lens could be helpful with 15-27mm compared to 21-36mm ((from 14-24mm)).

    do you WANT or NEED it?

    • niko58

      Wide is in the eye of the beholder. Just like there are some that can’t get enough reach for wildlife shots, there are those that can’t get wide enough for landscape shots…so, while there may be many that could care less, there are many that would want it, especially if fx, since it would give you 10mm on fx and 15mm on dx…best of both worlds.

      • RThomas

        This is why I bought the Sigma 12-24mm (FX). I used to own a Sigma 10-20mm (DX) which I mounted on a 35mm body, just for fun. Surprisingly it covered quite a bit of the frame and I was hooked. These lenses are great for walking around in cities and other places where you really can’t back up (like in the mountains where I live). I could not work without an ultrawide, and if this is a rectilinear full frame lens, I may well have to get it (and sell the Sigma).

    • huh

      those who say the 14-24mm is too wide, probably are the ones who do not need or want one. how about that?

      this lens would be a dream for the rest of us who do not share that view. Ultra wide on DX and mindblowing on FX. For landscape work, such optic offers so many new possibilities it is hard to imagine.

    • “a lot of people finds 14-24mm WA-A-A-A-AY too wide on FX”

      Really? Have yet to meet one of these people. Not saying they don’t exist. I’ve just never personally met one (or even heard of one until now, for that fact).

      Have to say that I mounted a 14-24 on my D700 last weekend and it just didn’t seem wide ENOUGH. But hey- that’s just me.

  • Mike

    The “10” mark really looks suspicious. But even more the blur on the hood and on the table, where the hood comes close to the table. This doesn’t look realistic to me, and, furthermore, the wood surface has more sharpness again farther away from there.

    Is a 10-18mm f/4 for FX realistic at all, I mean, could it actually be built like this? Remember the front element of the old 13mm, and that one was only f/5.6

  • Eric B

    The top composite image with the 12-24 DX and the 14-24 FX has something to offer: both the other lenses are set to exactly infinity and have no reflection over the focus-scale window… would the nikon product imaging team make such a mistake?

  • Tim Catchall

    So obviously a fake. If it was DX and f4 it wouldn’t need to be so large. If it was FX it would make no sense, given that that it covers a range very similar to the 14-24, which has only just been released. Besides, it is so obviously a manipulated 14-24, it is identical in every way apart from the hood. Show me two other Nikon zoom lenses that look so similar.

    • WillyPete

      However, were it true, it might insinuate an f/1:4 18-105 or similar.

      Canon’s strong point has always been the pro-sumer F1:4 lens range.

  • Vlad

    I find this lens very limiting for my use. I would love for them to come out with 20-85mm F/4 VR instead! I would pay 1000 bucks for that lens! 🙂

  • Back to top