So, was it fake?

This is a hard reading, but you can give it a try - 3D rendering explained and the verdict for the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 10-18mm f/4 G ED N is "fake".

This would be also the first time our poll is wrong: 2289 (48%) readers said the lens looks real (vs 1718, 36% for fake).



This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Oh well. It would cost too much for every non professional/ rich amateur anyway.

  • Neb

    The Japanese writing says “Look here”, I think !!!

  • Chinese Nerd

    It’s Chinese genius.

  • JimmyD

    weird, those artifacts and blurs werent present in the example you had. except for the one in the wood grain. oh well bring on the new glass nikon its about time. fast primes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

  • CatSplat

    I’m not sure where they managed to get all those JPG artifacts from.

  • PJS

    I’ve been had, but my wallet is happy!

  • Benny Lava

    Won’t get too worried about the poll being wrong. This is after all the most convincing fake we’ve seen so far. I wonder who on earth has the time to make such stuff (and who has to time to call the hoax).

    • Anonymous

      someone from pixar, perhaps?

      • Anonymous

        no need pixar…these days rendering is very good…go to 3D forum.

  • Yeah, we don’t need this, we need some f/1.4 primes!

    I knew it was a fake. There’s just no way such a lens would be:

    1: Affordable
    2: Without massive distortion (and I don’t mean perspective distortion)
    3: f/4 and that big.

  • Looking back, I think the biggest tip-off was the lack of “DX” designation. As the other’s have said, 10mm in FX is really pushing it distortion-wise. (You are really in the Fisheye range at that point.) I was really hoping Nikon would release a 10-18mm DX lens, to compete with the Sigma 10-20 HSM. Oh well, one can dream.

  • Pablov

    The previous comparison to the 14-24 also showed it almost identical, so it was already fake, but seems someone spent much time in deeper analysis…

    Too much time to me !

    I hope Nikon releases a f4 zoom line someday anyway 🙂

  • nir.exe

    I voted for fake, assuming nikon can make a FF lens like this, how’s gonna buy it? it doesn’t justify itself commercially, the 14-24mm F2.8 is already a niche lens.
    and 2nd, it didn’t sound optically producible, but that’s another story
    no surprise it was a fake.

    • Tom

      I completely agree, no surprise and actually quite a relief; it would surely have lost money and we all need Nikon to keep making money and making products.

  • thank you

    did you thinik it fake admin?

  • fake?

    so because some chinese guy draws arrows then it is fake?

  • CatSplat

    From reading the thread, even the guys on that site aren’t completely convinced it’s fake. I wouldn’t say it’s confirmed as fake.

    • Tom

      Oh come on…..the specs are “highly unlikely”, the photos have obvious defects from being manipulated, and you still think the photos are of a real lens ?

      A 10-18 (DX ?) may well appear one day, but these photos are not of a real lens.

      • Anonymous

        Yep, Thom, that’s what I think. The pictures are fake, but Nikon may very well have a new DX wide zoom up their sleeve…

        • Anonymous

          Whoops, Tom, not Thom. 🙂

  • anon

    if someone had so much time so photograph the lens with the lighting set up etc. , they could have you know… tried it on and also taken more pictures of it

  • Jason

    As they say on the translated site,
    “Finally get the legendary sofa, and ha ha Recent hole was almost filled”

    “had their home can also be regarded as one of the cow”

    The main arguments are
    (1) That the letters saying “10-18mm 1:4 ED” aren’t so prominent as the ones on the 14-24mm/f2.8 (alternative hypothesis: Nikon made a new mould that uses less plastic per character)
    (2) The gold band above said letters is similarly flat (see above)
    (3) The focal lengths on the zoom ring are evenly spaced.

    I was sure it’s real. I’m now not so sure, but I don’t see it as absolutely disproved – I still say about a 48% chance of it being real. Feel free to quote me if and when I’m wrong . . .

  • D90

    You were all so naive! I voted no twice! It was so obvious, technically impossible, and commercially a wrong choice! Easyer is to sell a 2000 USD 85mm f/1.4 af-s N!

  • Dylanear

    I still say, 90% chance it’s real. That examination of the image proves nothing to me.
    If Sigma can make a full frame 12-24 f/4.5-f/5.6 that’s not all that big and Nikon can make a 14-24 f/2.8, then I have little doubt Nikon can make a 10-18 f/4 a bit bigger than the 14-24. Look at the 14-24 and the old 8mm 2.8 fisheye and tell me they can’t make a 10-18. I think Nikon is resuming thier envelop pushing of wide angle technology and it’s awesome.

  • I don’t think the specs are so outlandish. I’d like to see this lens. Or any Nikon DX wider than 16 that looks decent. The 12-24 ain’t that great. I don’t expect it though.

    But I knew it was fake from the git-go. Not because it’s impossible or unlikely–it’s just a fake. Anyone who knows photoshop can look at this files and see it. That’s all. No one would waste their time faking a real product.

    Ok, well, people have, but not accurately. (d3 mockups anyone?)

  • I have to agree with fake? re: the arrows. I don’t think for a minute these guys are totally convinced either way, and let’s face it: no one is better at nitpicking JPGs than the people who read photography websites. If you’d never seen the 14-24 and I took a picture of it on my dining room table, you guys could probably come up with a dozen reasons why the photos were fake, including JPG artifacts and the fact that the lens was niche / ridiculous / unecessary. People has the same things to say about the photos of the D700 brochure when it first leaked.

    IMHO Occam’s razor still says that, given phtots this good, it’s more likely (albeit not certain) that this lens is real. I still vote yes.

    And think about it – Nikon would sell plenty of these. How many of you would feel like selling your 14-24 to get this? I know I would. Mine is almost always at 14mm.

    • Anonymous

      I’ll swap the 10-18 in the photo for your 14-24. Deal ?

  • Anonymous

    one thing that came up to my mind when seeing this picture.. wouldn’t a 10-18 f/4 be bigger than a 13 f/5.6 Nikon did a few decades back? I mean, i know technology has gone so far, but to go and create a 10-18 f/4?
    did i miss something?

    • Dylanear

      “one thing that came up to my mind when seeing this picture.. wouldn’t a 10-18 f/4 be bigger than a 13 f/5.6 Nikon did a few decades back?”

      Yes, I think it is bigger. It’s like a 14-24 with an even bigger front element. That means this lens will be HUGE for a wide angle lens. And keep in mind, it’s an f/4, half as bright as the smaller 14-24 2.8, but still bigger. I don’t know for sure if it’s real, I think it is, but the more I think about it the surer I am it’s at least realistic!

      • not necessarily

        It doesn’t really have to be larger. Have you seen the sigma?. People seem to forget the sigma IS 12mm and they throw the 13mm nikon made in 1979.

        to put it simple: lens technology HAS come a long way. If nikon made a 13mm prime today it would be much smaller than the 1979 design and produce better images. It all comes down to optical design and manufacturing techniques of 2009 vs 1979. Today manufacturing glass with fancy curves is not as expensive as in 1979. So you can end up with smaller lenses volume wise.

  • Scott

    If Canon can make a 17mm f/4 (35mm full frame compatible) that is capable of shifting +/- 12 millimeters on a +/- 90 degree axis of rotation (projected image circle should cover ~60mm x 48mm) — Nikon can surely produce a 10-18mm f/4 zoom. Like others have mentioned, technically — in a few different lens iterations — they already have proven they are capable. The question is, “why would they?” Could this possibly be to entice owners of the 17-35mm f/2.8 (who did not buy the 14-24mm f/2.8)?

  • acarodp

    I have no clue whether it is real or not. But surely I find amusing that the opinions of a group of unknown guys over a chinese forum suddenly become truth. 3D rendering explained? I see some guys saying they think it is rendering, and showing some examples of how realistic rendering could be. Big news. In particular, the photo you post above has in itself the most impressive proof that the guy who wrote all these arrows had no clue: call it a fake because there is a seam in the wood between two planks? where does this genius live? mars?

    Another fairly poor argument is the one on the spacing of the focal lengths. Nikon (and others) do not place them evenly or unevenly spaced for the sake of it. They place them on KNOWN focal lengths, I.e. ones familiar to photographers. In the 14-24 they are at 24, 20, 18, 16, 15 and 14. All focal lengths represented in the Nikon range, except perhaps the 15mm which is no longer current. In a 10-18 where would you put them? 18, 16, 14 for sure. 10 you have to, since it is the end. 12 is unheard of in nikon range for fx, but you have the 12-24 dx, and this new possible lens would be great on dx as well. So I think the focal lengths on the zoom ring make a lot of sense. Most of the others “clear proofs” of fakeness could be easily accounted to pixelization (low resolution) or jpeg artifacts, in my opinion.

    Personally I don’t see any strong giveaway in these images. If they are fake, they are exceptionally well made. I think one should accept that when the image is small enough and well made enough, you simply cannot tell a fake from a real. This is in my opinion a case.


    • Anonymous

      +1 for you!

      • kern.justin

        Lens spacings are determined by the rotation afforded to the lens barrel by turning the zoom ring. To space the “known” focal lengths evenly on a zoom is simply a matter of the ratio between the degree of rotation of the zoom ring and that of the lens barrel – there are kit lenses with a constant ratio and you therefore see the 18mm and 24mm focal lengths are right next to one another (AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED) and there are professional lenses that afford a greater degree of control over the focal length by spacing them more evenly (AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED). Therefore I’m not convinced that the zoom spacing is a piece of evidence one can use against this image.

        I’m torn on the lens – on the one hand it could be a piece of hardware that came out of Nikon’s optical R&D not as a high volume seller but as a prototype. You might expect a prototype to utilize an available chassis (hence the similarity to the form factor of the 14-24). On the other hand, the lens looks rather finished and therefore the distortions in the image and the similar form between this and the 12-24 are troubling. One thing I can say for sure is that Nikon is an optical company that makes camera bodies and whatever lenses are up its sleeves are to be an exciting addition!

  • rhlpetrus

    I voted fake on the account of range. 10-18mm seems wrong for FF, so soon after 14-24. If Nikon starts an f/4 line, likely first lens will be 24-120, then a 16-40mm, or the like. 16 in FF is more than enough WA for those waiting for f/4 line.

    Now, a 10-20(24)mm DX would make sense, but likely would be too expensive against competition (Sigma, especially).

  • Anonymous

    As far as I know, it’s only possible to have one plane of focus for any lens of any specification. Whatever took this shot has created two or three different planes of focus.


    Who cares if it is or isn’t possible ? The photos are fakes.

    • Amen. Are people still on about this?

  • acarodp

    Well yes, the range is really extreme, but this is another story. I don’t think it has to do with an f4 line, as much as I would love nikon to introduce one. I think it is simply that they cannot build a reasonably sized 10mm f2.8, and probably also that they cannot get decent behavior at 2.8. Given that at 10mm you have no big hope of sending anything out of focus, and you don’t want anyway given that the bokeh would be likely awful, given that motion blur is not a big problem on such an hyper-wide… why bother with 2.8? No, if it is real, this is an fx pro lens conceived as a technical prowess statement. And it would likely cost around or above 2000 dollars/euros. In itself, it is likely as useful as the Canon 17mm TS-E introduced yesterday… Only very few will need it, some more will be able to afford it and will buy it. To design extreme lenses like these has always been largely a marketing move. And this is what makes me suspect it might be real: it is not “what everybody wants” nor “what everybody expect”. And fakers are rarely so imaginative. Time will tell!


    • rhlpetrus

      You have a point in last statement. I recall one of the arguments against the D700 leaks was: the name is absurd! It’ll be fun if this comes out next. Then we’ll see how the “impossible design”, “impossible size”, etc, will look like.

  • chris

    chiness dont know… my source says its real.. we will see…

    • chris

      oops, chinese

  • markdphotoguy

    While the lack of the fisheye designator has given me pause for thought since I first saw the images of the lens as I don’t believe this type of lens could be rectilinear. I believe there still may be a possibility this lens is real.
    Here is why:
    1. While yes a lens like this even 5 years ago would have been impossible the new designs coming from Nikon’s Molded Aspherical lens division make a 10-18 FISHEYE a possibility.
    2. Even though it does not say fisheye on the barrel like other Nikkor fisheye it could simply be a pre production model or technology demonstrator that does not have all the writing on it.
    3. This could be something truly exotic such as a Fisheye to rectilinear zoom fisheye at 10mm rectilinear by 18mm which would also explain why no fisheye designator on the barrel.
    4. The fact that the best evidence for it being a fake is the jpeg artifacts and the seam on the table I’d say the evidence AGAINST the lens being real is on par with the evidence FOR the lens being real. Therefore it’s best to accept a wait and see attitude until further evidence either way presents itself. Or until PMA passes and we don’t see the lens announced.
    5. My gut and the poll still say that it’s real. But then again I didn’t think that there would be a D3x either.

  • Tom

    I’m really surprised to see this one still running.

    As someone above pointed out, the N on the lens is in focus, the table is in focus, but the near and far edges of the lens are blurred. There appears to be more than one zone of focus in this shot.

    One thing I hope we can all agree on – it’s a good rumor. 🙂

    • the reason is

      you see it is arguments like that which make no sense that fuel the rummor. It is impossible to look at the blur and table and judge the lens as fake or not. I can take pictures of my 14-24, that if you didn’t know it was real, you could look at the blur and pass an “expert” judgement callig it fake. That’s because blur analysis is a myth rather than an actual science when people just stare at something and say “looks right/wrong”. In my office there are no less than 200 tables with laminated printed patters that suddenly break in the middle of the table. just like the one seen.

      The fact of the mater remains, besides the close resemblance to the 14-24, there isn’t a single conclusive proof that it is fake. Unlike with other fakes, people find the original image and post it next to the doctored one. Since they haven’t found one, and there aren’t any glaring signs of photoshop manipulation, they are now claiming 3D rendering.

      IMO that’s just an excuse of an analysis rather than objective study.

      • Impossible for you. Go shoot some more. Try and reproduce it maybe. You’ll get it eventually.

    • acarodp

      I’m really surprised to see people do not get this, bu if this is fake, the focal plane in the table image is actually one of the most brilliant part of the work. If you think at the way the lens is seen from a diagonal angle, you realize, I think, that the parts which look in focus are exactly the ones that should. And this was hard to get right, because, as your post proves, their placement is not obvious.
      On the other hand, everybody seems to believe this is a 3D render, and 3D render can simulate OOF very well, so if it is a 3D render fake, you would EXPECT the OOF rendition to be the proper one.

      So I stand by my first onservation: if it is a fake, it was done really well by some guy who has some good talent and the proper tools. And we cannot really hope to find a proof with such small images.


  • Tom

    Fuel a rumor ? On a rumor site ? Every post does that…. 🙂

    People can believe what they want, but I feel certain if people pay attention to the many reasons given in the many posts about these shots both here and on other sites, and study the images, they’ll start to see lots of little problems that just wouldn’t be there if the photos were straight out of a camera.

    But hey, if anyone here wants to maintain that they can’t be fake and every reason is rubbish, well, you can lead a horse to water….

  • Anonymous

    It is not because the seam in the wood desktop, it is the trace of Photoshop manipulations around the lens. Look carefully around the lens where the arrows point at, you can see typical blurs resulted from stamp tool.

    You can’t see these traces easily in a picture full of colors. But they will show if you tweak the contrast in different color channel. And such thing would never show in a real photo.

    The person draw these arrows said very clear in his post, he is not sure if the lens is real, however the picture is likely a fake.

  • Mike

    I still think it’s real. 50% of us will be laughing at the other 50% when it’s revealed if this is fake or not. Quite a few people on my local Craigslist thought it was real as I’ve never seen so many 12-24 DX and 14-24s for sale at once. This is too good to be fake. The wood? C’mon people clearly it’s a wood veneer that’s been done poorly. Why someone would take a photo of a yet to be released lens at the veneer joint is puzzling. They either didn’t think about it or wanted to mess with people and put a lot of thought into placing it here. I don’t think this lens is outside of Nikon’s ability. Yes Sigma has a 12-24 full frame that doesn’t get great reviews, but that is consistent with Sigma… Great ideas but always pulling up short in the final product. If Nikon can command a $2000 price tag, they can engineer whatever they want.

  • Jason

    If I were Nikon and I was worried about a product leak, I would commission a fake photo to throw people off the scent 😛

  • MB

    So, was it fake? Yes!
    Was it a good work? Well yes, images were great; they gave us a day of joy when we took a first glimpse on them and than a day of sorrow after we examined them thoroughly.
    For those of you, who really loved this lens, don’t be sad, Nikon will release something similar very soon now, and it will be affordable. Yes!

    • Do you know something we don’t?

    • Lance


  • Aleksey

    Like a said before, it is a computer model of some lense which may or may not go in production. Personaly, I belive we will see it some day. May be it will be fish to rectangular zoom or maybe it will be DX. The only thing we know for sure about it , is the size of it’s rear cup. I suggest that somebody get busy and calculate its relative sizes based on these and see if it plausible. Even if sizes are indeed off, it could still be fake picture of something real made before that something was actualy build. Hence all the errors in sizes and markings and so on.

  • NikonMan

    Something no-one has considered re the focus planes in th table photo . . .

    if I took a photo of a lens (under NDA) and was to leak it, I would photoshop out any parts of the desk that would allow identification as my desk!
    I can seee how a quick PS job to obscure who leaked it could produce ALL the faults that we see in this photo.

    Technically speaking this lens IS possible
    1: it would be an expensive lens
    2: it needs that huge size at f4 to allow it to be rectilinear and cover FX
    3: it is NOT part of an f4 range – just that f2.8 would make the lens so much harder to build (with quality) this lens, if it exists is a top of the range pro lens with build quality and optical quality to make Canon et-al take note

    • Lance

      Or PS just to remove any other data tracability of the image?

  • UF

    One would expect it’s real because the usual suspects on the photo sites aren’t talking about it because of their non-disclosure agreements.

    It’s a damn good fake if it is.

    “Finally get the legendary sofa, and ha ha
    Recent hole was almost filled” – Food for thought.

  • Zoetmb

    I’m not saying it’s real, but some of the things they complain about, like the wood grain in the table, are not legit criticisms in my opinion. That simply looks like a cheap formica fake-wood pattern table that has a seam. So maybe the criticism is fake (or simply wrong.)

    The only thing that bothers me are those artifacts along the top edge of the lens (where three of the arrow are pointing.)

    Time will tell. I’ve been wrong a lot lately (I didn’t believe the 35mm DX was real) so since I earlier voted that this was real, it’s probably fake.

  • Jon Paul

    I don’t really care either way, but did the Chinese site say anything about the other picture?

    Sweet legendary sofa!

  • Back to top