Photoshopped? (Nikon AF-S 10mm f/2.8G ED DX)



For comparison here is the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8:


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

    It is ending.

    People wanted a wide prime for DX but a 15mm equivalent would not have been my first choice…or second, or third, or…

  • NikoDoby


  • AZ

    looks very fake to me, look at the DX sign

  • Dweeb

    Worthless. The prime would have a N surface or 2 for marketing and marked on the barrel. 2 more fishbowl lenses without filtration? A “pro” DX? This is amateur hour. Gawd I must have nothing to do.

    • Ronan

      Last time i check, all pro’s were shooting ‘DX’ until the D3 was born.

      So whats next, the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 isn’t ‘pro’ anymore because its DX?

    • Ok, you keep using whatever you’re using, and I’ll keep making money with the wonderful fishbowl glass Nikon makes. Traditional filtration generally FAILS miserably on glass wider than 20mm for many technical reasons. To properly filter glass that wide would require either radially graduated coatings or a custom curved, but optically neutral surface. Radial graduation is expensive (see Rodenstock center filters) and spherical filters would have to be calibrated to each lens formula, which no manufacturer is going to give away.

      What filters do you want to use on the 14-24 or 14/2.8 that you can’t? Is this really something that prevents you (assuming you really are a professional) from completing a job for a client?

      You keep whining…I’ll keep enjoying the current and future “fishbowl” glass Nikon puts out.

      • Anonymous

        Frankly, the only filter I’d like to use on 14-24mm is a protection filter. It would be the angle of choice to move through crowds at a show or concert etc. As you get really close to people, that might not pay attention at all, the risk of damaging the front element is given.
        Other than that I use a protection filter for highspeed photography, because of part that are flaying around. Appart from those two reasons the lens hood is all the protection I need.
        I would appreciate a Nikon wide angle like the 17-35mm f/2.8, even an f/4 would be fine, if the build quality is decent.

        • Agreed protection is nice.

          A lens like either Nikon that hits 14mm is designed for professional use, and is priced as such. A smart pro doesn’t invest in gear that doesn’t pay for itself right quick. A lens like this is allowed to break if it gets you the money to buy a replacement in a couple shoots. S’why I don’ t own one yet. I like it, but I don’t have a business reason to own one at that price…yet. ;D

          • Jason

            Let’s see proof, Mr Professional – just a link to your website will do, and we’ll believe you’re a pro . . .

    • Dweeb

      Have a look at how Zeiss managed ultrawide filtration in their 30mm. My requirement is for ultrawide polarization. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether I’m a pro or not.

      There are really only 2 relevant filters in digital, a protection and a polarizer. Software cannot remove reflections. It can however remover polarized hotspots in ultrawide skys. There is also no gel holder in the 14-24 for reasons known only to Nikon. Using the 10.5 for several years, I can pretty well manage protection problems by now. I have been finding deposited grass seeds sitting in the 14-24 shade frequently though.

      As a matter of fact my largest job last summer was shot mostly with the 12-24 polarized and paid for the 24-70 I purchased in the fall. Prior to purchasing my 14-24 I was using the 12 and thought, “I would not be out shooting this today without a polarizer”. I am now using the 14-24 on a DX to supplement when I am in a situation where polarization is not essential to me or when I don’t absolutely need the extra ultrawide coverage. I will continue to keep a 12-24 with polarizer which I’ve used since day one and transition into full frame when I feel it is needed and reasonably priced. That is why I purchased the 14-24 in advance of substantial price increases. And I expect to eventually have to purchase the old film 17-35 or its replacement like my associates that bought early into the D700 class have done.

      I’ll keep whining until I’m happier with my Nikon system than I am with my old Hasselblad film system. This thread is about whether these lenses are bunk or not. Take your “not a pro” putdown somewhere else. It’s irrelevant on Nikonrumours.

  • Chad

    The “DX” label doesn’t look right.. too linear, not curved enough. The “D” of “ED” looks wrong to me also.. I would be willing to put $20 on this being fake.

    Any takers?

  • glphoto

    small correction, the lens at the bottom is 14-24 f/2.8 and not a 12-24 f/2.8

    • Dweeb


  • Mike

    I say fake too. Btw admin that’s a 14-24 2.8G lens not a 12-24.
    10 mm DX pro lens? Not sure about that. Yes there is a 10.5 fisheye, but that’s a pretty specific lens. If they reall wanted to go ultra wide, how about a 8 or 9 mm DX UWA prime lens to match the 14mm FX that exists already.

  • Pascal

    Fake, Fake , Fake

  • JR

    As fake as Megan Fox…

    However, still strangely hot.

    • NikoDoby

      Except for her thumbs which are just strange

  • Terry

    Easy to spot this as a fake. Look at the bright portion of the lens hood on the 10mm. There are a number of patterns in the texture of the surface of the hood. Now look at the same area of the hood on the 14-24mm. The same patterns exist there to. Definitely busted as a fake.

    • Terry

      you can also see some processing done in the darkest areas of the shot. Not something Nikon would mistakenly leave in the shot if it was real.

  • chantasttic

    this is a joke right? love the great analysis on this site but i can’t help but feel like you are joking with some of these pictures.

  • Crabby

    Nikon is proudest, perhaps, of its wide-angle lenses and, after all, the 12-24mm DX is a pro lens, by the nature of its gold ring.

    However, I cannot see a 10mm DX prime coming out so soon after the 10-24mm DX and with the 10.5mm DX fisheye still in the line. I think that the next DX lens will be the Micro prime described by the patent shown here recently. I expect that this lens will also be sold as ideal for portraits to suggest to consumers that its price can be spread over two applications. (Wait and see.) After that, I can only suggest that the 16-85mm DX can be nano coated, although I don’t think that would improve its performance all that much. (I would love a tilt-and-shift DX lens for $600, but I doubt I have much company.)

    Also, the two photos are just too much alike. It’s a fake, IMO.

  • DX format is crap!!!

    Please Nikon, we do not want to hear again about the temporary DX format. With the advent of full frame Nikon DSLR cameras, Nikon should switch ALL its DSLR line only to full frame sensors and leave the D300s DX anomaly for the ones who still do not want full frame DSLR cameras.

    What on earth is the point of buying DX lenses when you know that, after switching to a full frame DSLR camera, you will need to use only full frame lenses?!!!!!!!!!!!! A pure waste of money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Anonymous

      So you are saying that DX has no advantages whatsoever? FX is a waste of money for many. A majority, I’d say.

    • Yeah and think of the 1.5 cropfactor advantage dx isn’t that bad at all, if i want to make pics of birds or other wildlife i would choose a D300s anytime over a fullframe.
      Think before u say stuff like that.

      • Anonymous

        but with the introduction of the 24 mp sensor the advantage of the cropfactor is pretty much gone. Only thing left, is that the D300 shoots more FPS than a 24mp camera. Which might be gone with the next generation…
        But regarding Nikons activity in the DX lens sector, it’s not a difficult guess that the DX format will stick around quite a bit longer. Canon and Sony on the other hand seem to make the jump towards 35mm sensors rather sooner.

        • yea right. so size, price and everything else is irrelevant.
          What about macro? Also is FX better?
          DX on Nikon is very finely crafted and no pro can say bad thing about it except for higher noise in shadows.

    • Adam

      All what I want is for Nikon to update its freaking FX primes and not introduce more DX primes! Like wtf! Why can’t they make a 35mm f/1.8 FX! DX users will still get the same FoV and FX users still can use it. Heck where are the pro (gold ring) prime lenses.

      I know I know, some people will say Nikon basically got it covered with the 14-200 range, but hey its f/2.8 and not saying its bad or anything, but primes are faster then that and some people goes with prime cuz of its faster by a stop or more and lighter. I want to see more f/1.4 gold ring primes! or even f/1.2!!

      • Anonymous

        The 35mm f/1.8 DX was a smart thing, and there barely is a lens out there that has a better performance / price ratio than this one.
        But I agree that it’s time for some fast primes. A 24mm and a 35mm f/1.4. My guess is that we see those lenses pretty soon. They need to update their wide and ultra wides, and with 14-24mm in the line up, the primes will only sell if their faster than 2.8. I only fear that a 24mm f/1.4 will have a price tag close to 2000 Dollar.

        • Adam

          yeah, you are right, the primes will only sell if its faster then f/2.8 but it will still sell if its sharper and cheaper at f/2.8 cause some people want their gear to be lighter.

          But yeah, I’m looking forward for Nikon to update its, 35mm, 85mm, 135mm. And the 24mm if they can get it faster then f/2.8 and I wonder why they can never get it right with 50mm, the new 1.4 AF-s is not any better then the old one and some people even recommends the old one.

          And if it’s me, to boost sales, if that range can be cheaper by making it f/2.0 or f/1.8 so be it, like the 50mm range, there is the 1.8 for budget and 1.4 for those who can afford it, I would like to see more Nikon primes are like that.

          • Anonymous

            Hm, sharper than the 14-24mm might be really difficult, even the corners are really sharp, even wide open. But I agree, price is a point, and even a big one. My fear is, looking at the intensive “pushing” Nikon is doing for the DX format, that affordable wide primes around f/1.8 – 2 might be DX exclusively. Unfortunately.

    • Anonymous

      The point in DX glass is, that two comparable lenses, aperture and focal length wise, is lighter and rather cheaper.
      And for nikon a perfect way to separate the amateurs and semipros from the pros, meaning that they can ask much more for FX bodies.

      • Adam

        yeah, and in time. This wont work cause when Sony and Canon introduces their body around D300s price point, then Nikon will be in trouble cause:
        1: they don’t have budget FX primes
        2: they don’t have f/4 FX zooms.

        nonetheless, as I kept saying, if Nikon continues to ignore the cheaper segment (f/4 zooms and budget FX primes), as soon as Canon introduces <$2000 FF, then Nikon will be in trouble, again (cuz newcomers will look at Canon instead since they have a vast majority of FF primes (and its updated!) and f/4 FF zooms)

  • NikoDoby

    Ha Ha way too deep of a black, no detail whatsoever. To conceal crappy photo chop work. I think I’ve got some spare time, perhaps I should give this a try :^)

  • Anonymous

    I call real. Why would a faker leave all of these flaws in it that make it that easy to spot? Obviously this is a real lens… otherwise it would look less fake.

    • NikoDoby

      ??? why would a faker leave the flaws? Maybe because they suck at Photo chop and thought it would be funny to get people to react to his very bad skills.

      I’m sure the original faker is getting a boner from all the attention.

      • Z-B-A

        I am not getting into the discussion of specs of this ‘lens’ but this pic is so obviously a truncated image of the 14-24. Everything matches! I am sure someone with more time on their hands will overlay the images. The DX logo has no curviture either.

  • MW

    I see a lot of you are trying to catch the “fake spots” on these pictures, but a lot of them are spots that don’t need to be photoshop, they can just merge from another lens, try to focus on the connecting points and words, instead of certain spot that can easily copy from another len.

  • Fake, there could be something like this coming but not in f2.8 for dx, why would u make a piece of glass that expensive for dx?
    Anyways thats not the only reason the dx mark is not corret just like the focusring (two of the ribbles seem to be melted together just like in the phoro of the 12-24mm).

    • Desinderlase

      “Expensive” lens for DX already exists.

  • it look fake to me.
    gap between 10 mm is so far….LOL

  • MW

    something caught my eyes were then golden N plate reflection, i’m not sure if it is natural or fake:

    • Anonymous

      Eehhhh.. You do realize that the rumor is the top lens?
      You are questioning the bottom one, the 14-24, which is a real lens used by lots of people…

      • MW

        oh yea, i meant if it would also show up on the top picture

  • Anonymous

    Either I’m being wooshed.. but anyway:

    Why would Nikon fake their own photo of an existing lens? πŸ™‚

  • Ronan

    Fake, look at the DX label, look how the light is enveloping the product (compared to the Nikon product shot). Looks very photoshoped.

  • funny

    LOL that is the worse fake I’ve seen.

  • NikoDoby

    I think all you Freddy Fakers should make a “real” CGI photo of the lens next time. Those are harder to dismiss (if you get the lighting right) and no one can do it using GIMP or MS Paint like you can the silly attempt above.

  • shivas

    comparo pic should read 14-24 f/2.8, not 12-24 f/2.8, unless i missed something. . .

    probably fake btw. . .but nice PS job?! for a friday night πŸ™‚

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think a 10mm DX prime would look like this. The new 10-24mm DX does not have the big dome front element, so don’t think a prime lens would.

    • Anonymous

      but this one is supposed to be a tad faster.

      • WoutK89

        And so what, it is DX and a prime (with a simpler optical formula) comparing to a zoom

  • …I have trouble believing that Nikon will be bringing out any gold ring DX primes. Ever.

    And this is a really crappy fake.

  • It’s a fake… sorry the “DX” looks terrible. I wish this was a real lens I would love to own it for my D300

  • Anonymous

    This is certainly an editing job; the main body of the lens looks sort of like the 35mm f/1.8G DX with the hood of the 14-24 πŸ˜›

  • Juergen.


  • NikoDoby

    I kinda feel sorry for Freddy Faker now…. πŸ™ I think his boner is gone and he’s just crying because of what we’ve written. Does anyone actually believe his fake picture? Anyone?

    Don’t worry Freddy keep trying…..maybe the canon guys will believe your picture of the complete canon 7D.

  • Oy

    LAMEST rumor ever. Completely fake to an extreme. Its not even a question. I cant believe this was posted. Nice try, no cigar. You need to at least try to fool us, if you are going to post something that you KNOW is fake. And you know it. I think you have known other things were fake too — but at least those ones made us flinch. Nice try though.

  • Photo Doogie

    There is no depth of field scale on then lens. Even the new Nikon G primes have markings for the smallest aperture. I vote fake.

    • Anonymous

      Wow, I’ve never seen a depth of field ring on any lens… πŸ˜‰

      • WoutK89

        And the what about the 35/1.8G, no distance scale window thingy whatsoever

  • Joe

    Looks fake but if its real Nikon is going to charge you 999.99 for it.

  • Steve

    This pic (or drawing, should I say) is just too funny.

    Even a three-year-old could tell it’s fake.

    And people, stop the crap about how Nikon shouldn’t do DX. That’s real crap. FX glass is more expensive, and DX people (which are the DAMN majority) do not need it.

    • Anonymous

      well, people are thinking of swtiching to fx, though they rather want to invest their money in glass they can fully use on fx.
      And FX glass mustn’t always be expensive, look at the 18-35mm, this is half the price of the recently introduced 10-24mm DX ultra wide angle.
      Which is in my opinion also the biggest problem for DX, the ultra wide section. Why isn’t there a cheap option? Like a 12mm f/4 DX? Together with a 17-50mm f/4 (FX!), in a decent build quality, people wouldn’t have so many problems with getting another DX body, because apart from the hopefully cheap 12mm they could keep their glass.

  • lx

    definitely photoshopped – u just have to closely look at pattern of the lens hood surface…

  • Laurent

    Fake…Big fake!

  • Anonymous

    As Robin noted above, there’s a (big) gap between “10” and “mm.” You’ll notice that Nikon doesn’t leave a gap between the number and “mm” on their lenses.

  • Lame… I’m so fed up with DX lenses… fake or not.

    • Adam

      yup! I want to see some FX primes! and budget FX primes! and f/4 FX zooms!

      • WoutK89

        So you rather see fake FX lenses appear on the front page?

        • Adam

          well at least that will sort of tell me what Nikon priorities are, lol

  • I am not getting into the discussion of specs of this ‘lens’ but this pic is so obviously a truncated image of the 14-24. Everything matches! I am sure someone with more time on their hands will overlay the images. The DX logo has no curviture either.
    P.S. – Sorry, forgot to tell you great post!

  • If this is true it is sad to see what Nikon priorities are. πŸ™

    Instead they should update prime’s especially 24, 35, 85, 135, 200, 300, 400mm .

    • Adam

      yup, couldn’t agree more, but why the 200,300, and 400? I’m not much into superteles but ain’t telephoto primes as sharp as it is already?

      • WoutK89

        He is talking about the AF-s 300/4 and a non-update version of the others I hope, meaning, 200/2.8, 400/5.6

        • Adam

          aah, alrite

          • WoutK89

            well the real Bonzo please stand up? πŸ˜›

          • WoutK89


  • NIkon user

    Definately fake! And a bad photoshop job too.

  • jdg857

    Why would the hood be scalloped? it’s not a zoom.

    • Anonymous

      still is on ultrawides because of the rectangular frame. mechanical vignette is OK in areas of the image circle not being used.

  • Lance

    I already have a 10-12DX zoom that opens to f3.5. Sure, the prime might be a bit sharper in the extreme corners, but this lens is not necessary. FAKE also based on the very uncreative measures the creator took to make the image.

    Nikon AF-S 9mm f/2.8G ED DX (as Mr. Rockwell predicted back in ’06) would make much more sense:

    • Digitalux

      Nikon had a prototype 6/1.6 together with the 10-40/1.4 and 11-120/2 in QV mount (crop factor 4x though).
      I wouldn’t be too surprised they could make some use of the research done back then.

  • Sergey Shandar

    looks fake for me

  • Niloy

    Dunno mates could be real…

    Remember how everyone was doubting the 10-24mm and the 35mm before it?

    • Anonymous

      remember how people thought the 10-18 f/4 FX was real?

      Lets be honest, a 10mm 2.8 DX makes sense, but you can clearly see the artifacting running down the middle of the lens on the picture, combine that with it being lit in the standard split strip light fashion of release images, and it starts to look more and more like a PS job where someone pulled the black levels, and ran out of dynamic range on a compressed web JPEG. I might buy this if the lens shot like the 10-24, like it was a quick snap in the back of a warehouse, but this image is PS’D, and worth of PsD (photoshop disasters, great blog). I’m not saying a 10mm f.2.8 DX isn’t coming, or that if/when it comes it won’t look a lot like this, but that picture is fake

  • Laurentiu

    Niloy is right…
    Yes, it looks fake, just like 10-24 when it was rumored, but a 10mm DX prime is just what I am waiting for; even at f/4.0 or f/5.6, for a non-pro user, would be just fine.
    Bear in mind that is cheaper to make DX lenses.
    I would like to buy even faster lenses than FX lenses like: AF-S DX 85mm f/1.4 at the price of FF 85mm f/1.8.
    What about a DX 135mm f/2.0 or even faster?
    I am not a pro and I prefer lightweight lenses so I don’t have plans to switch to FF soon.

    • I believed Nikon would eventually make something in the 10mm range…but some of those product shots were blatantly fake. I rule this lens out 100%

      …but this picture is 100% BS from PS.

  • Zorro

    No VR! Whatever is Nikon thinking?

    • getanalogue


  • drm


  • This is obviously a photoshopped one. And not a good one!! πŸ˜‰ Look at the “10mm” label… There is far too much space between “Nikkor” and “10mm”, as well as between “10mm” and “1:2.8G”! And as mentioned by others, textures on the lens shade is bad, the “DX” label looks anything but real, and so on. It looks obvious to me that this is a fake one. I would bet 100$ on it!

  • Astrophotographer
    • WoutK89

      That sir, is a 12 mm lens, 100 degree fov. 10mm would be 109 degrees according to the Nikon 10-24 specs, 12mm is 99 degrees.

  • Back to top