What about those lenses?

I will stick with my initial report on the next set of Nikon lenses (done before the D3s announcement):

Nikon AF-S 24mm f/1.4 lens: I expect this lens to be announced during the first quarter of 2010. Did not receive a lot of communication on that lens.

Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.4 lens: based on a previously filed patent I think this lens should be coming soon - I say latest 9 months from now and as soon as December, 2009 unless Nikon filed that patent to throw us off. I had very strong indications that the Nikon AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR lens would be released (see this post), but I would never think that Nikon will release a DX lens with the Nikon D3s (actually my exact comment two week ago was "this is still a possibility").

Nikon AF-S 100-500mm f/4-5.6 IF-ED VR lens: this lens should be released first or second quarter of 2010.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR: this rumor came from a Japanese forum. I have no other info on this lens.

We may have another Nikon announcement before this year is over.

The rumor is also that Cliff Mautner (click here for his 70-200mm f2.8G ED VRII review) is testing six more new Nikon lenses (source). This is what he wrote on his blog:

"The big box of lenses I just received will be heading back to Japan when I'm finished the campaign shoots, unless I accidentally forget to enclose the new 70-200 VRII with the package (just kidding Soichi-san)!!"

I don't think he is working on a Nikon campaign for old products, so we will have some new glass coming soon.

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

    bring it on baby!

  • Awesome. Only really interested in the 24 1.4, but looks great!

    • another anonymous

      i’m also interested in 24mm f1.4 for mainly indoor use, but i’m also interested in 14-24 f2.8 for outdoor.. what do you think people about using only 14-24 and 24-70 everywhere while bettering iso? with d700 i assume it’s ok (it’s probably my next camera), but i’m using d300 at the moment and will using it also alongside planned FF.. thanks for any advice/opinion ๐Ÿ™‚

  • Dave

    They either need to update the AF-S 300mm f/4 with VR or come out with another AF-S VR zoom lens like the 100-400 or 100-500. This would put them in track with Canon finally, who right now has more lens choices than Nikon, especially VR/IS ones…let go Nikon!!!

    • SBGrad


    • plug

      The prime is the better option.

  • Phil

    Forgive my newbness, but is the 24 1.4 a DX lens?

    • low

      long live dx!

    • fotosniper

      who cares, it will be awsome!

    • Jabs

      The 28mm F1.4 lens will probably be an FX lens, in my opinion.

      One lens I would love to see is a return of say the 105mm F2.5 or equivalent with VR or just nano coating and IS.

      Then, something similar to the old 58mm F1.2 NOCT or similar ultra low light lens to go along with the amazing improvement in low light resolution of the new D3s.

      Anyone looked at the low light Video from the Circus video shoot by Nikon shot with the new D3s?
      Awesome – so clean and unlike most of the stuff that I have seen and downloaded from the 5D MK2, the depth of field is properly executed to cover the subject matter instead of too shallow a depth of field wherein everything is now NOT in focus.
      Sort of like showing off with shallow depth of field and missing the focus just to show that you can get shallow depth of field.
      Totally bogus, man!


      • STJ

        Why a 105 F2.5? They should be able to make it at least f2.0 if not f1.8… Otherwise I agree – especially with the 50mm. What I have seen so far from the AFS 50mm is that it is sharp but that the out of focus looks horrible – and why would wou want such a lens if not for throwing the background out of focus? Please don’t make a new 85 or 105mm with those properties….

        • Neil

          Aesthetics is a personal thing. I find the AF-S 50 f/1.4 to have fine bokeh.

          • soap

            Aesthetics is personal, yes, but quality of bokeh can be quantified. Rings are right out!

        • Jabs

          The reason that I mentioned the 105mm F2.5 is that is was and still is legendary for people shooting from 35mm film to now Full Frame cameras. I just wish for a lens like that but now updated for use on Full Frame cameras.
          Faster is not necessarily better, as Nikon played the ‘F’stop game’ years ago with Canon and Leica and many times the slower lens was better.
          Bokeh is a personal choice, it seems, but I don’t concern myself with that, as I usually fill the frame. Bokeh to me is overemphasized.
          The DC series of lenses took care of that.
          I prefer very good contrast, minimal flare and minimal aberrations from either ED glass or nano-coating to the bragging rights of having the lowest F number as most people do NOT know how to properly focus a low F stop lens with its’ razor thin’ focus plane.
          I prefer to use a longer focus length to get shallow depth of field rather than a faster and shorter lens to get a similar effect.
          Personal choice!

    • Astrophotographer

      The answer to your question, Phil, is the 24 1.4 is FX. That’s what the patents say.

      • PHB

        Nikon seem to have a pattern of releasing an FX lens, followed by a DX lens of equivalent focal length that is a lot cheaper. So the 50mm f/1.4 was followed by the 35mm f/1.8.

        Nikon is currently at the start of what is pretty much their first major refresh of their prime lineup in over a decade. Their recent zooms have outperformed the primes by quite a wide margin. Even the 10-24mm DX lens beats my 20mm and 24mm primes.

        There really wasn’t much of a need for primes until the launch of the D3/D300 suddenly brought indoor photography without flash within the range of a fast prime. Now that there is a reason to use primes, Nikon is busy filling out the range.

        Once the designer had worked out how to make a 50mm FX lens, he could reuse maybe 70% of the same work to make a 35mm DX lens. There are certainly differences between the two designs that were produced, but what became the 35mm lens will have been amongst the design candidates for the 50mm lens.

        So producing a 24mm f/1.4 and then following up with an 18mm f/1.8 DX makes a lot of sense. Assuming we get the 85mm f/1.4 AFS, the FX shooter can fill their bag with a choice from three fast primes: 24, 50, 85. The DX shooter can choose 18, 24, 35, 50, 85.

        I would guess that in time we will see the gaps in the FX lineup filled in. But I can’t see the demand for FX primes being the same as it was before we had such great zooms. Everyone can use one or two ultra-fast lenses, but very few people need to have a complete range.

        24MP and above means that you have an effective 1.5x ‘digital zoom’ capability in the camera in any case. You can crop the photograph and process it in photoshop and still have plenty of resolution.So a 24mm prime is effectively a 24-35mm f/1.4 zoom! So while I would expect a 35mm f/1.4 in due course, I don’t think we should expect every one of the existing primes to come out in a fast prime format.

        I am not sure if we will see fast primes wider than 24mm for the FX format though. The 14mm f/2.4 is clearly at the limit of what is practical and the 14-24 zoom is thought to be as good if not better by some.

        • f/2.8


        • mike

          18mm is a bit ho hum, isn’t it? I would rather have something like the Pentax 15/4, personally. Shouldn’t be that hard.

        • fugue137

          Faster fixies! Anything wide at f/1.4 or 1.8 and not too expensive would make me very happy. I almost bought a Canon just to use their 28mm f/1.8, but the last thing I need is another brand. Open standards would have been pretty cool…

  • albert

    I’m all good with all the hopeful lenses listed here.

    However, only the prime lenses attract me.

    Hopefully there will be AF-S 135mm f/2 VRII & AF-S 200mm f/4 VRII macro as well.

  • fotosniper

    the question i have, will the 16-35 be FX?

    • zeeGerman

      I like to believe so. DX wouldn’t make any sense. if it would be 16-50mm, okay, maybe, but 16-35mm DX wouldn’t be any kind of lens, not a wide zoom, nor a standard zoom.
      What crossed my mind, was a 16-45/50mm f/4 VR FX, as the standard lens for your today’s DX body, and a wideangle zoom for tomorrows FX body. But I guess they want you to buy twice…

      • Mikael

        Remember that the 17-35 f/2.8 was released with the D1-series, probably a “desperate” attempt to achieve a normal zoom at that time (before Nikon had worked out a strategy for DX-lenses).

        • zeeGerman

          Hmm, that’s true. But on the other hand, film was still really big at those times.

    • mike

      Range would be a bit lame on DX, don’t you think? They ought to be able to at least make it to 55, if that was their idea.

  • nikonbox

    oh man must make room in my wallet. i’ve been holding off on the 85 1.4 for a while and will certainly get the new one. a 100-500 is a much needed lens in the line up. as nikon has no match for canon’s 400 5.6 at the moment.

    more likely nikon will release the 24 1.4 as it’s newest most awesome and SUPER LIMITED use lens. Nikon seems to be good at releasing those kinds of lens.

    • Hey-nonny-mouse

      > more likely nikon will release the 24 1.4 as itโ€™s newest most awesome and SUPER > LIMITED use lens. Nikon seems to be good at releasing those kinds of lens.

      In that case they’ll surely give it VR II!!! ๐Ÿ™‚

    • mike

      Who would buy a 100-500? It’d barely be any smaller than the 200-400, and at that rate, what makes you think it’d be any cheaper? That lens still makes no sense to me. A new 80-400 with AF-S would be so much cheaper and smaller, and wouldn’t need 96mm filters.

      • jsa

        The 100-500 makes sense to me, to make up for my subject selection skills. My subjects all seem to be poorly trained, in that they don’t care about staying in a 200-400 frame. ๐Ÿ™‚

        It’d have to be a 52mm insert filter not a monster front filter. F6.3 would be of no interest.

        Don’t expect it to be cheap either.

      • PHB

        I will buy the 100-500 as soon as I can. I expect that it will cost roughly $2000-$2500. That is considerably less than the 200-400 and a little higher than the Canon 100-400.

        The 100-500 ‘Bigma’ is not ridiculously large and costs $1000. The Nikon lens is clearly intended to be a rival. Nikon tends to be twice the price of the other lens brands but not much more.

        The 200-400 is a superb lens, but not a big seller and not going to be replaced by this one. The f/4 CA design means that it is a LOT bigger than the Bigma. Nikon know their market, they are not going to be selling two lenses in the ‘too big to carry’ category. I can’t imagine that we are going to see a $6000 price tag here.

        • nobody

          Keep the 80-400 at $1.500 and the 200-400 at $6.000 and add the 100-500 for $3.000. Makes perfect sense for me. And I would buy the 100-500.

  • ed

    im guessing, the boxes of lens they send to cliff mautner will be lenses used in wedding photography the most often. i.e fast primes and fast zooms, not many wedding photographers use a lens in the category of 100-500mm, or 28-300, or 100-400. or macro, i can see a 300, but not sure f/4 is fast enough for the darker churches even with the D3s.

    Canon’s 24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2, 85f/1.2 135mm f/2 attracts a lot of wedding photographers especially when f/2.8 isnt fast enough

    • Anonymous

      I agree. That makes sense!

    • soap

      Damn you and your deductive reasoning!

  • wageslave

    Forgive my ignorance, just contemplating on moving to Nikon from Canon, is there a 35mm (preferably at least 1.8) that’s not a DX (intended for a FX) lens?

  • zeeGerman

    @admin: the RSS feed doesn’t seem to work any more. The last entry there is the past “Nikon related links/news”.

  • Gerry

    So when should I sell my 80-400 to maximize my resale value before this 100-500 comes out? I hope it is as crisp as my 80-400.

    • zeeGerman

      As far as my experience goes, the release of a successor doesn’t have a terribly huge impact on the price of the old one. As the new one seems to have a better range, I’d also expect a higher price tag, which would result in even less harm to the price of the old one. But if you want to be sure, as soon as possible…
      Me on the other hand, would wait until I hold the new one in my hands.

  • camerausercollector

    Yeah baby 24mm f1.4 the real deal. Now those 28mm 1.4 will go down in price. Sell… sell… sell… sell…..before the release.

    • jsa

      Never sell, never sell, never sell.

      Well maybe, but not letting it out of my sight unless something better in every way is in my hands first.



  • Tim

    These lenses are all touted for FX spec. Just missing the 200/4 micro here on my list and a 12/2.8 DX lens as a wide prime for that format. Come on Nikon, get that Nano coat on and get those lenses shipped!

  • NikoDoby

    I have a real hard time believing that the 16-35mm f/4 is real ๐Ÿ™
    But then again I wouldn’t have believed the D3S would be announced alongside an 85mm f/3.5 DX Micro lens either ๐Ÿ™‚

  • sohnjwan

    Just what we need an 85mm f/1.4 AF-S lens that will cost 2000 bucks (based on the price of the 50mm f/1.4 AF-D vs the AF-S version) and a wide angle f/4 lens with VR to hike the price up so much that it wonยดt be able to compete in price with the EF 17-40mm f/4L… Wait.. what?

    just great :P… I dunno why people are getting excited ๐Ÿ˜›

    • STJ

      Because not all people are broke….

      • sohnjwan

        For a minute put your thinking cap and analyze this:
        DX lenses:
        10-24mm AF-S DX
        12-24mm AF-S DX
        16-85mm AF-S DX
        17-55mm AF-S f/2.8 DX
        18-70mm AF-S DX
        18-55m AF-S DX
        18-55mm AF S II DX
        18-55mm AF-S VR DX
        18-135mm AF-S DX
        18-105mm AF-S DX
        18-200mm AF-S VR DX
        18-200mm AF-S VR II DX
        35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX
        85mm f/3.5 AF-S DX
        55-200mm AF-S DX
        55-200mm AF-S DX VR

        In exchange the updates to FX lenses are:
        14-24mm f/2.8
        24-70mm f/2.8
        70-200mm f/2.8 VRII (which now costs like 800 bucks more than the VR I version)
        and 50mm f/1.4 AF-S

        Now you have succesfully created a line of full frame cameras that are doing great, however with the price increases keep people at bay from making the switch, also your company thinks that 600 bucks for a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VR lens in a cheap plastic body with duo cam design is worth 600 bucks, on the other side of the camp your competition has legacy lenses that perform great and have build quality: 17-40mm f/4L ($600 bucks), 24-105mm f/4L IS ($1200), 70-200mm f/4L($600), 70-200mm f/4 L IS ($1150) keeping in mind that during this recession these sell a whole lot more (not everyone needs or wants f/2.8 Lenses as studio shooter I barely go below f/5.6 and if I need to I have primes for that) Nikonยดs commitment to FX format has to be stronger, like there is a D700 for those who canยดt afford a D300 an f/4 legacy lens isnยดt a bad idea for those that donยดt want an f/2.8 zoom lens (specially with the 70-200mm VR II).

        Besides anyone who wants a wide angle zoom with VR is just moronic, I have never run into a situation where I would need VR at those focal lengths.

      • sohnjwan

        It should read “like there is a D700 for those who canยดt afford a D3” sorry for the typo.

    • Adam

      cause people want fast FX primes and cheaper FX zooms and not more DX glasses.

      • PHB

        If you want cheap, stay with the DX format.

        Nikon is not going to be making cheap FX lenses for a very long time, if ever.

        • soap

          While I agree with you, what happens in two years when Best Buy sells their remaining D700 stock @ $600?
          Do we just see a noticeable price increase in used lower-end lenses originally targeting budget-minded film shooters?

  • grumps

    What about the Leica X1-like-camera?

  • Blago

    24/1.4 35/1.4 85/1.4 C’mon!

    • grumps

      I think there maybe an 135mm f/2 in it somewhere if you want to complete the list!

      • Blago

        i actually wrote 105/2 135/2 and then erased them back ๐Ÿ™‚

        • Kuv

          IMO the existing 105 f2 and 135 f2 are good enough for the time being. there are a lot more wide lenses that need to be replaced.

          • grumps

            It’s hardly available anywhere today, yes they are good, but it does have some dated artifacts. These DC lenses, I’m pretty short are on Nikon’s update plans.

      • sohnjwan

        I would give my left eye for a 105mm f/2.0 and 135mm f/2.0 without defocus control ๐Ÿ˜€

    • camerausercollector

      You can add my wish list. 24mm f1.4 AF, 35mm f1.4 af, 50mm f1.2 AF, 85mm 1.2 and 105mm f1.4 af all full frame with all the goodies found in prime lenses that includes VRII.
      And a total dream 300mm af 1.8 with all the goodies found in prime lenses including VRII

  • Total baloney. Does not make any sense, whatsoever.
    Who will buy the stockpile of D3, D3X and D3S cameras?
    Does anybody here really believe that Nikon are THAT stupid, marketing wise???

  • bob

    I read Cliff’s blog post and I don’t think he writes about six new lenses. Some of the lenses in the box, he writes, are already in his bag..

    My wish list: 24/1.4, 35/1.4..

  • Why anyone needs those 1.4’s or 2.8’s ? Low-light? Solved. Low-DOF? High-DOF is preferable. Why pay top dollars, or carry loads if it will anyway be used at f/8 or f/11 most of the times? f/4 or f/5.6 is far enough for most purposes, and it will be discreet, lightweight, affordable, keeping the same resolution when stopped down. So, what’s all the fuss?

    • You are joking right?

    • ed

      assuming you’re a landscape photographer, that may be true, but not everyone shoots landscapes with ideal bright light. photojournalists, wedding photographers, are confronted day to day with the lowest crappiest light ever

    • Adam

      it’s something like calling ISO 102, 400 a joke. The added benefit of having a few extra stops just makes it worth it for those situation where you ended up missing the shot because your camera cant capture enough light ๐Ÿ˜€

    • another anonymous

      we are not talking about taking picture using mobile phone, brother

      • another anonymous

        sorry Landscape Photo, i didn’t immediately recognize your question to be constructive. i really care about both low DOF and lowlight shooting with minimal noise… and also i care about details, colours and surface structure by low light.. all that i need by shooting animals, nature pictures (not only landscapes) and this time also people

    • because fast lenses come in very handy for subject isolation with limited depth of field

    • sohnjwan

      As a landscape photographer you may prefer wider DOF, but the rest of us like our portraits without having to go to f/22 all the time ;).

  • I wish they’d make a 35/1.4 and/or 28/1.4 (both FX)…

    • Adam

      I’m with you dude!

  • Mikael

    Now really, where’s the 400 f/4? What if you want the stunning quality of a real super-tele prime, but not the weight penalty of a f/2.8 prime or f/4 zoom. However, it doesn’t have to cost as much as the Canon 400 f/4. ๐Ÿ™‚

    • DNHJR

      I don’t think Nikon would do a 400mm f/4 because they have the 200-400mm f/4, but a compact 400 f/4 would be nice.

  • Gordon

    For those interested, here is a list of all the lenses that are 10 years or older (I included 2000 seeing as it is nearly 2010).

    AF Fisheye-Nikkor 16mm f/2.8D 1993
    AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2D 1993
    AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D 1993
    AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED 1993
    AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D 1994
    AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D 1994
    AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D 1994
    AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D 1994
    AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED 1994
    AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D 1995
    AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D 1995
    AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF 1995
    AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2D 1995
    AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED 1997
    AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED 1999
    PC Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D 1999
    AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED 2000
    AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF 2000
    AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G 2000
    AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED 2000
    AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED 2000
    AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED 2000

    What I don’t understand is why Nikon neglects these but continue to release DX lenses in the range of 16-135mm range, there seems to be too much overlap in that range.

    • No 400mm/5.6 on that list, neither 400mm/3.5 or 600mm/5.6. Lenses that could make nikon special (or they made Nikon special in the past)

    • Adam

      wow, thanks for listing it out. Yeah, it shows how much Nikon has neglected to FX primes market! Stop making more DX glasses Nikon, time to update your really outdated FX glass!

    • PTG

      I do not understand the purpose of this list. If you want these lenses to be updated,
      let me just mention that several of them have already been updated:
      AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D replaced by AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G
      AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D replaced by AF-S 50mm f/1.4G
      AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G replaced by AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR
      PC Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D replaced by PC-E 85/2.8 D Micro
      this one has been updated even twice:
      AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED replaced by AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VRI and VRII

      And there is a wonderful zoom replacing four wide angle primes. ๐Ÿ™‚

      It is good that Nikon produces new lenses, not just updates of existing ones!
      That’s progress.

      • Anonymous

        AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED 1993
        AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D 1994
        AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D 1994
        AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D 1994
        AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D 1994
        AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED 1994
        AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D 1995
        AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF 1995
        AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2D 1995

        I believe all these primes need updates. I mean I have the 35 f2 and 85mm f1/4, and i personally don’t think they need much of a revamp. But since everyone seems to want AF-S and VR what to do?

        • PHB

          Nah, the f/2.8 primes are irrelevant. The zooms are better. Most of those lenses will never be replaced.

          What we need is a set of fast primes optimized for digital, a replacement for the 80-400 zoom and to fill out the range of longer primes. A 200mm f/2.8 and a 400mm f/4 would be useful.

          The launch of the 100-500 will create a need for a good 24-100mm DX zoom and we need more DX wide primes.

  • New DX lenses! Yeeaah I’m soo happy I bought a D700…

  • getanalogue

    is this christmas wish list here? ok, my choice would be 15/2, 20/2, 24/1.4, 85/1.4 and 12/2.8 DX and 16-60/2.8 VR DX.

  • John Ahern

    You read a lot of comments about wedding photographers wanting fast primes, but most wedding photographers I know start with zoom, (24-70 & 70-200) and then later they might add something like a 85mm and then a fast wide angle. I know very few wedding photographers who havea set of fast primes so the market is not that big. The current 85mm is fine, it won’t be the end of the world if it not updated, but the lack of a fast wide angle is a hole in the line up, the 28mm f/1.4 is way too expensive and also rare to see one on sale.
    If you look at bang for your bucks in terms of spending R&D money then DX and some f/4 zooms are the way to go, Nikon versions of Canon’s 17-40mm, 24-105mm and 100-400mm would sell a lot more than a couple for f/1.4 primes.

    • PHB

      The old 85mm f/1.4 is AF. It is thus going to be obsolete when the focus motor starts disappearing from the mid range cameras. All that is wanted there is an AFS version of the same old lens.

  • nimda

    Really shocks me that the Admin has been doing this site for how long now? and still says things like “unless they filed that patent to throw us off.” Throw who off? You? Me? you think a huge corporation files patents to throw off rumor websites? They are a very predictable company. We almost always know what we are getting, timing its the only question.

    • grumps

      What you said is true, but come on, give Admin some props, it’s to stir rumors, no? (It shouldn’t really shock you, in the same way you feel these large corporations are predictable) ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Astrophotographer

      Look up the word facetious. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  • Peter Koch

    I certainly would like some more DX lenses. I have two DX lenses on my wish list. A less expensive version of the 17-55 f/2.8 DX standard zoom lens (the current version is pro-grade and has a very high price tag). And a wide aperture tele-zoom, forexample 50-135mm f/2.8 DX.

    I like the DX format (I have a D300). The FX format produces better picture quality, no doubt about that. But DX lenses is more compact and easier to carry around in the field. A wide aperture tele-zoom in DX format (50-135mm) would be more compact and more affordable than the Nikon 70-200mm tele-zoom for the FX format. Both Tokina and Sigma offers one, but I like to stay with Nikon lenses.

    So I hope to see some more DX lenses ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Zorro

      Me too. I have absolutely no intention of going to FX. And DX is not going to die.

      I’d like to see small, light-weight, low-cost DX primes for my D40 and D90 like 28mm f2.0, 24mm f2.0, 18mm f2.0. Sharp and *fast* focusing.

      That said, I’d also like the FX users to get the lenses they want too.

      • grumps

        As far as I can tell, the Nikon list for DX is pretty complete, in terms that they have released from faster primes to do-it-all zooms, to already having fast zooms. Also DX can use FX lenses too!

        However, saying this, I have no gripe with Nikon releasing for DX, surely this is a separate thing in the company. It is always (almost) the pro tools that drive the consumer tools!

      • Laurentiu

        I would like to have a 50-135mm f/2.8 DX, or even a 50-135 f/2.0 DX, with a pro quality.
        I would also like to have a small-sized 10mm DX prime f/4 or even f/5.6.
        The new announced 85mm f/3.5 looks very good for me.

      • John

        No need for cheaper nikon lenses. there are third parties providing this and nikon knows this. this is how nikon will make money of those who buy only nikon.

    • phil

      I have a D40 and the Sigma 50-150 2.8 lens. The Sigma is a decent, but not spectacular lens and does not have VR. If Nikon came out with a 50-150 2.8 DX VR lens, it would probably cost 1400-1500 but would likely be a vastly superior lens to the Sigma. If such a lens came out I would probably sell my Sigma and get the Nikon!

    • mike

      Constant aperture zooms are pro as far as Nikon is concerned (look, they all have gold rings … ), and there have not been any pro DX lenses since the 17-55 and 10.5 fisheye in 2003 (and, in fact, the only other pro DX lens is the 12-24). You can keep on waiting, or you can just buy a Tamron 17-50VC and Sigma 50-150.

      What I want is a small 14/4 DX (which, incidentally, does not have any 3rd party alternatives). I already have the Tokina 12-24, but I want something smaller …

  • Alex

    Still no AF-S 300 f/4 VR ?
    Anyways, I just got a tokina 300 f/4 sd (excellent) and with the D700 set at 800 iso, I get 1/500 minimum speed so I don’t really need the VR.
    Of course the “old” nikon AF focusing is much slower than an AF-S but I don’t use the 300mm for sport, manly for portraits and wildlife shoots.

  • /me wants 85 f/1.2 … why nikon can’t make it?
    ok, release f/1.4 but at reasonable price!

    • camerausercollector

      Thanks for joining me on this wish list of 85mm f1.2. Peace. Nikon please make it happen.

      • rhodium

        Let me ask you here: what are your reasons for wanting an aperture of f/1.2? Do you really need it?

        • soap

          DUDE – WE NEED 1.2.
          @ 10′ the DOF difference between 1.4 and 1.2 (on DX) is a third of an inch.(two thirds of an inch on FX)

          I don’t know about you – but I MUST have a 2/3rds of an inch shallower depth of field on my portraits!


  • Hmm, 100-500mm? Another zoom that is soft at 500mm, and probably just 460mm in reality. 5.6 @ 500mm, yes thats gonna be one very “light” and “packable” zoom.

    Why not make a 400mm 5.6 prime Nikon users are deprived of decades?

  • photonut

    The AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR would be THE lens that would make me stay with Nikon and wait for a high rez D700x/D800!

    • Geoff

      I’m really hoping for the 16-35 as well. I could do without the VR though. I’d buy this lens in anticipation of eventually upgrading to a D700 in the future. Without a lens like this, I wont be switching to FX any time soon.

      • morphez

        Me too…Hoping so much that 16-35/4 is true then I can buy D700.

    • grumps

      Surely not? The 2.8 non-G version, I find it great! Surely a f/4 can’t be your deciding factor. It may make the lens slightly smaller and this lens more consistenly sharp having done away from 2.8!

      I usually shoot this lens with landscapes and stop it down, but if Nikon does replace this lens with newer primes, I don’t find this len being so crucial in their line up unless it is Leica small ๐Ÿ™‚

      • Geoff

        It has more to do with price for me. I currently use the Tokina 12-24 and find a lot of my shots are done around the 12mm range and usually stopped down to at least f5.6. So if I go full frame I’ll need an FX lens around 18mm. Right now there are no affordable (to me) options. I don’t care too much about the size of it. I care more about sharpness/contrast at an affordable (to me) price.

        • mike

          Well, there is still the 18-35/3.5-4.5. I’m not sure there is such a big market for lenses like that, though; if you can afford a D700 or D3(x), then surely you can afford a 14-24 or used 17-35?

  • Dan

    The 100-500 would need some interesting optics (at least aspherics, which have become cheaper and more common lately, and maybe a diffractive element if Canon doesn’t have a patent on those) if it is to be decent quality at a decent size (80-400 size instead of 200-400). One possibility is that it might be f6.3 at the long end – as long as it’s f5.6 or better at 400mm, it doesn’t lose any ground to the existing 80-400.


    • WoutK89

      Diffractive optics have been used in the Media Port thing Nikon launched a while back, so maybe we will see it some day, if Nikon thinks its worth it

  • Eh??

    all are wishful thinking, period.

    Nikon AF-S 24mm f/1.4? there’s 28mm f/1.4D AF on ebay.

    Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.4? there’s 85mm f/1.4D AF IF already on the shelves.

    Nikon AF-S 100-500mm f/4-5.6 IF-ED VR? there’s 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D AF ED VR already on the shelves.

    Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR? there’s 17-35mm f/2.8D AF-S ED-IF on already on the shelves.

    the question is… why do those lenses need an upgrade? they serve just fine for a lot more people than on this site. great photogs don’t wait.

    • phil

      I thought Nikon discontinued the 17-35?

    • shivas

      fair point. . .I really do think that converting their AF-D primes to AF-S primes will REALLY open up the market. . .but to what end users?

      I know a D40 user isn’t going to jump all over a 24 1.4 or 85 1.4 unless they are priced in the $400 range. . .which will NEVER happen, so begs the question, what’s the point?

      The 60mm AF-D micro was updated to AF-S after something like a 20 year run, so maybe that’s what they’re thinking, “modernizing the lens fleet?”

      The 17-35 was flawed mechanically (weird noises and issues), so a 16-35/4 wouldn’t kill, and probably appeal to all users, even pro’s since they can *NOW* crank ISO’s up to 12,800 to compensate for speed!!

      • John

        its most likely not attracting the entry level users…….

    • Dave C.

      because the focus speed on the 80-400 is extremely slow. Update with AF-S and it will finally compete with the Canon 100-400. They 100-500 is a crap rumor, never gonna happen and makes no sense to do at all. They would be smarter adding VR or AF-S where not currently on the long telephotos (both prime and zoom). JMHO.

      And do the dumba$$es with a DX camera know that lenses designed for FX/35mm work great on DX bodies. Actually better since you get the crop factor so you are only using a small center area of the optics…you know the sharpest area!

      • mike

        FX wides on DX are too big and too expensive. E.g., the 14/2.8 gives you a pretty pedestrian field of view on DX; who wants to carry all that useless extra glass around? More examples: 17-55 has more range in less space than the 17-35; ditto for the 18-70 and 18-35; there is nothing like the 10-24 on FX. And then there are the non-wides. Compare the price of the frankly ancient 35/2 (a modern one would be $400-500) to the 35/1.8. Or consider the new 85 macro, which has more than twice the working distance as the 60 AF-S, plus VR and a lower price tag. With telephotos (and to a lesser extent, f/1.4 primes of all focal lengths), you have a point. Otherwise, no.

        And performance on DX is not necessarily better on DX, which typically has a much higher pixel density than FX (pretty much the only exception here is the D3x). FX lenses on DX perform more consistently over the whole frame, but centers on FX are always better than on DX. If the lens performs uniformly over the (FX) frame, then DX performance is worse. This is because MTF is in lines per picture height, and the picture height of FX is larger than DX, so lenses do not need to be as sharp on FX as on DX.

    • You’re right, they don’t wait, they just go for the first manufacturer bringing the goods! That is Canon.

  • PTG

    @admin: why did you not mention the 35/1.4:
    Is there any reason that it is less likely than a 24/1.4?

    • PHB

      A 28mm f/1.4 is more likely to come out first as Nikon already has the DX 35mm f/1.8 lens.

  • rwpl

    Unfortunately you can forget about 24 1.4 and new 85 1.4
    Here is the nikon lens schedule:
    2009 Dec Nikkor 18-150 DX 3.5-5.6
    2010 Feb Nikkor af-s 200 micro f/4
    2010 Mar ( PMA ) Nikkor 18-55 redesign
    2010 Jun Nikkor 50mm macro f/3.5 dx

    etc … until we nikon fans will make a hostile takeover and get rid off
    the marketing morons in Nikon corp.

    • Dave C.

      Or just switch to Canon like I’m considering for the lenses. I love my D300, but want more choices for affordable lenese with great optics that are sharp (ie. 300mm f/4 IS, 70-200mm f/4 IS, 400mm f/5.6L just to name a few).

      • rwpl

        as they say – canon is a great system above 70mm ;]

        I’m sticking to nikon but I wont wait for the lenses mentioned in this post – I’ll just feeling the gaps with sigma and tamron.

        • What about 17-40, 35 f/1.4 etc?

      • nimda

        You def should switch. Maybe your pictures will improve

  • Anonymous

    I don’t like how the 14-24 and 24 1.4 overlap… I want the 28 1.4 back.

    • John

      get it. its still one of the sharpest nikon lenses ever.

  • John

    Nikon needs to bring back the NOCT…

  • rhodium

    You know what’s my dream?

    Nikon updates their entire line of MF lenses (everything, from the NOCT to the circular fisheyes to the 13mm f/5.6) with AF-S, VR, ED and whatever else you can throw in. Now THAT will make Nikon arguably the best camera company EVER.


    I really hope if that 100-500mm is true it’s not as big as some of the people here have said it may be. I’m really hoping for a lens that’s in the same size and weight of the current 80-400, but with AF-S and VR II. If it’s really a big beast and a $2000+ cost, then I’ll pass.

    • Canico

      A 100-500/f4-5.6 would be very interesting for me and i’ll buy it if not too expensive. But, it will be more than $2000 for sure.

    • nobody

      Keep the 80-400 in the line up at $1.500 for those who prefer low cost, and the 200-400 at $6.000 for those who want maximum quality. And add the 100-500 at $3.000 as a great compromise.

      Makes perfect sense for me to have long zooms covered at three different levels of price and performance. And I would buy the 100-500.

  • bagus

    AF-S 58/1.2G ED would be cool. nikon also need to release these lenses too, AF-S 135/2G ED VR, AF-S 105/2G ED VR, AF-S 180/2.8G ED VR, AF-S 200/4G ED VR Micro, AF-S 35/1.4G ED….and hopefully one day AF-S 24-105/4G ED VR and probably AF-S 70-200/4G ED VR.

    • BillyBobJohnson

      I’d lap up a few of those. It’s the wide angle primes that need the most attention though. Some of those babies are as old as me.

    • sohnjwan

      OK we get that you have a VR fetish…

      How many of you have Parkinson to want so many lenses with VR???

  • Anonymous

    I have been a Nikon Pro since the 60s when I was in the US Air Force and stationed first in Texas (where I got my first Nikon F) then in Japan where I loaded up on cameras and lenses.

    I shoot stills on the sets of movies and TV shows and in recent years I’ve been quite sad that Nikon has not had fast glass like Canon had. I assumed it was because they were stuck with using 52mm filters and because the corportate executives are so conservative. (I met many of them when I was stationed in Tokyo, so I know from firsthand experience.)

    It is good news to hear that Nikon may be bringing out some new fast lenses, they will be quite useful on movie productions. As you may know we Stills Photographers (normally) can not set up our own lighting so we have to use whatever lighting the movie people are using. Many times there is an action sequence in fairly dark rooms so we need all the fast glass we can get. I still use many of my old manual lenses with my digital Nikon bodies. That is the great thing about Nikon’s compatibility, they are still using the same basic “F” bayonet lens mount as on my 35mm Nikon F bodies.

    Terry Thomas
    Unit Stills Photographer
    Atlanta, Georgia USA
    Skype: AtlantaTerry

  • Sorry I forgot to fill in the fields.


  • Back to top