Lenses, lenses, lenses… 8 new Nikkors expected in 2010

I got a word that Nikon will release eight (8) new lenses in 2010 (I will rate this rumor @ 80% probability). If true, this will be the most lenses Nikon has ever released in an year (at least in recent history):

2009 - 7 lenses (ok, one is a teleconverter - click on image for larger view):


2008 - 7 lenses:


2007 - 7 lenses:

2006 - 3 lenses
2006 - 5 lenses
2004 - 2 lenses
2003 - 2 lenses (you can see the full list of released lenses by years here).

So what are those new eight lenses going to be (continue to read after the break)?

The first batch of new lenses is expected to be released in February-March of 2010 (probably February for PMA) and it will include the 24mm f/1.4 which was initially scheduled for October, 2009 and then postponed till Q1 of 2010. A new 85mm f/1.4 and maybe a 35mm f/1.4 are also expected, although I got one report denying the 35mm f/1.4 option (meaning only a new 24mm f/1.4 and 85mm  f/1.4 in Q1 of 2010). The 24mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 lenses are supposedly already in Nikon internal systems/databases.

A member of dpreview claims to have information about 80-400mm replacement that should be "Sigma-style but Nikon quality". I was told that this lens will be replaced with a new AF-S 100-500mm f/4-5.6 IF-ED VR lens next year.

I even heard some talk of a Nikon equivalent to the Canon's 28-300mm lens.

Another option is the refresh of the current Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4 ED-IF (currently out of stock @ Amazon and Adorama and I could not find it at all @ B&H). Some online retailers have already started to list this new lens on their websites, but this of course could be by mistake: see here (Nikkor F 300mm f/4.5 IF ED listed as New).

My last three guesses are for a Nikkor AF DC 135mm f/2.0DNikkor AF Micro 200mm f/4D IF-ED replacements and maybe a new Nikkor AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR.

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

    I think we can expect primes… A lot of them should be updated and they haven’t released many non-exotic-telephotos-primes in the past few years.

    I want a set of 1.4 primes:


    New version of the 105 and 135 f/2…

    • WoutK89

      ahum, 1.4 primes costing $2000, that’s pretty exotic still, just not super duper tele. I would rather see them make f/2 versions to keep it smaller/lighter/cheaper in price.

      • T


      • STJ

        I guess that the 105 and 135 will indeed be f2.0 as they are now. Also Nikon will probably target the professionals with full frame primes (and must compete with Canon/Sony), hence f1.4 for the wide angles does not seem all that wrong…

      • Chris Lilley

        Given the existing DX 35mm f/1.8, its unlikely that a new FX 35mm Nikkor would be f/2 or slower – purely from a marketing perspective. An AF-S 35mm f/1.4 would be a lot more likely.

        I hope so, if it puts more AIS 35mm f/1.4 onto the market at low prices 🙂

    • David

      +1 on 1.4 primes.

      • Anonymous


        1.4 primes

      • Eric

        There 1.4 primes certainly need to be updated, but I hope they don’t forget the affordable options such as the 85mm 1.8 is also in need of an AF-S makeover.

        If it were up to me I’d revamp all their old primes between 24 and 135mm’s. Then re-release the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 for good measure (or better yet replace it with a constant f/4 version). Why in the world did they remove that lens in the first place leaving only a 3.5-5.6 and an older AF 2.8-4 version in the line up for affordable standard FX zooms?

        • That’s a very good point. Maybe they’ll be revamping all of the 1.4 and 1.8 prime versions… we can only hope. However, I’m pretty content with my existing 1.8 lineup and really don’t have much of a need to replace or “upgrade” them. Although, if new ones came out… I would buy them… because I have no self control!

          Personally, I would like a 105mm and 135mm F2 makeover… without the DC controls.

        • Dylan

          The fact that they’ve chosen to marketing the new 85mm f/3.5 macro an “ideal choice for close-up, nature, *portrait and general photography*” makes me think Nikon isn’t going to deliver another “consumer-level” prime at this focal length anytime soon. I hope to be proven wrong though.

          • Eric

            I hope you’re wrong too f/3.5 is not what I would consider a portrait lens unless you’re shooting a 150mm f/3.5 medium format. They need to at least produce an 85/2.5 for a low cost portrait AF-S lens. Preferably just an AF-S version of the 85/1.8 though. It’s already a wonderful lens, just not a silent one.

    • albert

      1) AF-S 24mm f/1.4
      2) AF-S 35mm f/1.4
      3) AF-S 85mm f/1.4 VR II
      4) AF-S 135mm f/2 VR II
      5) AF-S 180mm f/2.8 VR II
      6) AF-S 200mm f/4 macro VR II


      2 more consumers’ lenses ???

      • albert

        2 other zoom lenses rather.

        • f/2.8

          Yes. 17-35mm and 24-120mm VR II.

      • Marty

        Couldn’t agree with you more, so tired of cheap slow zoom lenses… aaand no more Made in China or Thailand crap please…

    • scvBruce

      I know people like primes, but I need to take a lot of pictures in a short time, so I’d like to see a
      24-70 f2.8 VR2
      or a
      17-35 f2.8 VR2
      or a
      17-55 f2.8 VR2 DX
      These shouldn’t be too hard to make, seeing as the have the optics already done.

  • Ok, admin, in case you missed it, I’m going to lay out why you won’t see a cheap rehash of the 300/4 ed-if: first off, it would have to be an improvement to warrant a remake, and the cheapest improvement would be a ring motor. Well, they already did that, the current AF-s 300/4, which is still listed as current on Nikon’s site. The 300/4 ed-if did not go for $600 when it was new. The current AF-s goes for about $1500.

    They aren’t going to make a new one without a ring motor.

    So you’re looking at a new lens for more than $1500, and it’s not a super popular lens for any other reason than performance for it’s price. And it’s performance is met or exceeded by other lenses or lens/TC combos already available with much more popular lenses. (70-300AF-s, 80-200/2.2+TC, etc.)

    I’m sure we will see an new 300/4 some day. But it will not be for a couple years. I’d ignore any rumor about it that doesn’t actually include pictures.

    • Grumpy

      I think adding VR and “improving the price”, is enough to warrant an rehash of the 300/f4. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have seen a new f2.8 VRII either.

      • WoutK89

        And the 300/2.8VRII took less time to develop, the 300/4.0VRII wil have to become G, get VRII, and probably get the A/m switch too. If they are really on a roll, they even make a better tripod foot, since people seem to not like it very much.

        • PHB

          Adding VR to the 300 f/4 is a pretty obvious upgrade and might well explain the decision to upgrade the f/2.8.

          If they add VR it has to be VRII. But the $6000 lens has to be at least as agile as the cheaper model so it needs to be upgraded as well. I would imagine that the bulk of the engineering work to add VRII was done at the same time that the 400, 500 and 600 were redesigned.

          I would not be certain that the 135mm replacement will be DC. The DC lenses have sold pretty poorly. Refreshing the teles makes sense, but I would expect VR to be a higher priority for most. If they can deliver VR plus great bokeh behind the focal point I suspect that will be enough for most.

          I agree that the 24mm, 35mm and 100-500 make sense, but there is no way that Nikon would only be issuing FX lenses costing over $1500 each.

          I suggest that it is much more likely that Nikon has three more DX lenses on the way. I would suggest that more primes priced at $200 like the 35mm are rather more likely. In 2009 Nikon released more DX lenses than FX lenses.

          • Steve

            Agree with your theory on the 300 F4 – hopefully we’ll see it in 2010!

          • iamlucky13

            “but there is no way that Nikon would only be issuing FX lenses costing over $1500 each.

            I suggest that it is much more likely that Nikon has three more DX lenses on the way.”

            My goodness…let’s hope the 80-400 and 300 F/4 replacements don’t turn out to be DX lenses!

          • PHB

            I think it highly unlikely that a tele and an ultra tele would be targetted at any other market segment than DX. If you want long reach you use a DX camera if you have sense.

            Fortunately for FX users, once you go beyond 100 mm the cost of making an FX lens and a DX lens are pretty much identical.

            But given the launch of a 100-500 lens, it would make most sense for Nikon to pair it with the launch of a 24-100ish DX zoom for circa $900. Then the DX shooter can go from 10 to 500mm in three lenses: 10-24/24-100/100-500. Only the last of them needs to be a real brute to carry.

            Canon has an f/4 lens that is 24-105 in FX frame, If Nikon was going to copy Canon it would be the lens that makes most sense to copy. It might well be that DX owners looking to buy pricey lenses other than ultrawides are going to want the insurance of FX capability.

            But if you want a camera that gives good range coverage on a minimal set of lightweight lenses, the DX format is going to be much more satisfactory than an FX sensor and f/4 lenses.

      • WoutK89

        Oh yes, and added Nano of course

    • One doesn’t simply “add VR’ to a lens!

      VR works by shifting an internal element. They need to design the lens around the ability to shift that one element and maintain image quality. That one element has to be lightweight AND have coverage WITH resolution left over for the shift. That means a whole new optical formula, and probably not a tweaked one like the 50/1.4G. I repeat, you don’t just “add VR”, it takes a whole new optical design. One for each lens. You can’t bulk design high quality lenses. Even in the the computer age. Optics are a much more complex science than you think.

      So you aren’t going to see a 300/4G VR for less than 1500 either. Maybe 1800 in a couple years.

      I totally hear you with your desire for this lens, but you’re dreaming.

      If you really want a 300/f4, buy one today! Check KEH and Amazon. They’re available. Nothing stopping you. If you’re afraid of a new one coming out sometime soon, don’t be!

      If you must have VR, get the 70-300VR. It’s a stop slower, but it still has good isolation at 300, and it’s really quite sharp. And it will surely retain it’s value better than the 300/4. Either of these get you to 300mm today, if that’s what you need. Just pick up a lens and shoot!

      • SBGrad

        I’ve used the 300 f4 and I own a 70-300 VR. The IQ of the 300 f4 is better. Not to mention I can put TCs on the 300 f4.

        I understand that a 300 f4 VR AF-S would be a complete redesign of the lens, and there is no chance the price would be the same (probably closer to $2000), but I still want one.

  • from 2004 and down there are lenses missing like 24-85 and 24-120.

  • Anonymous

    Canon 28-300 and not 80-300 😀

  • NK

    updated fx lenses and new dx lenses in the last two years.
    hmm, good i am with dx 🙂

    • fotosniper

      Hmm speak like yoda we are, fast wide dx prime i need. would be nice 12 to 14mm 2,8 wide

  • Chris P

    I agree with the 24-85 provided that it is a fixed f4 with a build quality nearer the 24-70 f2.8 than my 24-85 f3.5-4.5. This is the one lens that is really needed to partner the D700.

    • rhlpetrus

      I think Nikon sould hit a home run with a 21-85mm f/4 for FF. The 16-85 DX is already pretty good, just cut at bottom, increase diameter a bit for FF coverage, voilá!

      It’d be my everyday lens on the coming D800/D700x/D700s, whatever comes next.

      • nobody

        “increase diameter a bit for FF”???

        Seriously, FX is more than twice as large as DX. There is no standard zoom, FX or DX or 4/3 or what ever that starts below 24mm (or 24mm equivalent).

        And 21 is not enough to be the widest lens, so you need a WA zoom anyway. So you better start at 24 and have the long end somewhere between 85 and 105 to have it sharp and compact and not too costly, IMO (-:

        But you are completely right that Nikon need a compact high grade standard zoom for the D700. And whatever successors may come.

  • Bob Howland

    Adding the 24 and 35 means that I can fully replicate my current Canon kit of lenses. I’m not sure if that is good news or bad news. 2010 could be a VERY expensive year for me.

  • Anonymous

    N version with fast focus of the 80-400 with VR2 please…

    • SBGrad

      I’d get one, whether 80-400 or 100-500. A 300 (or 400) AF-S f4 with VR would work as well. If Nikon doesn’t get off their rear soon I may just end up with a 70-200 f2.8 and the new TC-20 III.

      • another anonymous

        I hope 70-200 and new TC-20III will be great solution as i miss only that TC2 and have TC1.7, but vote also for 300or400f4 or 100-500.

        • f/2.8

          I am also thinking of pairing the TC-20III with the 70-200 as a 140-400 lens.

          May be that is why Nikon does not consider the 80-400 a priority.

          100-500 now starts to make sense.

        • SalsaShark

          The 70-200 2.8 VR (not the new one) with the 1.7TC is crap. I used the combination twice in 4 years and was horribly disappointed both times. The TC just sat in my bag until I got a 300 2.8. Don’t plan on using teleconverters with zooms. You’ll just be massively disappointed.

      • Anonymous

        Works great with the 1.7 converter. Just did some controlled tests – better than my 12 million pixels corner to corner even wide open..

        2x may be just fractionally too much.

    • WoutK89

      N version of the 100-500 with VRII please, Nikon needs a xx-500 zoom

  • PTG

    The “Nikon Nikkor F 300mm f/4.5” and “Nikon Nikkor F 300mm f/4.5 IF ED” are old manual lenses, apparently both have been added to the website recently, that’s why they have got the label “new”.

    I do not know why there is an F included in the lens name, maybe it shall indicate the F-mount.

  • low

    i just got word that 2010 is the year of all 8 primes…..jk you wish. 🙂

  • another anonymous

    yes, 2010 will be very expensive year.. i didn’t have even new 70-200 yet and there will be 24 f1.4, 100-500 and probably d700 sucessor.. i have to feed my clay pig properly 😉

  • Mike

    Any chances of DX versions of the 24/1.4, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4? I mean kind of what happened with the AF-S 50/1.4 and AF-S 35/1.8?

    I probably won’t be able to afford any of the F1.4 primes but their DX counterparts like an 16/2.8 and 58/1.8 would go straight into my bag 😉

    • Zorro

      I’m with you Mike.

    • WoutK89

      58/1.8? I rather buy the 60/2.8 micro.
      16/2.8? Too slow, make it f/2.0 or faster and I am in.
      24/2.0 or faster for DX, and yes, bingo.

      • Mike

        At 16mm DX / 24mm FX I find F2.8 plenty fast. Faster would of course be better but probably cause a surge in both price and size/weight. I’m however thinking of something akin to the 35/1.8 dimensions with 52mm filters and a price below $400.

        The 58mm would be the DX equivalent to the classic portrait length of 85mm FX. I would love for it to be F1.4 but again, same rules apply as with the 16mm.

        As for the third lens you mention, a 24mm DX lens would be great (just as well as a DX 90/2.0). BUT as already mentioned by others Nikon has way to go before their lens lineup covers every photographers needs and I think FX is more important in this regard as that’s where the PR, image and big margins are! So I’d rather Nikon sticks with the one development process = two lenses pattern and the rumor states the 35/1.4 (and with it the DX 24/?) is out. Besides WA prime is where Nikon lacks bad from my point of view…

        • WoutK89

          The 24/1.4 FX will be way out of my league, so I need something slower and probably smaller at the same time. I am willing to pay 400 euro for it, like the 50/1.4G, but only if the optics and build are good, I’d like weather seal, metal mount and distance scale window.

  • Mike

    Have to say that the 24 1.4, 16-35 VR are most intriguing to me. 100-500 sounds great too as it will bring 500 mm to us mere mortals.

    • WoutK89

      500mm Nikkor that is 😛

  • Dweeb

    Let’s not forget Nikon took 50 manual focus lenses off the market a few years ago and replaced them with – nothing. • Let’s not forget Nikon have been producing G lenses for several years and yet most of their FX lenses are still not G capable. • And lets’ not forget Nikon have been derelict in matching Canon’s 300 ƒ4 IS lenses for several years while they try to get milage out of the old 300. • And let’s not forget Nikon are still producing a single axis shift PC-E lense and will be for a very long time, well behind Canon’s 17. • And let’s not forget Nikon are now asking a thousand bucks for lenses made in China.

    That’s my short list.

    And finally let’s not forget that Nikon are Nikon and still think it’s 1972 and will do what they bloody well please irregardless of their customers.

    • NikoRyan

      irregardless is not a word. Just say “regardless”, means same thing 🙂

    • another anonymous

      i thought that “china made” reflected in DX 35mm f1.8 price, but don’t know about others as all my other lens are made in japan and my d300 in thailand.. what more expensive china made lens do you know please?

      • PHB

        The 35mm f/1.8 is cheap because it uses a hybrid element instead of polishing to get the aspherical component.

        Place of manufacture may make a difference, but I suspect not as much as is imagined. Nikon are building plants in China because they want to sell to the Chinese market.

      • ian

        the d300 is made in thailand??? wtf ???

        • What rock have you been hiding under?

        • another anonymous

          Yes, at least mine is. It has from botom of the camera written Nikon Corp. Japan Made in Thailand. It was bought in UK.

        • NikoRyan

          Old news, bro 🙂

        • um, so is the D200

    • what is G capable?

      G is limitation, not a feature!

      • WoutK89

        G means costs saved on an aperture ring, its all electronic nowadays

        • Nico in China

          Would love some new non-G fast primes, that can be used on my D700 and FM3A. In fact i would love a compact full frame rugged body, a la FM/FE series, with manual focus and non G pancakes and/or superfast primes… kind of affordable leica M (rangefinder or not), and M43 killer 🙂

        • Micke

          And better weather sealing.

  • Xim

    I wish F4 F4 F4 F4 F4 F4 F4 ……. and 8 F4 Lenses

  • nuser

    28-300 VRII would be very nice
    Tamron is the only option at this point.
    Nikon made 18-200 for DX, why not have something like this for FX ?

    • PHB

      Because it would weigh a ton?

  • NikoRyan

    Be still my heart (thump-thump….thump-thump).

  • Borluzzi Giancarlo

    I should like a 24-85 f.4 continous , very useful.

  • Michael

    Personally, I have thought that an AFS 18-135 FX, VRII, N, F/4 would sell like wildfire. Make it sharp, fast focusing, and reliable and all we FX users would buy one.

    I plan to buy at least one body and two lenses next year. That is one that I would love to have though. I don’t see it coming though. Nikon does need a good walk around FX lens though, we all know this.

    Just my thoughts.

    Merry Christmas and Happy Holy Days

    • nobody

      No, it would not sell at all. Because it would be extremely big and heavy and costly.

      AFAIK, there is not a single FX standard zoom out there that starts below 24mm, and no DX or 4/3 equivalent either. There is a reason for that: today’s optics cannot handle the problems involved. Try again in 2030 (-:

      • Michael

        Perhaps I don’t understand why it would be that much heavier. Canon makes the 24-105 standard zoom. Nikon makes a 14-24 f2.8 wide zoom, Canon makes an 16-35 f2.8 zoom, both FF. Why would it be that much heavier?

        I have an engineering background and I don’t see why it has to be that big or that heavy. Please define extremely big and heavy.

        Not being hard to get along with, just trying to understand your statement from an engineering perspective. Please feel free to be technical.

        Thanks for the information.

        • WoutK89

          What I can tell, 24-105/4.0 is of a usable size, “portable”.
          When you make it wider and longer (18mm instead of 24 and 135 instead of 105) and keep the aperture at f/4, you will lose on either or both portable and optical performance.

          On DX you can see what the 18-135 is like, so take that, and make it f/4 in the long end and you will see what will happen.

          • Michael

            Thanks for your comments but I don’t think you see the point. Yes, it will weigh a little more. Given. Yes, it will be a little bigger. Portable, yes, still quite portable. Some of us carry around a lot more than that.

            Yes, it is Very possible to go wider. Yes, it is very possible to do that and maintain optical quality. Look at the 14-24mm. Awesome lens.

            Portable. Okay, I leave out int he morning and I carry a D3x with a 70-200, I carry a D3 and a 14-24mm. I carry a 24-70 along for kicks. This weighs in at 13 pounds.

            If I remove the 24-70 at 2 pounds and the 14-24 at 2.3 pounds for a total of 4.3 pounds. I think an 18-135 F/4 wouldn’t weigh 5 or 6 pounds here.

            I don’t think my back would mind that much.

            If we can go 14mm wide on the 14-24 at F2.8, why can’t we go to 18mm at F/4?

            So are you saying this lens is going to have Extremely bad optics and weigh 14 pounds?

          • WoutK89

            Just saying, you cant have this lens at f/4 at 135mm, and still have good optical quality throughout the entire zoom range, that would take a huge amount of expensive glass. Dont compare a “super” zoom with the 14-24 , yes we can go wide, but I meant it in the total range of the lens.

        • Lawliet

          Yes, there are good 16-35 and 24-105s. But combining them into one 18-105 lens wouldn’t be that easy because of their different construction. At the wide end you need strongly curved elements, whereas the tele end wants them to be comperativly flat.
          Sure, you could compensate by using only a tiny section of strongly curved element when being set to longer focal lengths, but there all kinds of flaws show up, either from physical limits or manufactoring tolerances. You’d end up with a hulk of a lens that can’t accept filters while lagging behind in optical quality.

          • Anonymous1

            I just want a *good* 24-135 (or even 105) mm VRII FX zoom. There is nothing like that in the current Nikon range.

  • Chris Rennie

    35mm f1.4 Please Nikon!! Also, some constant f4 lenses would be nice eg 16-85mm or similar as f4 on DX

  • another anonymous

    hi admin, what about 200-400 f4 update please? it’s from 2004 and it’s brother 70-200 from 2003 was just updated.. no word about it yet?
    thanks a lot

    • WoutK89

      200-400, VRII, Nano and A/m switch, thats all it takes 😛

      • ian

        and VR II

        • WoutK89

          What did I say?

  • Bert

    24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, and 85mm 1.4 all FX would be a death blow to Canon. What is Nikon waiting for?

    • WoutK89

      your money on all three at once, and, if you bring out all the goods at once, no one will talk about it after 3 months any more, you need to keep the fire burning!

      • Ernst

        I don’t think that’s true.

        Having a full array of fast primes available makes the Nikon system much more attractive. There presence in the catalog (or in a roadmap, if Nikon would ever release one) would probably generate more sales than would a succession of surprise product announcements.

        Nikon needs to get this stuff announced as soon as they can ship in volume. As the last few years have shown, they don’t seem to pay particular attention to PMA, Photokina, the Olympics, etc. for product announcements – or even for Christmas in the case of pro gear (it’s not as though the 300mm AF-S VR II was destined to be somebody’s stocking-stuffer).

        • Anonymous

          It won’t get old…. I still find myself thinking about Canon lenses and I haven’t shot Canon for years…

        • Anonymous

          the 300mm AF-S VR II would give me a stocking stuffer

          • A “stocking” suffer or or “shocking” stuffer? 😉


  • Anonymous

    35mm 1.4
    300mm f/4.0 VRII Nano
    135mm f/2.0 VRII

    Make these and I marry a Japanese.

  • 35mm 1.4
    300mm f/4.0 VRII Nano
    135mm f/2.0 VRII

    Make these and I marry a Japanese.

  • ZoetMB

    I belive your counts are incorrect. Based on availability (and not announce dates), my records show that Nikon released the followng:
    2000 4 (18-35, 24-85, 80-400, 14)
    2001 9 (70-300 4.0-5.6G, 300 4.0, TC-14EII, TC-20EII, 28-80G, 300 2.8 NonVR, 500 4.0 non VR, 400 2.8 non VR, 600 4.0 non VR)
    2002 3 (28-100, 24-85, 50 1.8)
    2003 5 (24-120, 70-200 VR old, 10.5 fisheye, 12-24DX, 28-200G)
    2004 5 (200-400, 200 2.0, 17-55DX, 18-70DX, TC17-EII)
    2005 4 (300 2.8 N, 18-200 old vers, 55-200 G ED, 18-55 DX G ED)
    2006 4 (70-300 VR, 18-55 G ED II, 105 micro, 18-135DX)
    2007 5 (14-24, 24-70, 400, 18-55VR, 55-200VR)
    2008 9 (50 AF-S, 500, 600, 16-85DX, 18-105DX, 60 AF-S micro, 24TS, 45TS, 85TS)
    2009 5 (18-200DX rev, 10-24DX, 85mm DX micro, 35DX, 70-200II)

    So if I’m correct, Nikon released 9 in 2008 (and they also released 9 in 1993, 1994 and 2001), so 8 would not be a record. But IMO, in this economy, Nikon is not releasing 8 lenses in 2010, even though I count the new 300 and the new teleconverter as 2010 lenses, so they would only have to release six additional.

    • ZoetMB, I was using Nikon USA press center section as a source:


      I think they have missed some lenses.

    • PHB

      Economy, shmonomy.

      Nikon is more likely to introduce lens variants in a weak economy when the factories are at below capacity than in a strong economy when they are at full stretch production-wise.

      The Japanese economy was in a recession for a decade, they can’t afford to wait for the end of the current recession.

  • nobody

    3 f4 zooms (wide, standard, tele),

    3 f1.4 primes (24, 35, 85),

    the 300 f4 VR,

    and the 100-500 f4-5.6 VR,

    makes 8. And a perfect world. Come on, Nikon, you can do it (-:

    • WoutK89

      I bet they will come with the 16mm FX fisheye upgrade!

      • nobody

        Actually, that would really be my number 9. Which I would buy, along with the f4 zooms, and the 100-500, while I would not buy the primes I mentioned.

      • Anonymous

        Why would that need an upgrade? VR? oO

    • pulu

      they need a 200 macro as well, for a perfect world…


    It depends on how big the 100-500mm is before I buy it. If it’s the size of the sigma 150-500mm then I’ll get it.

    A 28-300mm Nikon is something I would like also. I have the Tamron and like it, but faster AF and a better build would be awesome.

    The new primes would be great also.

  • dB

    I don’t know about these predictions…

    Your list reads as a list of what Nikon SHOULD release, and the lenses I would personally like to see, almost in the exact order I would like to see them. It’s just too good to be true.

    I agree with half of what you have listed, but I’m pretty sure that the other half will be some bullsh** DX zooms that we don’t need.

    • WoutK89

      so that BS DX 16-55/2.0, you would not want it? 😛

    • dB, so far I have received tips for the 24mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4 and the 100-500 lenses – the rest is just speculation on my part based on previous posts.

      • dB

        WoutK89… Yeah i want a DX16-55/2.0! Then I again, I don’t have DX camera, so it wouldn’t help me.

        I’m just saying that every lens listed here is pretty much exactly what most people think Nikon should release, but they often release a few lenses that nobody saw coming and most don’t think are necessary.

        Admin, I sure hope you’re right…. although my wallet would disagree.

  • Very unexciting Nikon! Besides the 85mm f/1.4, I can’t foresee any reason I’d buy any of the other lenses mentioned.

    • WoutK89

      You do know it is a RUMOR still?

    • longtimenikonshooter

      have you ever shot with 135mm f/2? it blows 85mm f/1.4 away by a mile IMHo. i am waiting for 135mm f/2 update.

      • Love my 135mm f2. What an excellent lens! My only problem w/ it is the abysmal focusing. Blech 🙁 Some proper AF-S hardware inside would make it an absolute *dream* on the D700 (and not to say that VRII would hurt 😛 )

  • Gra

    Maybe Nikon might shock you all and just buy out Sigma lol

  • Jer

    My dream lens would be a upgraded 200mm f/4 Macro with Nano and VR II that would even be slightly smaller & lighter than the current 200 Macro.

    As for a 16mm fisheye upgrade……..the only upgrade I can see would be Nano, but what would be truly sweet is if they could engineer it and the 14-24 to take screw on front filters. Now I’d sell the wife to have that:^)

  • Wow, I’m really hoping to see the 35mm 1.4 soon so that I can replace my DX 35mm which has bad front focusing, weird yellow discoloration at times, and not so sharp….a disappointment. I’ll hope and hope that it will be announced in Feb-March!!

    • WoutK89

      if it produces weird yellow colorations SOMETIMES, isnt it the white balance thats off, and not the lens?

      • Nope, it only happens at certain angles (mostly low angles), but it’s difficult to confirm what angles they are… 🙁

  • f/2.8

    Admin, I understand you have a tip that denies the exisitence of the 35 f/1.4.

    However, that will cause a hole in the lineup. It will be awkward to have that big a gap between a 24mm and a 50mm.

    • WoutK89

      I think he meant Q1 release/announcement

    • I think the 35mm 1.4 will be released later – Nikon has filed a patent for it already

    • David C

      The old 35mm f/2 is still there in the meantime. Yes, a new AF-S version would be better, but that is one of their faster primes currently, and they have already satisfied the DX crowd with the 35mm f/1.8, so it makes sense that this is the last to be updated.

  • GT

    New!! 300 F/4 will be here before end FEB 2010 😉

  • Jay A

    24mm and 85mm 1.4s in FEB

  • Derek

    What I expect

    24/1.8 AF-S FX (cheaper and lighter than 1.4)
    35/2 AF-S FX (enough for me)
    85/1.4 AF-S FX (love the D but why not a new one without AC)
    135/1.8 AF-S FX or 135/2 (need need need !!)
    and a zoom like 24-105 or 24-135 2.8 (I can sell my 24-70 if it’s worth it!)

    • WoutK89

      haha, this one is even better 😀 24-135/2.8, really not gonna happen before they come with the D7

  • A. Nonymous

    what is with this fascination with f/4 zooms. do people want it just because canon makes them?
    if you want DOF, then go f/2.8 pro stuff. if you dont want so much weight then go primes.
    otherwise 3.5-5.6 is proven to be much cheaper to make and only means 1 bump in iso
    even f/2.8-f/4 makes more sense to me than a flat f/4.

    • David C

      I would have bought the 16-85 VR if it had been an f/2.8-4. But with it being at f/3.5-5.6 I decided to go with the Tamron 17-50 VC f/2.8 instead.

      I think the problem is Nikon’s designations of lenses. Constant aperture f/4 seems to message that it is a Prosumer lens (Pro Quality, but reduced price for the masses) even though Nikon does not have an official Consumer vs. Prosumer vs. Pro designation scheme for its lenses. When Nikon puts out a variable aperture lens without some kind of Prosumer designation, it is hard to differentiate online and in catalogs the consumer lenses from the Prosumer lenses (Case in point, I think there is a lot of discussion and comparison of the 16-85 vs the 18-105, with the 16-85 probably being considered a slow Prosumer and the 18-105 being squarely in consumer). If they came out with some sort of designation, I think the public would be more willing to buy the fast variable apertures over the constant f/4. But the f/3.5-5.6 should be avoided at the Prosumer and Pro levels unless absolutely necessary (it seems to make sense for the rumored 100-500 lens).

      • PHB

        So you are saying that you really want the camera as a fashion accessory rather than a tool and would like a lens that looks nice and expensive like the f/2.8s are but is lighter and somewhat less expensive?

        Nikon has never made prosumer gear and probably never will. They make professional cameras for the masses and have done since the F-Photomic.

        Nikons term for their expensive gear would be ‘specialized’.

    • another anonymous

      i see your point but as for me it’s not right for all applications: 200-400 f4 is really great lens to have..

  • Anonymous

    I already preordered all 8

    • NikoDoby

      Thank you for your order Anonymous. Make the check payable to: NikoDoby
      and don’t worry about the total amount. Just leave it blank and I’ll fill it in for ya! 🙂

  • shivas

    2010 the year of FX?

    • WoutK89

      wasn’t 2007 the year of FX?

      • agnx

        Every year is the year of FX, then Nikon unveils its lenses and it stops being so 😉

  • shivas

    i don’t think I could afford any of those lenses, UNLESS, they do a 24 1.8 35/2 update instead of making them 1.4. . .

  • anonymous

    would really like a 50-150/2.8 VR DX.

    • Peter

      Me too… But Nikon have to hurry because I’m about to buy a Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 or a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8.

  • Rich L

    200/4 Micro AFS VRII N. Yes??? About time… All the other Micros have been updated…

  • low

    nikon should just make what everyone is on this board is crying for…

    24mm f4
    35mm f4

    please make this nikon!

    • WoutK89

      hehe, that would make no sense at all to produce, but very funny

      • Char

        I’d consider buying both of them if they were

        – sharp and contrasty edge-to-edge even on 24MP FX bodies
        – free of CA
        – flare resistant
        – lightweight
        – cheap, as in about 200-300 EUR

        They would be ideal landscape lenses.

  • Leo

    1) 85/1.4 AF-S ‘N’
    2) 105/2.0 DC AF-S ‘N’ (VR – may or may not)
    3) 16-35 or 17-40 f/4.0 AF-S
    4) 200/4 MICRO 1:1 AF-S VR ‘N’
    5) 300/4 AF-S VR ‘N’
    6) FX Wide Primes 1 or 2
    7) DX
    8) DX

    • WoutK89

      Did you mean, keep the DC feature in that lens, or is it a typo?

  • mitch

    I also think that the Nikkor 16mm AF f/2.8 fisheye lens may be in the plans for replacement.

    according to bhphoto.com this lens is temporary out of stock and no restocking dates have been addressed. This sounds normal, as i also thought, but as i was looking around the 135mm f/2.0D DC lens and the 200mm f/4.0D lens as well as a select few of other lenses all had the same message


    • WoutK89

      You mean like the super teles being temporary out of stock most of the time? Will they already be replaced, updated to the A/M switch?

      • mitch

        There may be some kind of update, im not sure though. If those lenses were just out of stock they would say “out of stock” like some other lenses on Bhphoto.com have. but the memo said temporarily out stock with no made plans for replacement. maybe thier planning for a VRII update or something.

        i know i sure wouldn’t mind having a wider fisheye with possibly a lower f/stop and nano coating.

  • matt2001

    So exciting, but curious historically how long does it normally take from the announcement until inventory hits the stores for shipping?

  • SimonC

    8 new 18-XX DX zooms 😉

    • WoutK89

      18-70/2.8-4.0 VRII?

  • With all the rumors for so long, I really expect (hope) the 80-400 / 100-500 or whatever it ends up to be, will be announced prior to PMA (end of Feb, 2010) and available in the summer at the latest. I would also expect a 300 F4 VR II in a similar timeframe, for many of the same reasons.

  • Anonymous

    If 100-500mm ever comes out, that should replace 200-400/4 instead of 80-400. 200-400 and 80-400 are in completely different camps. 80-400 replace must not be as heavy as 200-400, and must not be as expensive as 200-400.

    • WoutK89

      Look at what Sigma makes, its possible to keep it within 80-400 proportions. So why would this rumored 100-500 be like the 200-400?

      • Lawliet

        The 400/5,6 does fine with the commen 77mm filter thread.
        A 500/5,6 needs at least a 90mm front lens, with filters topping out at 86mm you’d need a drop in solution and perhaps the protective glass sheat, making the whole think look like more similar to the super teles instead of the more commen lenses. Simply from a humans try to find patterns-point of view.
        The Sigma 150-500/6,3 at least takes the same filters as the 100-300/4 or the Bigma 🙂

        • WoutK89

          I think Nikon will find a way 😛
          It’s all rumors, keep dreaming, in dreams anything is possible.
          Let’s just hope they will at least have a 80-400 Upgrade up their sleeves.

          • Anonymous

            If 500/5.6 is feasible at the current size of 80-400/5.6, we need to re-write physics text book first.

          • PHB

            Maybe it is less than f/5.6 at the top end.

            With modern high ISO sensors a lens that was f/5.6 at 400mm and went to 500 with some loss of light would atill be worth having.

            Problem would be that the autofocus modules are designed for f/5.6.

    • another anonymous

      Yes, 100-500 and 200-400 are really totaly different lens and so then 100-500 as 5x zoom can’t anyhow replace 200-400 f4 which is 2x zoom i think. There is another level of compromise and quality in that optics.

  • Chris P

    Re the question asking why f4 zooms keep being asked for, I’m one of the people doing it, is in my case simply answered. Om my D700 the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 is my most used lens and, like a previous poster, I totally fail to see why Nikon stopped producing it; but its build quality is definitely in the prosumer class. I do not want the bulk and weight of the 24-70 f2.8, but I do want a similar build quality, going to f4 means a smaller lens and going to 85mm cures the problem of the 24-70 being too short a focal length at the long end.

    Another thing often overlooked when asking for extended range zoom lenses is that for the highest optical quality, approximately 3:1 zoom ranges for the middling focal lengths and 2:1 for wide and tele is about the practical limit. Hence the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and 200-400 in the present ‘top of the range’ Nikon lineup. Not trolling, but when Canon introduced their 24-105 f4 they proved this, as numerous tests have shown that between 24 & 35 the edge performance of the 24-105 suffers. I never understood why Canon made it that particular range anyway; as they already had the 17-40 and they could have introduced a 35-105 of far better optical quality and sold two lenses instead of one.

    • nobody

      I had that 24-105 f4 on a 5D until I moved to Nikon a few months ago, and my sample was very good wide open at the short end, and excellent right to the edges at f5.6. It suffered a bit at the long end though.

      This one, and the compact 70-200 f4 IS, are the lenses I am really missing in Nikonland.

  • Back to top