AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED & AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR official

First report on the new lenses from Bob Krist. Check it out (yes the copter shot is there).

AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR:

  • Price: $1259.95
  • Available in late February 2010
  • Ultra wide-angle zoom lens that covers focal lengths from 16mm to 35mm
  • Vibration Reduction (VR II) enables sharper pictures while shooting at shutter speeds up to four stops* slower than would otherwise be possible
    *As determined in Nikon performance tests.
  • The adoption of Nano Crystal Coat effectively reduces ghost and flare
  • An ultra wide-angle zoom lens that, while offering a wide angle view of 107°, is compatible with 77mm screw-on filters
  • Fixed maximum aperture of f/4
  • ED glass and aspherical lens elements are utilized for a new optical design that achieves high resolution
  • Quiet focusing with built-in Silent Wave Motor (SWM)
  • Two focus modes selectable - M/A and M
Focal length 16-35mm
Maximum aperture f/4
Minimum aperture f/22
Lens construction 17 elements in 12 groups (with two ED glass and three aspherical lens elements, and Nano Crystal Coat)
Angle of view 107° - 60° (83° - 44° with Nikon DX format)
Closest focusing distance 0.29 m (1.0 ft.) at a focal length of 16mm or 35mm, 0.28 m (0.9 ft.) at a focal length between 20mm and 28mm
Maximum reproduction ratio 0.25x
No. of diaphragm blades 9 (rounded)
Filter/attachment size 77mm
Diameter x length
(extension from the camera’s lens-mount flange)
Approximately 82.5 x 125 mm
Weight Approximately 680 g/24.0 oz.
Supplied accessories 77mm Snap-on Front Lens Cap LC-77, Rear Lens Cap LF-1, Bayonet Hood HB-23, Flexible Lens Pouch CL-11

Product brochure

AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED:

Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.4G ED:

  • Available in late March 2010
  • A fast, wide-angle lens with a fixed focal length of 24mm at the maximum aperture of f/1.4
  • Fast lens with a maximum aperture of f/1.4 that allows users to capture images with beautiful blur characteristics
  • ED glass and aspherical lens elements are utilized for a new optical design that achieves high resolution and good balance in terms of aberration for pleasing blur characteristics
  • The adoption of Nano Crystal Coat effectively reduces ghost and flare
  • Quiet focusing with built-in Silent Wave Motor (SWM)
  • Two focus modes selectable - M/A and M
Focal length 24mm
Maximum aperture f/1.4
Minimum aperture f/16
Lens construction 12 elements in 10 groups (with two ED glass and two aspherical lens elements, and Nano Crystal Coat)
Angle of view 84° (61° with Nikon DX format)
Closest focusing distance 0.25 m/0.82 ft.
Maximum reproduction ratio 0.18x
No. of diaphragm blades 9 (rounded)
Filter/attachment size 77mm
Diameter x length (extension from the camera’s lens-mount flange) Approximately 83 x 88.5 mm
Weight Approximately 620 g/21.9 oz.
Supplied accessories 77mm Snap-on Front Lens Cap LC-77, Rear Lens Cap LF-1, Bayonet Hood HB-51, Flexible Lens Pouch CL-1118

Product brochure

Full press release after the break:

The Ultra-Wide 16-35mm f/4 VR and Ultra-Fast 24mm f/1.4 Lenses Provide Photographers With New Perspectives and Creative Versatility

MELVILLE, N.Y. (Feb. 8, 2010) – Nikon Inc. today announced two new lenses for professional and enthusiast photographers that epitomize NIKKOR leadership in optical excellence. The highly anticipated AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED lens is engineered to meet the demand for an ultra-fast professional lens for wide angle applications, while the AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR offers Nikon’s widest FX-format focal range with VR, offering additional versatility to a broad range of photographers.

“The 16-35mm f/4 VR and 24mm f/1.4 are two new lenses designed to address the needs of an ever-expanding number of Nikon FX-format photographers, delivering dramatic perspectives, amazing clarity, contrast and color when capturing stills or HD video,” said Edward Fasano, general manager for marketing, SLR Systems Products at Nikon Inc. “Customers that choose these new lenses will experience excellent image quality and sturdy handling, which is made possible through our commitment to excellence and expert NIKKOR engineering.”

World renowned NIKKOR technologies play an essential role in the design of these two new lenses, and both feature Nikon’s exclusive Silent Wave Motor (SWM) technology for quiet, fast and accurate autofocus performance. The optical construction of both lenses also utilizes precision Nikon ED glass elements along with multiple aspherical elements to suppress chromatic aberrations resulting in sharp, high contrast images. Additionally, Nikon’s proprietary Nano-Crystal Coat minimizes instances of internal “ghosting” and flaring, further ensuring exceptional image integrity.

The 24mm f/1.4G ED Lens

Perhaps one of the most hotly anticipated lenses in recent memory, the new AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED lens blends a natural yet versatile 24mm perspective with an ultra-fast f/1.4 aperture to expand an existing collection of well over 60 NIKKOR interchangeable lenses. The f/1.4 maximum aperture allows photographers to shoot handheld in low light and provides dramatic separation between subject and a softened background. In a wide variety of photographic situations, both FX and DX-format shooters will enjoy the benefits of extra-bright f/1.4 viewing, superb image quality and the dramatic perspectives afforded by a picture angle of 84 degrees (61 degrees when mounted on a DX-format body).

The 16-35mm f/4 VR Lens Brings a New Perspective to VR

The new AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR lens is an ideal lens for enthusiasts and professionals craving a constant maximum aperture and ultra-wide angle zoom versatility with the benefits of Nikon’s Vibration Reduction (VR) II image stabilization. As the widest FX-format NIKKOR zoom lens with VR, users can realize the ability to shoot up to four shutter speeds slower than otherwise possible, expanding low light shooting opportunities and contributing to dramatically sharper handheld photography and video capture. Nikon VR II image stabilization technology is engineered specifically for and optimized to function most effectively for each lens, ensuring optimum performance. Whether joining the growing ranks of FX-format photographers or using the Nikon DX-format, photographers will appreciate the perspectives possible when shooting architecture, interiors, landscapes and more.

Pricing and Availability

The versatile, wide angle AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR is scheduled to be available in late February 2010 at Nikon Authorized Dealers with an estimated selling price of $1259.95*. The ultra-fast AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4 G ED lens will be available in late March 2010 for estimated selling price of $2199.95*. For more information, please visit

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


    • Paul

      What? no surprise? boo

      • Michael

        Well, for me the big surprise is, that the 16-35 isn’t targeted to replace the crappy 18-35/3.5-4.5, but the professional 17-35/2.8 instead. Almost the same size, weight and price tag, but 1 stop slower.

    • Nooo!!!

      I don’t think that that lens at $2200 qualifies as “hotly anticipated” by many. I defy anyone to get better photos from that lens than from $200 of national parks passes and $2000 donation to the Sierra Club. Let alone the social consequences of that choice… 🙂

      Yeah, I know, it can be done by maybe 500 of us, and I’m not one of them. Still, it’d be a hell of a lens at a milonga!

      • ps. Thanks to those of you who explained here that making a lens like that is a complex endeavour. If I’d still been hoping it would be a quarter that price I’d be much more glum.

    • Anonymous

      Has it begun jet?

    • Banned

      Bob Kris is now bitching about the gear enthusiasts on this website, look at this from his own blog:

      “Now, as for that equipment, hit the jump for my thoughts on that….

      It’s pretty nice, but it’s not orgasmic, transformational, or life-changing. (At least not for me…I used to think I was a gearhead, but I am truly humbled by the level of hysteria excitement the prospect of new gear brings on in some quarters!).

      One guy went so far as to contact the helicopter company to ask the pilot and ops guy what I was using, another accused me of using a green screen and phoneying up the whole thing (Yup, that’s just what I did, right after I engineered the sub-prime meltdown), and in the worst insult of all, somebody else thought I was shooting through a plexiglass door or window in the chopper. Not to mention the dozens who have been studying the snapshot like CIA analysts might pore over a satellite picture of an Iranian nuke facility.

      This is just a thought, but all that energy some of you have been expending trying to figure out what the new gear is, might be better spent actually making pictures!

      If you put even a quarter of that gumption, imagination, and ingenuity being spent on gear-lust analysis into actual picture making, photography would enter a new golden age and the pages of Flickr would look like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel!”

      Well here is my response to him:

      “Bob, I don’t think it’s appropriate of you to characterize the gear-enthusiasts when you played your own part, by releasing a mystery picture that ignited the fire in the first place. For you to tell people to “go shoot” and forget about this whole new gear thing, is hypocrisy. Aren’t you the one testing the unreleased gear and bragging about it? Please… Next time, man up and just keep it a REAL secret, and maybe your rant will be more credible.”

  • Nikonuser

    Fast aperture prime!

  • Booo no new DSLRs =(

    • Chris

      Nikon already has the best cameras bodies, the lenses were what was missing. This is excellent news.

      • Global Guy

        You can buy the:

        85/1.4 + 50/1.4 + 35/2 + 24/2.8

        for the price of one 24/1.4

        What a rip off. Nikon is completely lying to us about what this thing costs to make. They don’t respect us. what a scam.

        • F-stop

          dam….I love wide lenses and fast primes but dam…. all of those for the 24mm 1.4 …man it makes you rethink your life..

        • Ken Rockwell’s Dog

          But I already have those. Come on, 2200 ain’t that bad for SOTA excellence.

        • iamlucky13

          What do you mean they’re lying? Where did they make claims about what it costs to make? Nikon isn’t required to sell lenses for cost, or else they’d never put any work into advancing technology, because they wouldn’t have any money to spare.

          I’m pretty disappointed by the price tag on both these lenses (not that I personally could justify buying them for even half those prices), but they set the price they think the market will bear. It’s not a ripoff if their target audience is willing to pay it.

          The fact is, this lens isn’t targeted at you or me. We get the 24mm F/2.8. The pros who really need that big aperture are much less likely to be shocked at the price.

    • Killa


  • Twoomy

    It has begun indeed! F’in AWESOME. I sense more f/4 walkaround/hiking lenses coming up in the next few months! Admin, you rock.

    • Chris

      What at 680g – thats a monster, its not far short of the 17-35 2.8

      • Banned

        A monster? That’s f’ing light to me. Have you tried 14-24 & 24-70 ???

        • Woodchuck

          have you tried the 17-35mm 2.8 a faster lens then this 16-35 at about the same weight and more compact

          Sorry but this new 16-35mm is lame

          • Banned

            You can’t say that until you’ve seen the performance. If the IQ is that of the 14-24, that will make it a very interesting lens if you don’t need the 2.8 (and chances are, you don’t, given focal length and current low ISO perf).

          • glphoto

            I agree, the 16-35mm f/4 is Nikon’s ipad… Fail

          • Global Guy

            Ugh. 24mm — not 28mm or 35mm. Ugh. $2,000 bucks for a 24mm. I guess Nikon just assumed that if jerks pay $4,000 for 28mm, they’d pay half for a 24mm. What I don’t understand is why this couldn’t be a 1.8 and ohhh, cut a grand off that price. Why is 85/1.4 $1000. Why is 35/2 so affordable. Why is 50/1.4 $450 bucks — but 24mm/1.4 is $2000 are you freaking kidding me??

            What I don’t understand is why this is $2,000 bucks, but the 34/2 is one fourth as much. This pricing is insane. Nikon is just trying to artificially create a new legendary 28/1.4.

            Nikon is really disappointing.

            The 16-35/4 is OK. The price is at least in the right range compared to other idiotically priced lenses. It should only be $900 bucks though. We are talking f/4 — not even f/3.5..

          • F-stop

            I was really hyped to see some new lenses but when you think about it…they’re killing us….why is the 24 so much..2K.why,? does it flood in the and lock on your camera by itself..???the 85,50 ….what happened with the 24?…no ones buying it and it will be down to 1500 or i would love it at 1200…….just give us our new body now lol

          • santela

            @Global Guy

            I agree the 24 is overpriced, just look at the Canon equivalent.

            However you can’t compare it to the 35, the 50, or even the 85, a 24/1.4 is a lot harder to make than a 50/1.4, I think you know that as well as I do.

            But then again, 1800 is a more reasonable price for that lens, 2200 is absurd.

          • PHB

            The wider a DSLR lens is, the harder it is to make a DSLR wide. The placement of the mirror sweep means that the lens had to be a reverse telephoto, Unlike Leica, Nikon and Canon have to make the light leave the back of the lens practically co-linear.

            That means that they have to use large glass and fairly fancy glass that takes a lot of special polishing.

            Nikon street prices are almost always slightly less than the recommended retail. But this one could well be pricey for a while.

          • Andrew

            Just seen the price of the new Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II USM Lens, £2799 GBP, makes the Nikon version seem cheap at a grand less!

  • low

    wooohooo it has begun!

    • Jay

      it has begun how cliche

      • Michael

        I’m waiting every time just for this ‘It has begun’ b/s. This is so daft. I love it.

  • nir.e

    strange looking lens, nikon site uploaded a photo

    • nir.e

      the 16-35

  • price?

  • lucas

    what’s the price of 16-35? i guess it’s cheaper than 17-35 f2.8?

  • Shivas


  • Canada lists the MSRP for the 16-35mm f/4 at $1399.95
    No price listed for the Prime yet.

    • lucas

      not bad for a new nikon zoom…

      • Geoff

        not bad? It is way too high for me. I was very excited about the release of this lens and was hoping to be able to afford it. I can’t justify it at this price, especially when Canon’s equivalent sells for $730. That is $530 more or around 70% more expensive! I’m sure it will be a nice lens, but IMO, it is way too expensive. Sheesh, I don’t think I will EVER be able to afford a full frame set up.
        I was really hoping this would be an “affordable” wide angle lens to make full frame more accessible to the common folk. Now one has to be rich to afford full frame camera (digital) and a decent wide angle lens to go along with it. I already own the 24 2.8 prime and it did okay on film, but my copy is awful! on a DSLR.

        • CatSplat

          The 17-40L is old, non-VR and nor exactly a stellar performer. When it was launched, the 17-40L had an MSRP of 120,000 yen, which is ~$1400.

          • zeeGerman

            I agree that the price tag is about right, basically. The lens does feature VR and nano coating, and seems to be of decent build quality.
            But, and this is why I’m disappointed, the MTF chart at the short end of the lens implies that there is no sharpness what so ever in the corners. I don’t feel that corner performance is overly critical with wide angle lenses, but still, the 14-24mm showed us the promised land, and I thought that this 16-35mm would be a better performer.

          • Geoff

            Well, if the 16-35 f4 drops 70% or even 50% in price, then I have nothing to complain about and could likely afford it. I understand that Nikon’s version has the VR and nano. My point is that I was hoping this lens would come in at a lower price (under 1000), so more people could afford a good performing wide angle lens. I wish they had left off the VR and cut the price accordingly.
            Back in film days, one could get a basic SLR, some Velvia, and any number of lenses which performed well on film for a reasonable amount of money and produce pictures with great image quality. Now, one has to be relatively wealthy to afford making pictures on a 35mm sensor. If you shoot Nikon anyway. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it seems that in the past most people could afford gear that is capable of producing the best image quality. Now, the same gear is priced for the top income earners or professionals only. I know that the photographer has more of an impact on most photos than the gear. Im strictly talking about the gear here.

      • theLMAO

        Geoff is right, Nikon thinks that they don´t need to compete with Canon but the f/4 L line of Canon is what attract the most of people switching boats…

        What makes me laugh is how NIkon is listening to the wrong people a wide angle lens with VR LMAO even if it is f/4 it is STUPID, but the newbies want cameras that are lightweight, that are dumb with VR lenses because they are dumbs.

    • Eric Pepin

      $2,349.95* canadian

      • for the prime? thats a bit pricer than I thought it would be.

      • Chris Crpwe

        I daren’t look to see what they will be selling for here in Australia.

  • theNEOone

    Price info would be nice…

    Boring release for me though…I was hoping for a d90 replacement. 🙁

    • see above comment

    • Jose

      Last time they announced FX lenses, they put out a DX body. Who knows, maybe is in the pipe for PMA…

  • Shivas

    Lol…moving on!!!

  • $2200 for the 24mm !!!

    • lucas

      the price is close to canon one…

      • LGo

        The Canon 24mm f/1.4L is selling for much lower at $1,699 in Adorama. 🙁

    • mnm

      oh crap. forget it for $2200.

  • Henry Nikon Fan

    See those gold rings around each lens?

    The price will be through the roof!

    • Banned

      Wrong, gold rings are an indication of nothing else than… It’s got gold rings.

      • SZRimaging

        Gold was supposed to be for ED glass. Which at one time was only found in pro lenses.

        • WoutK89

          So explain the absence of a gold ring on the 180/2.8 ED 😉

          • Ken Rockwell’s Dog

            It’s ancient. They hadn’t discovered gold when that lens was released.

        • Dr SCSI

          @SZRimaging, If gold rings = ED glass, that might explain why the 24mm f/1.4 has the ring, it has two ED elements and two Aspherical elements. This lens costs a fortune to manufacturer, which explains the cost. Also, if you factor in a the weak $, this lens would have been 15-20% cheaper just a year ago. There is no doubt, the 24 f/1.4 is a PRO lens…but damned $2200 is a lot of money. I will buy one, just because I fear they will stop making them a year from now.

      • PHB

        No, the gold rings means that the lens has been accepted by the Nikon gold ring award team, The process takes over a year and is not automatic. Even some very high priced lenses have been released without gold rings.

        These days Nikon is unlikely to release a pro-photography lens unless it gains the gold ring. But what we do not see is the much larger number of internal designs that failed to pass.

        Looking at the MTF chart it is no surprise to see why it got the award. The chart is much better than the 50mm chart – and this is for a wide angle, a much harder design constraint.

        Chart falls off towards the edge, which is only to be expected. Might be something of a CA issue wide open, but not huge. The lens is optimized for sharpness.

        Will be interested to see how this does for sagittal coma flare and bokeh which don’t show on the chart.

        • Banned

          What? Never heard of this award before. And where did you get the MTF charts?

          You’re Mr. B.S. Extraordinaire, aren’t you?

          • PHB

            No, I read the Nikon history site where they talk about the gold ring issue themselves and the pressure to win it.

            Likewise the MTF charts are linked in the article.

            You click on the link and you learn something, its called the Web. We built it out in CERN back around 1992. You may have heard of it.

          • Banned

            But I guess I didn’t invent grammar apparently.

        • Dr SCSI

          @PHB, sagittal coma flare should be held in check.
          “2 Aspherical Lens Elements -Aspherical lens elements virtually eliminate coma and other types of aberration, even when shooting at the widest available aperture.”
          The Nikon NOCT used just one aspherical lens. 🙂

        • Metavanguard

          Can you please post a link to the Nikon History site where they explain about the Gold Ring? I have been searching for hours on Google and only come up with people who are guessing incorrectly! Thanks.

      • Henry Nikon Fan

        Then why is it that most all of the Nikon lenses that have the gold ring are at least a $1,000.00 and quite a few of them are well in excess of $1,500.00?

        Gold Ring = $,$$$.$$

  • Anonymous

    So the 16-35 is 20mm longer than the 17-35 and is only 65g lighter. Hmmm. Wonder how much it will be?

  • Henry Nikon Fan

    I was correct, pricing through the roof!

    Pricing and Availability

    The versatile, wide angle AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR is scheduled to be available in late February 2010 at Nikon Authorized Dealers with an estimated selling price of $1259.95*. The ultra-fast AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4 G ED lens will be available in late March 2010 for estimated selling price of $2199.95*. For more information, please visit

    • PHB

      Cheaper than the old 28mm fetches on EBay at the mo…

      The Canon fast primes are halo models, not the big sellers that Canon fanbois may have led you to believe.

      But these prices suggest to me that I am right to hope that Nikon is planning to deliver an 85mm f/1.4 and not the $2000, grapefruit-sized monstrosity that Canon peddles to folk who like soft focus lenses.

      • Given Nikon’s recent trend towards upward pricing, I’ll be wiling to guess that an AF-S 85/1.4 will be at least $2k or pretty close to it.


  • Banned

    OK so now I need to find out whether this 16-35 is comparable to the 14-24 in terms of image quality. It sure has a lot going for it on paper.

    • PHB

      It looks like it is actually a better lens than the 17-35mm f/2.8. The MTF chart is way better.

      MTF is not necessarily trustworthy between manufacturers, but pretty good brand for brand.

      The 16-35 is very competitive with the 14-24. And it has VR, which to me says that the lens is one which is aimed at least in part at either the current 14-24 owner who does not always want the bulk and fragility of a lens with a lens element that hangs out the front or the possible future 14-24 owner who wants something that will compliment it later should he buy it.

      Both re utterly amazing charts for wide angle lenses. We have been used to this type of performance in ultra-telephotos for years. This is not quite on those levels, but it is very close.

      If you take a center crop out of these frames you are going to have utterly stunning sharpness over the DX frame. The 16-85 is virtually flawless on the DX frame. The 24mm would be utterly pointless on a DX body, but I will be more than happy to pay $300 for an f/1.8 DX version of the same at 18 or 20mm.

      Alternatively stick to FX frame but shoot at a more academy style aspect ratio and you pretty much have perfection.

  • Osakesan

    AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED : 242 700 yen at Yodobashi
    AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED VR : 137 400 yen at Yodobashi

    • That’s $1500 and 2700 wow

      • FWIW, those prices include tax, shipping, and 10% “points” (discount on your next purchase), so (for example) the prime price is about equivalent to an in-store price of about $2,300 in a state with 6% sales tax. FWIW.

        • Osakesan

          Jeffrey is right. I should have been more specific.


  • Woodchuck

    Already have a 17-35mm 2.8 , they release a 16-35mm F4 that manages to be about the same weight, same diameter and 20mm longer than what I have now. No thanks Nikon.

  • Henry Nikon Fan

    For me personally all this has done is to reaffirm my decision to buy the pro-sumer lenses instead of the pro lenses.

    This is way too much money for a hobby for me!

  • Banned

    Notice this sentence from the press release: “The AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR balances well with more compact FX format cameras such as the D700”.

    Compact FX cameras is pluralized. You get my drift………..

    • Global Guy


  • Anonymous

    cameras section still not loading

  • I think the price of the prime lens is way too high. Yeah I know its fast glass, but 50mm AFS f/1.4 is only $550CAD. Its over 4x the price for a 35mm?


    • northy

      apples and oranges here.

      but at $2200 i won’t be getting one either.

      • Its not really apples and oranges, and if you had to choose one over the other?

        I think there are a lot of other good Nikon lenses people would want to buy with the money difference between those two lenses.

        • northy

          way different construction and design. you can’t compare pricing on a wide angle fast prime to a 50mm 1.4, just like you can’t compare the price of a 50mm 1.4 to an 85mm 1.4.

          also, it’s a bit strange for someone to consider to choose one over the other, given the two lenses are meant for a different type of photography. not all low light shots are created equal. i’m a strong believer in choosing the right equipment for the job, not what’s cheaper. so yes, should my work require me to shoot with a wide angle at 1.4, i would buy this lens instead of the 50 1.4.

        • zeeGerman

          There are many points why this lens is as expensive as it is. But most importantly, the price tag is correct. This lens is not sold as often as a 50mm, it uses much more glass, also Canons version of this lens has steep price tag.

          This lens will not be an option for many, that is true, but so far FX is pointed at professionals only, and I think Nikon is doing a great job closing their gaps in the lens lineup. With the D3x, the 14-24mm and now this 24mm, the F-Mount is all of sudden very attractive to many midformat users. 24mp is quite something, and so far, for wideangle, 35mm format was not an option for many.

          Anyway, this doesn’t change the price tag of the 24mm, and I’m very certain that we will see a 28mm f/1.8 or f/2 within one, max two years. This will be the budget version of the 24mm at around a quarter of its costs.

          • santela

            Wow, that’s kind of a strong statement to be predicting a 28 this early. I hope you are right though, a 28/2 would be very interesting/versatile.

            I’m still waiting for my 35/1.4 though. make it 1500 and i’m sold.

          • Jose

            If FX primes is a pro-niche market, I see no reason for Nikon to spend R&D money on a cheaper alternative.

            Maybe the 28/2 in DX would make more sense…

          • zeeGerman

            The 24mm f/1.4 is a very particular lens, not every photographer will see himself forced to get one. I see it mostly for people that are downsizing form midformat.

            Other photographers, also professionals, might just want something fairly fast for low light, like a reception. These are shots that will end up in a wedding album, and this particular shot isn’t what they are getting payed for, therefor, it can be hard to justify 2000 Dollar for a prime like that.

            Especially now with the 16-35mm f/4 in the lineup, a faster affordable wide angle prime would make perfect sense. Whoever buys the f/4 zoom, might have a huge interest in a 28mm f/2.

    • Fast 50mm glass is way easier to make than fast 24mm glass. Even so, I won’t be dishing out $2,220. I might have spent $1,500 but not $2,200.

      • Bert

        I am a full time pro and even though I can do $2200 with not too much trouble, it is still hard to justify from a business standpoint.

        • Well said. I am a full time pro as well and I love nothing more than shooting wide open at high ISOs with little to no flash. I really, really want this lens, but I just can’t justify the price tag. I know these lenses aren’t cheap to make so I’m not going to hate on Nikon, but I was hoping that they would produce something comparable in price to Canon’s 24mm 1.4, which goes for $1700 on Amazon. I would have considered that. I’m curious to see if they put out a 35mm f/1.4 later this year. I may be willing to splurge if they do as that is one of my favorite focal lengths. But until then, I think I may spend my money on a Contax 645 instead. Anyone looking to sell?

          • WoutK89

            People, comparing an older lens in price to a just announced lens, is in my opinion, hopeless. The price of the Nikon will be the same when it is at the same age as the Canon is now. Or at least, in Europe most probably the pice will drop faster.

          • santela

            @ WouK89

            The Canon 24mm updated version is only an year or so old, and it has been 1700 right from the day it hit the stores. So it’s not an old lens. Therefore Nikon’s 24mm will not be 1700 in a year, it will not be 1700 in five years.

  • TDK

    I never understood, why f4 seen to a popular…? Allot of canon users would perfer a f4. Is it price point or what? If one was to go for a good lense should they look at the fastest?

    • SZRimaging

      Constant f4 lenses are usually high end glass that looks good, but costs half of it’s f2.8 siblings price. It is also usually lighter and more compact. If you don’t need the speed of the f2.8, then usually f4 glass is a good choice. At least with Canon gear. Nikon doesn’t have enough to judge.

      • Geoff

        The problem with Nikon’s version is that it is way too expensive.

        • SZRimaging

          I think all new lenses are getting too expensive. There seems to be a higher rate of price inflation than with the rest of the market.

          That said, it should be about $900, not over $1k if you ask me.

          • Ken Rockwell’s Dog

            Don’t buy it then. Get something cheaper, but don’t expect the same performance.

          • SZRimaging

            I’m on the fence. I use primes for work that matters, so I am not sure I need a zoom in this range.

    • roger767

      F4 with VR on a wide lens is enough. Especially if the deciding factors are weight and price

    • theLMAO

      the F/4 L line is popular because they are high performance lenses (the 70-200mm f/4 and f/4 IS are SUPER sharp) at a reasonable price for shooters that are starting or that have a smaller market, also for a studio shooter (who will often be in f/5.6-f/8) suits them well.

      But with the idiotic price tag Nikon went with this lens they aren´t competing at all :/ the lens is 2x the price of the Canon… yeah I can hear the newbies and the dumbsters say “BUT ITs HaZ VR!!!!!!!!!LOLMAOLO” but VR in a wide angle lens is stupid.

  • $2200 for the 24mm f1.4? I think I’ve been cured of NAS!

  • low

    cash in hand baby, 24 f1.4 prime…..lets do this!

  • TDK

    24mm is nice… but at USD2200? you gotta be kidding right?

  • Henry Nikon Fan

    Most of you here are probably more the pro types, but for me where are the new DX moderated priced lenses?

    I love the AF-S DX 10-24mm lens on DX, why would I want a AF-S 16-35mm on DX?

    • Anonymous

      because this lens is obiously made for FX shooters. Not every lens nikon makes has to be a DX lens which ive seen alot. So expect alot more fx lenses being released this next year since dx has a pretty well upgraded list of lenses. from wide to telephoto.

      • PHB

        Nikon came out with the 35mm DX f/1.8 just a short time after the 50mm f/1.4. The two lenses are fairly close in design, the difference being that the 35mm has smaller elements and uses a hybrid aspherical element which is a lot cheaper to make than grinding glass.

        So it would not be exactly unexpected for Nikon to come out with a fast DX prime to compliment the 24mm f/1.4, not as fast obviously, but certainly faster than the current 20mm prime.

        Now we have the wide lenses, the next launch would logically be at the tele end. Perhaps the 85 f/1.4 and the 80-400 replacement ???

  • Martin

    Nikon Canada has the 16-35 at $1400. Wonder what the street price will be….$1250??

    Well, it’s not too far off my budget. Let’s hope supply keeps up with the demand.

  • Steve

    wow , you never fail to amaze me admin

  • Chad

    This 16-35mm seems like consumer glass to me… I’m thinking that FX D9000 isn’t far off.

    • Henry Nikon Fan

      You may be right about another body, but that gold ring on it seems to imply more than consumer glass to me, but I am no expert.

    • SZRimaging

      Prosumer if you ask me. As a semi-pro, who uses primes when it counts, the 16-35 is a welcome addition.

  • Henry Nikon Fan

    Here is the math! Using B&H for 14-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm and Nikon suggested pricing for 16-35mm and 24mm it all adds up to $9,353.80.

    All I have to say is WOW!

    • RThomas

      I could get by with just the 16-35mm and the 70-200mm on an FX body. That would be less than $5000 at street prices, and this is glass that should retain resale value well.

      • Henry Nikon Fan

        You are correct about the resale value, but you still have to buy them to begin with.

    • Ken Rockwell’s Dog

      and your point is what? That quality costs? Correct.

  • burrojoe

    such a disappointment. Nikon must make a mid-range ($) full-frame, video DSLR. i may start looking at Canons. 🙁

    • Ken Rockwell’s Dog


      • Kuri


  • ozawa

    so how good is the 16-35mm lens from the MTF chart? anyone?

  • full frame freddie

    wow, I was really pumped up for that 24mm….but then I just deflated after seeing the price.

    • Hopefully the price on a used 28mm f/1.4 won’t be so outrageous anymore so I can pick up one of those instead.

      • full frame freddie

        that was my thought exactly!

  • sflxn

    You guys are funny. Comparing 24/1.4 price relative to 50/1.4? That’s hilarious. However, the price for the 16-35VR is quite shocking. The Canon equivalent (17-40) is only $800. It’s been that price since 2003 when I first bought mine. Granted, it didn’t have VR, but $600 more for VR? I’m sure the lens is better than the 17-40, but the premium I would have added is $150 for Nikkor quality and $150 for VR. This lens should be around $1100 or less. Well, I already have 14-24 so I guess I’ll save my money for either D900, Nikon EVIL, 35/1.4 or 85/1.4.

    • SZRimaging

      Ahem, inflation.

    • santela

      well, its 1260, 160 more than ur desired price, which isn’t that bad I guess.
      But the 24mm on the other hand, is 500 more than the canon equivalent. now that’s absurd.

    • here here i totally agree

  • rbciu

    It’s hard to believe they would put VR in one of these short lenses and leave it out of the venerable AF-S 24-70mm f2.8.

    • sflxn

      I’m somewhat glad that the venerable 24-70 doesn’t have 1/4 – 1/2 extra lbs of weight to it just for VR. It’s already heavy enough, but I need Nikon to quickly figure out how to add VR to it without increasing weight.

      • Global Guy

        I don’t find the 24-70 too heavy. Its just the right weight. VR definitely could harm that, but it would be worth it. The 24-70’s focus can be iffy in many cases anyway.

        • Ken Rockwell’s Dog

          Sounds like you got a dud. Mine focusses faster than a cracking whip.

          • Dr SCSI

            @KR’s Dog
            +1 Woof…Woof….

    • Dweeb

      Can I now give the Nikon employee that told me I don’t need VR under 70mm a shot in the nose? I fiigurred the real reason was that they didn’t make one at the time.

      • Ken Rockwell’s Dog

        You don’t need VR under 100mm, as long as you don’t have Parkinson’s.

  • That’s a pricy prime. Yes, I wish the 16-35 VR (which I find really exciting) were a bit less too, but at least that one didn’t make my eyes water when I read it.

  • jon

    let’s see..sell 70-200 vr2 and get the new 24mm..hmm…

    • Global Guy

      Let’s see if youre short-sighted or far-sighted. Who can afford both. Poking out one eye to save the other.

  • Ray

    HAHAHA i love reading comments, i just gotta say, people ask for those two lens and Nikon gives, then everyone says no thanks…

    what do you guys expect for a 24mm 1.4? $1200? Look at it this way, we can finally cause the 28 1.4 to drop in value enough to be under $2000 if this lens is a better performer. and then all the whiners about nikon having no fast glass can shut it and pay for one.

    as for the 16-35 f4, I will probably buy one eventually. 17-35 is nice, but i think I can use the 400 dollar difference since my pics dont need f2.8 wide angle zoom. I think I need the 400 dollars for some cool flash gear or even selling my 50 1.4 d and getting the 50 1.4g to be cool 🙂

    or save the 400, sell the 50, and get the 85 1.4 (used of course)… 🙂

    • sflxn

      You’re wrong. What people were really asking for is a 24-105VR f4. I would buy that in a heartbeat. It was my favorite Canon lens, and sometimes I look at 5DII + 24-105IS with great envy and think to myself why not own two systems?

      • Ray

        and what if it was priced only 200 dollars less than the 24-70, still a heartbeat? or two? lol

      • jastereo

        I think it’s coming eventually. I think this 16-35 is the first of a few f/4’s to compete against the Canon f/4 lenses and to provide a perfect second tier series for those who don’t want or need the weight/cost of the f/2.8’s. They’ll mate perfectly w/the D700 (and the probable D700s & D900 that are on the way). They’ll all have VR (Even on this wide) to somewhat make up for the slower f/4 & for use in video and to be seen as keeping up w/ the times. I think the 1250 price is about right, figure it will settle out at 900$ after a while. BTW this would also provides a perfect lens series to buy if you’re just getting into things w/ a DX body but know you’re going to move up to FX eventually (but I agree a 24-105 f/4 VR will work alot better for that…like I said, I think it’s coming).

    • Ken Rockwell’s Dog

      You got it Ray. Too many whining wannabees with a D40 and an 18-55mm, pretending they’re in the market for fast glass and expecting to have it given away. Get back to taking pictures of your cats and quit with the fantasy comments.

      • Bob


  • sfh

    Weren’t there supposed to be a couple fast primes???

  • Genji

    Is the 16-35 f/4 suppose to supersede the 18-35mm f3.5-4.5D IF ED Lens?
    Because pricewise the 16-35 f/4 is twice the cost of the 18-35.

    • Segura

      Funny I just picked up the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 used mint for $335 last week . . . guess I can hold out on this lens for a price drop to more realistic levels.
      The 18-200mm was released for $849, and now it can be found for $749 easy. Same with the prosumer 12-24mm DX dropping in price and the 10-24mm DX as well.
      I think this lens will migrate to $999 soon enough, or maybe when they release a new body, then a discount when buying the combo (like they did with the 18-200, or 70-300 over Christmas).

  • Anonymous

    Is the 24mm F/1.4 the new 28mm F/1.4 ?

    Coveted by many, bought by few, discontinued, then through the roof price for used ?

    • Ken Rockwell’s Dog

      No, the 24mm f/1.4 is the new 24mm f/1.4.

    • Dr SCSI

      +1 Anonymous

      Just think, there was only just over 7K, 28mm f/1.4 D lenses produced in about a 12 year span. 5 years after the production of the 28mm stopped, Nikon gives us an even wider lens with Nano Coating, 2 Extra-Low Dispersion Elements, 2 Aspherical Elements, a focusing motor, 9 ROUNDED aperture blades, and 1 extra lens element bringing the count to 12! I don’t know what this lens went for originally back in ’94 when it hit the street, but if we adjust for inflation and today’s week dollar, I think $2200 MSRP is a fair deal. I just hope enough people buy them, to give Nikon the incentive to continue manufacturing such masterpieces for a period of time long enough for me to save the money to get one!

  • JBL

    I appreciate the VR II on a wide angle zoom but meh.. for the price I’d rather play more and get a 14-24.

    Also, that 24mm.. nice but.. 2200$?? WOWAAAA

    I want a 28mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 for 1500$ or less.

  • David

    Great job done, Admin. I was hoping for a 24 dx, but enjoyed your reporting all the same.

    • Ken Rockwell’s Dog

      You can still use this on DX, but of course you’ll have to pay for it.

  • jsa
    • PHB

      The differences are fascinating. The 28mm is never as sharp as the 24mm is across almost the whole frame. The new 24 is much sharper across the whole frame and the sagittal/meridional lines are much closer together indicating likely better CA performance.

      The wavy pattern of the 28mm is very typical of the Nikon primes of the era. The lenses show signs of being tweaked by hand at various points along the curve to try to keep everything in line. The 24mm curves have a very modern, computer-optimized feel. That is what you get from having a computer run a few million test rays over every point on the lens surface and run optimization algorithms over the set.

      Another point of interest is the lens cross sections. The lens elements of the 24 look fairly conventional most are symmetric or have a flat side and an curved side. There is an aspherical element but its essentially a more or less symmetric lens ground asphericaly on one side.

      The three front elements of the 24 are each highly asymmetric. They bulge out in the manner of the old fisheye lenses. Those are not the sort of lenses Nikon was using regularly in the 1990s.

      The 85mm f/1.4 may look like the patent, or that may just be a ruse to confuse Canon and the new lenses will be in this style.

    • SimonC

      Excellent MTF’s for both new lenses.

      The 24 f1.4 destroys the old 28 f1.4. I have briefly shot with the 28 f1.4 – the biggest issue I noticed was the fact that it wasn’t AF-S. The slightest change in subject to camera distance sometimes didn’t cause the lens to refocus due to the screw driven focus. With AF-S, the lens can do micro changes in the focusing.

      The fact that it is super-sharp, AF-S and 24mm is worth the $2200 price, IMO. Stop bitchin’ about the price, folks!

  • WishIWasACanon

    Wow.. my first post to express my disgust for the pricing.. I love nikon gear but really this is too much, this is rape.. it should be joke. hehe

    • Henry Nikon Fan

      It should not be illegal, if no one wants to pay this price then they won’t. That is the free market at work!

      • WishIWasACanon

        I was just joking.. but I do feel all these companies won’t flinch to suck you dry.. it’s just sometimes it hurts more than others like (today).. they make you feel like they have your best interest in mind and you buy into their system and then bang.. up your arse they go..

        • Blah

          If you want to indicate that you’re joking, you shouldn’t end your comment with “no joke”.

  • Meh

    2000 bucks for 24 f/1.4….mehhhhhhhhh

  • ozawa

    24mm f1.4 for $2000 isn’t all that surprising. canon’s wide prime is about the same price without nano-technology.

    • Meh

      Canon’s $1475. Nano technology . BS Marketing term.

      • f/2.8

        You obviously haven’t shot with nano coated lenses. Meh…

    • Well, $2200 for the Nikon and $1700 for the Canon (rounded up a dollar for each; the Canon is the current B&H USA price for the 24 f1.4L II; the Canon list price is $50 more). The Canon uses a coating as well called an SWC coating – same sort of notion as the nano-coat. From Canon: ” Lens elements have a newly-designed anti-reflective SWC (Sub Wavelength Coating) that departs from conventional coatings by using an extremely fine structure that minimizes ghosting and flaring across the lens surface, regardless of the angle with which light enters or exits. It also features two UD lens elements to minimize chromatic aberrations, incorporates rear-focusing, ultrasonic, quiet and high-speed AF with full-time manual override. A circular aperture provides beautiful out-of-focus detail and offers legendary dust- and water-resistant L-series construction using only lead-free glass.”

      • ozawa

        ok, the difference is 500 bucks in the US. In Japan, EF24mm F1.4L II USM is 199,800 yen, and AF-S 24mm F1.4G is 218,400 yen. So the difference is roughly 200 bucks.

  • zoom is disappointment. i was really hoping in something smaller. at this configuration, it is a bit cheaper and lot worse then 17-35. hm

    • SimonC

      Disappointment? C’mon! The 17-35 was great….on film. On FX, corners aren’t great. Expect the 16-35 to beat it handily.

      Price will come down over the course of the year.

  • Back to top