Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR?

Update: this one is BUSTED! This is a PS job.

This just in: Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR. Don't know much about the origin of this picture, still working on it:

rumored Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR lens

The golden letters are inconsistent and the lens appears to be too thick around the mount. I am not even sure if this will fit on a F-mount - this it could definitely be a PS job.

Maybe after the release of the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR lens, Nikon will deliver a full line of new f/4 lenses.

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

    You don’t see many lens pictures with a tripod mount ring but no tripod foot visible in the picture – if it were real, the picture would either be with a phone camera of a sample just stuck on the table, or a picture like this but with the tripod foot shown.

    Do the people who submit these things imagine that if they can Photoshop it, Nikon will be shamed into building it? I’d like a 35-100/f2.8 AF-S VRII lens, preferably with a removable tripod foot, but don’t believe it will appear if I swear that it’s being released next month!

  • Ralf

    For anyone that has to hike with a 70-200 f2.8, an f4 makes perfect sense. I would love to take the decision makers on new lenses out on one of my hike carrying the gear I trek with – i think we would see more f4 lenses – the 16-35 is an excellent start

    • peter

      The 16-35 only weighs 65 grams less than the 17-35 2.8 …

  • boicot


    Seems like a bored user was using PS in his freetime…

  • Alan

    Using FF digital exclusively for landscape work, if this lens ever became the real McCoy, it would make me look very carefully at the next Nikon DSLR with a view to investing in this system

  • Michael

    Fake or not,

    I’d love a 70-200/f4. But if the real thing will be as long as on this photo, I’d skip on it. Why is the 16-35/f4 so much bigger than the 17-35/f2.8?

    • Eric

      Agreed , as ive said before id just get the 80-200 if the f4 70-200 is as large as the 2.8. The only reason to get a F4 is if its half the weight and lets say two thirds the lenght. If not why not get the 2.8 for a tiny bit more weight, less money, better quality. The ONLY reason to get the f4 is if you need the VR

  • Remember when we were all convinced that the 10-24 was fake? 😀

    This lens looks pretty real to me!

  • Mendip Caver

    I have been to a Nikon Premier Dealer in England today, she told me that they have been told what Nikon are launching in 2010 and said that the new DSLRs would be entry level models, that there would be new lenses including a 75mm f1.4 and a DX 28-300mm, but no D700 replacement!

    Do they really KNOW this or was she just trying to sell me a D700???

    • LGo

      So did you buy a D700? 😉

      I think that a new FX body is coming this March … it just makes sense. The fact that Canon has lowered its price on the 5D Mk II even while this model is selling well is an indication that Nikon will soon be releasing a winner FX body.

      Whether it will be a D700s (with the D3s sensor), or D700x (with the D3x sensor), or a D900 (with an 18mp FX sensor), I think it is very likely that Nikon will announce a new FX body soon,

    • nobody

      Mendip Caver wrote:

      “I have been to a Nikon Premier Dealer in England today, she told me that they have been told what Nikon are launching in 2010 and said that the new DSLRs would be entry level models”

      That may be related to the upcoming mirrorless system. But that is no DSLR.

      ” that there would be new lenses including a 75mm f1.4″

      that should be the 85mm f1.4 upgrade

      “and a DX 28-300mm”

      that would rather be FX 28-300

      “but no D700 replacement!”

      That should be correct, until the D700s arrives in the second half of this year.

      • Slashcode

        why 28-300 FX? People buy an FF camera and then don’t want to use the super wide lens?
        An FF camera + FF 28-300 lens could weight hell much more than a DX camera+18 200 with the same field of view. Further more the 28 300 could be much longer than the 18 200.That could be a stone for traveler to carry.

        The only advantage of the FF combo is the 1-2 stop better in low light, which could be less relevant in the near future when Nikon improve the iso of their DX.

  • LGo

    Could this “leak” of the 70-200mm f/4.0G AF-S VR be an attempt by Nikon to test the waters and see how the community will respond to this lens?

    If it is, I’d tell Nikon to bring on this lens!

  • JD

    All Nikon and for that fact any manufacteurers products are embargoed until launch day. There is no way any UK dealer would have info on this year’s releases, it would be pure speculation on their part. The 70-200mm f4 image is a fake, check the N logo on the barrell, the perspective is the wrong way round! It’s got to be a PS job!

  • Chris P

    My guess is that the follow up to the 16-35 f4 will be a 28/35-105 f4 of the same quality. Going straight to 70-200 f4 leaves too big a gap in an area where Nikon’s present range, excluding the 24-70 f2.8, is weakest, and a 28-105 f4 would be a high quality replacement for the present 24-120.

    I haven’t seen any true focal range figures for the 16-35 yet, but it is probably somewhere around 17-33. Therefore a nominal 28-105, actual 30-100, would make a nice two lens outfit. That lens wil be preceeded, or followed by, a replacement 80-400 variable aperture lens, which may be 100-400, to match the two lenses above. This would provide a range of three high optical quality lenses covering wide angle to telephoto, all with standard 77 mm filter threads, which their rivals will find hard to match. Incidentally, they would also match, and work very well with, an 18Mp FX camera.

  • now that would be cool… Lack of small lenses is sad…

  • Peter

    Looks nice though, NIKON if your watchin this, see that’s what you need to make! 😀

  • PhotonFisher

    Why should they update the 70/80 to 200/300mm range? The obvious gaps are between 200 and 500mm – the current offering is 80-400mm and 200-400mm.

    The competition has more attractive ranges – although the unique selling point for Nikon should not be anymore something like “the first 200-400mm” – who cares? It’s on the market with an outdated VR-system. An update should either be higher quality beyond 200mm WITH VR but certainly not just another 1:4 lens.

    Having said this: for DX cameras the 1:4 80-200 is attractive, but for FX it is just not OK, unless you consider 3200 ASA being te ordinary.

  • PhotonFisher

    back to primes: a 70 or 80mm 1.1.4 is probably the one fulfilling highest demand – or for those of your who still remember: an updated 1:2.5 105mm

  • Back to top