Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35-70mm f/4G ED N lens?

I am really pissed. The email containing this image was marked as junk mail and was sitting in my spam queue for days (click on image for larger view):

click on image for larger view

My problems with that lens is its size - shouldn't it be much smaller for a 35-70 f/4? It almost appears to be bigger than the current 24-70 f/2.8 lens:

Current Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 model

Here is also the latest 16-35 f/4 for comparison:

latest 16-35mm f/4 VR model

Photoshop job or not? What say you?

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

    Looks a bit suspect

    • snapshooter

      If this is suspect then I think it tells us a lot about the person who does this photoshopping.

      This person has not ever owned or used large f/2.8 or f/4 zooms and is more obsessed with a series of numerically consecutive f/4 zooms (no gaps or overlaps), rather than considering that no one would ever want such a huge and restrictive lens in their bag, regardless of cost. Look at the size of this beast! I’d consider the possibility of this if it were f/2, certainly, that would be a first for any lens manufacturer; and would explain the size.

      No doubt version 2.0 of a 70-200mm f/4 is on the way!

      • Banned

        I have been repeating this over and over with each new f/4 rumor:

        Be ready to see a lot of mediocre f/4 fakes from people with f/4 lineup dreams and too much time in their hands.

        It makes no sense for Nikon to release an f/4 lens with a similar focal length as an existing f/2.8 lens. This would confuse the market. 16-35 -> YES. 35-70? -> NO, too close to 24-70. 35-85 -> MORE LIKELY…

        Other than the unlikely focal lens, this is obviously a collage from various lenses, taken straight out of the official press releases.

    • torin

      Front glass element is identical to the 24-70mm. Not possible for a lens with such a different optical spec.

      fake lens people…. fake.

      • rg


      • arron

        And the distance ring is exactly the same positioning as the 24-70.

    • larry angier


      Look at the letter spacing before “35-70”. It’s too tight. The numbers on the zoom also do look right. Looks like a combo of both lenses, IMO.

  • Wishin’

    Maybe a 35-105mm f/4?

  • What’s the point? This lense makes no sense.

    • rwbenjey

      ^ agreed.

      • Jose

        Yep. What’s the point of a 2x f/4 standard zoom that is almost as large (apparently) as a 3x f/2.8 standard zoom. This lens won’t happen. Maybe a 24-120, but not this one.

    • Mike

      +2. Why would an f/4 have a shorter range than a straight f/2.8? They already made a 35-70 2.8 years ago. Photoshop. A good one but fake. Orange N… Press version? Prototype? Way to tell my (not mine, but you know what I mean) D3 from 2000 other journalists at the Olympics? Time will tell.

      • Global Guy

        This lens makes no sense. But let’s keep building pressure to add VR to the 24-70!!!! Its a long shot. But remember, Nikon upgraded the 70-200 VRII due to complaints about fall off. So maybe they will put VR on the 24-70.

        If they were smart, they would overlap ranges too. It should be 14-28, 24-85, and 70-200. Not just chop chop chop at the end of sets of lengths (14, 24, 70, 200). Overlapping ensures i don’t have to suddenly swap. I can transition into swapping.

        A 20-85 VR f/4 would be a great lens.

        • Anonymous

          Let me start, the 70-200 was there long before FX showed up, everyone was happy until FX showed up! The 70-200 was also 6 years “old” 😉

          Maybe the 14-28 can be real, but Nikon has not made a 2.8 zoom with a range longer than 3x zoom, keep dreaming, not gonna happen. I think that’s why they introduce f/4.0 in their line up, longer constant aperture zoom ranges.

    • PHB

      From the look of it, the purported lens has a smaller filter size than the 24-70 f/2.8. The ratio of the flange side to the front is wrong for a 77. I think that mostly an artifact of bad photoshoping.

      Given that the 10-24 has a 77mm filter size, despite being able to easily take a 72mm. I cannot see it as remotely possible that and new f/4 would have anything other than a 77mm filter. They would put a 77mm filter ring on even if that meant putting the outer lip on the end like they did on the 10-24.

      I can’t see the length making sense either. A 24-70 would make sense. A 35-100 would make sense. A 35-70 does not.

      I would prefer a 35-100 as that would mesh nicely with a either a 100-400 VA tele or a 100-300 f/4 design. The VA replacement for the 80-400 is much more likely to come out first of course.

  • Kevin

    It’s photochopped. You can tell it combines images from both 16-35 and 24-70.

    Check out the 35-70 at 100%, you can tell the number “35-70” is of a different color and imposed on the image.

    • tchar

      I agree…

    • rad

      you can also see that the zoom ring is from the 24-70 with the 24 and 28 photoshoped out

  • priceman

    that’s the dumbest focal length! why would anybody buy that lens????

    • Bob

      I’m not going to buy it.

  • priceman

    it’s a fake (i think) look at how the light hits the lettering “35” and “70”.. it maches teh lighting one the 24-70 and 16-35, but doesn’t match the overall lighting on this stupid 35-70mm…

    • Davo

      I agree. Big difference in light on “OR” at the end of Nikkor and the “35.”

  • big mac

    omg so fake you can with eyes closed

  • Nikonuser

    Yet another wonderful fake.

  • Nikonuser

    Looks like a flashlight.

  • AaronFoto


  • Anonymous

    Obvious fake. The ring like part containing the VR label is taken from the 16-35 image.

  • a 33-70 that’s almost as big as the 70-200? FAKE

  • David

    There is no way the front lens element needs to be that large for a 35-70mm f/4.0. To me that would have been the most obvious defect of this fake photo.

  • Ernst

    For those of you who think 35-70 is an improbable zoom range, get with the program. Nikon made a 35-70 f/2.8 for years.

    The thing is, the real-life f/2.8 version is a lot smaller than this rumored f/4.0 VR version.

  • NikoDoby

    Photoshop just turned 20 so maybe this image is in honor of that? 🙂

  • Niko

    I call shenanigans!

  • santela

    Definitely fake.
    Nikon has to be insanely stupid, to make such a useless focal length like that at f4. A 50/1.8 would have owned its ass.

  • Jabs

    Years ago, I had a 35-70 F2.8 Nikon zoom and that was one sweet lens. I used it along with a 75-150 F3.5 Series E lens for street shooting with an N4004AF (for flash and obscurity), a F3HP -w-MD4-MN2 Nicads and shot mainly Fujichrome 50 (Velvia) and 64T or Neopan 100 B+W.
    Great walk about lens and the two gave me 35-150 mm coverage. I kept the 35-70 F2.8 on the N4004 and the 75-150mm on the F3.
    Great to see Nikon returning to its’ past greatness.
    Warms my heart -lol.

    I hope this rumor is a REAL lens.

  • Niko

    35-70 f2.0 — that will be news.
    This? Either Nikon has gone nuts
    or …

  • ****************** NIKON QUALITY CONTROL **************
    I bought tons of Nikkor lenses for the last 20 years, but now I’m getting really upset, there is NO QUALITY CONTROL, I just got a 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S, that’s a lemon !
    And this is the 2nd time in the last 6 months that I will have to return a lens !
    $1739 for a lens and you find out that it’s a piece of s..t ?
    I TESTED the lens (not buy shooting my mother’s cat but with a real test chart).
    This is not acceptable.

    • Pimp Master Fresh

      QQ less or switch to Canon.

  • twoomy

    Fake or not, a 35-70 f/4 would blow. I had the old 35-70 f/2.8 and while it was tack sharp, it isn’t a very convenient range on DX or FX. If there really is a new line of f/4 lenses, I hope this mid-range zoom would start at 24mm.

    • twoomy

      P.S. That presumably fake looks absolutely ENORMOUS for an f/4 lens with such a limited range! I’d stick to my old 35-70 f/2.8 if this new one was twice as heavy (and expensive)

    • Jabs

      As a long time shooter and Nikon user, I would NOT want Nikon to start an F4 zoom like this one below 35mm.
      Have you ever seen the results of going from 50mm to 35mm and then go below 35mm to say 28mm?
      At 35mm, you seem to get at the limits of a focal length wherein you get more obvious distortion IF you go below that especially in a ZOOM.
      Perhaps many of you here have NEVER ever shot with lots of focal lengths at the same time and then saw with your own eyes what happens when you go below 35mm!
      35mm to 85mm is the SWEET spot of ‘normalcy’ in film AND FX (which is the VERY SAME perspective as 35mm film)
      When you LIMIT the zoom range, you have a better zoom lens PLUS you limit distortion, aberrations and have better optical results.
      Many here FAIL to realize that Nikon seems to be making the F4 zooms for PROS.
      The variable F-stop zooms are for DX, perhaps!
      Nikon seems to be going BACK to its’ roots – PRO photographers plus FX and perhaps they will now release an F7 when they release the D4 and then they will perhaps be based upon the same body structure.

      This is NOT against DX, but DX has its’ limitations as the new Canon bodies (7 and MK4) amply demonstrate.
      Shoot with whatever you have but FX rules for now!

  • scott

    most uselss lens ever? (even if it was real) probably.

  • Steve

    Gotta be fake – such a limited range for zooms now. A lens like that would be aimed at FX shooters who may – or may not – own a 16-35. 28-70, 35-105, 35-135, those would make more sense.

  • Jabs

    I wonder- have anyone of you EVER shot cityscapes in a large city such as New York City?
    With the tall buildings there and limited space to back up, a 35-70 zoom is great.
    Maybe most of you own just a few lens and have never shot more than a few different focal lengths.
    One awesome lens of the past that I would love to see return is the 50-300mm F4.5 zoom. This thing was huge but the results were great IF you had a tripod. I remember shooting a downtown parade with one on a F3TC-MD-4/MN-2 combination on a Gitzo monopod AND the results were great.
    Shot Fujichrome 100 and 400.
    Photography is FOCAL LENGTHS – perhaps you learn that and quit whining so much – LOL!

  • sonyalpha
  • sonyalpha

    BTW look teh image above in Dpreview’s PMA 2010 sneak peek.

  • funky_chilli

    got so excited when i looked at the pic quickly and saw 35-70mm 1.4G! lol i wish

  • sonyalpha

    it’s like noone noticed it? no thread discussing this in dpreview forum either…?

  • Benjo

    Wow, worse than the 70-200 f/4 fake. The identical spacing of 35-50-70 spacing to the 24-70 photo made it all too easy to spot. They ‘shopper should have put in a little more effort and put on some new numbers to be a 24-120 and it might have garnered more debate.

  • Luis

    Certainly fake. Upon close inspection the patterns in the finish around the VR logo match between the 16-35 photo and the 35-70 photo, which means that at least portions of the 16-35 image were used to construct the 35-70,

  • Awkward range if you ask me. Why not 24-70/4 or 24-105/4?

  • Shivas

    Wayyyy too large…my 35-70 is rinky dink, sharp as a tack, and takes skinny 62mm filters (or 52mm I forget)….this has to be either the 24-120 or 35-105….and 35 is a great wide angle people, like someone said, looks distortion free with very little need for post processing correction….

  • Monte

    Didn’t anyone notice the number on the lens?

    This BIG lens is 35-70mm f/1.4G VR, not f/4.0!!!!

    It makes perfect sense to have this big aperture lens to be physically BIG!!!!

    • Nikon35

      mmm… f/4.0 can be written as 1:4

  • Anonymous

    begin with 35 is old tech
    i think if 24-120 is bigger to make
    24-105 or 28-120 may possible for today
    but have a look on 16-35 that big as 17-35
    24-120 may be smaller that 24-70 only a bit XD

  • Kevin Y

    looks photoChopped. body of the new 16-35 and the front filter of the 24-70

  • They’ve photoshopped some parts from the 24-70, and the 16-35 and made that “new” lens. looks fake to me.

  • BraBus


    I’m not going to buy it.

  • testDrive

    really 35-70 f/4 vr ??
    why..why ???
    i;m not understand..

  • Gordon

    It’s fake. You only need to compare the metal casting patterns around the VR logo on both this rumoured lens and the recent 16-35mm lens, prominent ‘dots’ are exactly the same on both images.

  • I say I wouldn’t buy one

  • can someone tell me why does the 16-35 (which has VR) have 8 pin connectors and the 24-70 has 10?

  • LoneBear

    Nikon Rumorls would be more serious about posting new rumors!!!
    Anyone with enough sense will think that these PS jobs are just for put mor shit on brains eager of new products!!
    So big f:4 lens with so small range? DAMN SHIT about his PS creator!

  • Mats N

    Looks very fake to me. Look at the zoom ring – not very practical to have the focal lengths so close together…

  • PhotonFisher

    having a VR instead of 1:2.8 shows clearly: someone wants us to make believe, that two species of photographers are targeted: the ones with $$$ to buy 1:.28 and the others who want VR, because they don’t want to use higher ISO …

    A VR below 100mm is necessary? Why?

  • Anonymous

    Looks like Admin’s SPAM filter had it right when it put that message into the recycle bin… obvious cut’n paste job from the 24-70 and 16-35 images.

  • only f/2 make sense

    I owned the 35-70 f/2.8D and it was a great lens – even better than 24-70/2.8 for portraits in the same range. But in 2010 releasing a 35-70 f/4 VR make absolutely no sense. not even a f/2.8. only if it is a f/2. i would consider buying one if it is a 35-70 f/2 VR.

    the photoshop addict should try something more convincing.

  • Chris

    I believe it is a fake. Take the new 16-35, enlarge the focus ring and add the front part of the 24-70. Nikon has released / announced a couple of new zoom lenses and in this lineup I personally see no sense for that lense.


  • Ubiquitous


    Excellent job, as always. That 35-70 looks real to me, but I could be wrong.

    I have the 16-35 coming soon and with the 3 Zeiss: ZF 25, ZF 35, and ZF 50, I have no need for the 35-70. However, it is in keeping with Nikon’s line of lenses. For example the f/2.8 line of the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. If the 35-70 f/4 is for real, the 70-200 f/4 is not far behind. It also ties very well into the 200-400 f/4.

  • Pat Mann

    A 35-70 f/4 zoom makes no sense in the Nikon lineup, though a 35-70 f/2.0 might be an interesting play. Except for superwides, Nikon hasn’t produced a 2:1 zoom since the 35-70 push-pull zoom of many years ago. If an f/2.8 midrange zoom can be 24-70 with high quality, an f/4 zoom can have at least 3:1 with high quality. A 35-105, 35-135, 24-85 or 24-105 f/4 makes much more sense for FX than this 2:1 zoom. Any of these would be a useful range for DX as well, though a 50-135 is the biggest hole there. A high quality 50-150 f/4 would be fine to match with the 17-55, and would fit perfectly right below a 150-450 f/4.5-5.6.

    • Ubiquitous

      Pat Man,

      What you say, makes sense. However, if you look at it from Nikon’s perspective, it might be another story. An AF-S 24-70G f/4 VR N would definitely cut into the sales of the present 24-70. People would turn to a lighter alternative with VR. Therefore, Nikon would take out, if the picture of lens is not a fake, the 24mm wide end. Why would people buy the present 24-70? They would because of the 24mm and the f/2.8 even though it has no VR.

      I would be ecstatic with the 35-70 VR. Another lens in the category of very nice, do not need, and will not get. I do not relish choices that make a lot of sense to me, like the 24 1.4, which I can’t get to, at this time.

  • Marty

    PS job, no, 3D job, yes

  • Back to top