Updated list of expected Nikon lenses in 2010

An update on my previous post on the expected Nikon lenses in 2010 - if my sources are correct we should see 6 more new lenses in 2010 (total of 8):

  • Nikkor 100-500mm f/4-5.6 - this should be the replacement of the current 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR (there is a low chance that the replacement could still be 100-400mm instead of 100-500mm).
  • Nikkor 24-120 f/4 VR lens (there is a small chance that this lens may not be with a constant f/4 aperture).

Note that this list is based on multiple tips, patents and just plain rumors I have accumulated during the past few months. I will be updating this list as we move along and I gather new information.

The bonus lens would be the AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.2G.

Update: several readers asked me about the Nikon AF Micro 200mm f/4D IF-ED and Nikon AF DC 135mm f/2.0D lenses. I have no reliable information that those two lenses will be replaced besides the fact that they have been listed as discontinued (or not available) for a long time: see this post from June 9, 2009 and this one from July 10, 2009. I also do not recall seeing any patents for similar type of lenses.

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

    Interesting list, has there been any reports of hints of a replacement 135mm lens?

    • Gordon

      Also, I thought perhaps there might be a couple more primes announced this year too, the interview with Nikon’s Mr. Nobuaki Sasagaki (reported 8th Feb) seemed to of alluded to this.

    • don’t remember getting anything reliable besides the fact that this lens is listed as discontinued:


      • same thing with the 200mm Micro – do not recall any reliable rumors besides this lens was listed as discontinued:

        • The two lenses at the top of my want list are the 135 DC and the 200mm micro. so sad

          • mnm

            The 105 DC is in stock at BH and Amazon. I cannot fathom that Nikon would discontinue the 135 and keep the 105 given the expected synergies in production runs.

      • Gordon

        Cheers. I wonder if past release history will give us any clues?

        Between 1993 and 1995 pretty much all the current primes were released, that being:

        1993 AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2D
        1993 AF Fisheye-Nikkor 16mm f/2.8D
        1993 AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED
        1993 AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D
        1994 AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED
        1994 AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D
        1994 AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D
        1994 AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D
        1994 AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D
        1995 AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2D
        1995 AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D
        1995 AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D
        1995 AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF
        1997 AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED

        Disregarding the 60mm Micro lens (updated in 2008), it seems Nikon likes to release primes together in the same year and which they also repeated for the PC-E lenses in 2008.

        I think this is going to be the year of the primes, we may indeed see a 24mm (done & dusted), 35mm, 50mm, 85mm & 135mm lenses. Is there strong enough demand or interest in 20mm or 28mm primes & the 200mm Micro for these to be refreshed also?

        I’m also wondering if there is another wide-angle PC-E lens in the works to keep in line with Canon’s offering. The AF 80-200 f/2.8 lens is kind of isolated too, I really feel that is going to be replaced with a f/4 lens as it’s a bit of an odd child now and is rather aged.

        • PHB

          The fast primes are at a rather higher price point than in the past. So they may come out somewhat more slowly. Also cropping with digital is rather easier than with film and we now have fantastic zooms, so there may not be the same need to fill out the prime range as before.

          The primes have fewer elements and fewer degrees of design freedom. So I would expect the design process to be rather shorter than with zooms and allow for rather more re-use of design approaches. The ultra-teles are very close in design.

          What I am somewhat surprised by the absence of on the list is mention of DX primes. The 35mm f/1.8 DX has been a major success for Nikon. Those smaller, cheaper lenses are what keep the smaller independent photo shops going. Nobody predicted the last DX primes, they just popped up out of nowhere. I think we are likely to see another.

          The 100-500 still confuses me. If they can make it at a size, weight and price that is not totally ludicrous then great. But at f/5.6 the front element is going to have to be close to 100mm if it is not going to vignette on FX.

          • Gordon

            You could be right, Nikon may not do direct replacements for all the old primes and be sticking with f/1.4 for the majority of the ones they replace and not offer multiple iterations. Will we see a 85mm f/1.4 & f/1.8 or will Nikon just give us a 1.4 edition and leave it at that?

            Maybe there are additional DX primes tucked in there as well which will just appear out of the blue, like the 85mm DX Micro last year.

    • It was mentioned by a Nikon rep in Tokyo that I spoke to last week.
      Ones he mentioned specifically were:

      So that pretty much fits w/ what the admin posted above w/ the exception of the 135. I thought that’d been subject to rumors previously, so not sure why it’s not on the list up there.

      The 135 is currently listed as discontinued by a major camera shop in Tokyo (Fujiya). However, looking at another major camera shop (much larger – Yodobashi), it shows it selling for 144,400 yen w/ no mention (that I see) of it being discontinued. Not listed at all on another major site (Bic Camera).

      • Woops. He also mentioned “the entire lineup from 35mm on up.”

        So make of that what you will.

    • STJ

      135mm on FX corresponds to approx. 85mm on DX – let’s hope for a joint 85mm / 135mm surprise…

      • Jeremy

        Did you get that backwards? Shouldn’t 135mm on FX be ~200mm on DX?

        Personally, I want an updated 85mm f/1.4. Bad.

        • ItsaChris

          to get the same perspective.
          mm x 1.55 (DX = about 1.55 smaller than fx) = perspective of FX
          mm / 1.55 = perspective of DX

          so 85 on Dx = 135mm in the context of perspective compared to FX

        • PHB

          STJ’s text is ambiguous. The first time I read it, I thought he was saying ‘when you put a 135 on DX it is an 85’. What he means is that to get 135 equivalent on DX use an 85.

          The 85mm f/1.4 is the lens I am after.

  • Chris

    I’ve been waiting on that 100-500 for months… I hope it’s coming!

    • ha!

      make that years

    • born_in_nagano

      I don’t think so. If 100-500 ever comes out, it would be either:

      1) at least as big as 200-400/4. If you compare the mount end size and front lens size of the banner, you see what I mean. Then, this is no longer a replacement of the current 80-400, it’s totally in a different ball park.

      2) slower than 5.6, at fastest 6.3 to fit in the current 80-400 form factor.

      This is the most bogus prediction in the list, IMHO.

      • ha!

        3) it will be a big expensive lens but not as big and expensive as the 200-400 zoom. you must have totally missed the sigma 50-500. it is no 200-400. People do not quite grasp f/4 vs f/5.6 until they see how much it shrink things.

        4) you must have known this but here it is: nikon’s min aperture for their AF system’s proper operation is rated to f5.6. nikon will NEVER make a slower lens unless it totally re-designed their AF.

        • El Aura

          Except naturally that the Sigma 50-500 mm is not f/5.6 at the long end, it is f/6.3.
          200-400 mm f/4 -> 100 mm or 10000 mm^2
          100-500 mm f/5.6 -> 89 mm or 7972 mm^2
          50-500 mm f/6.3 -> 79 mm or 6298 mm^2
          In relative terms, a 100-500 mm f/5.6 is 26% larger than the Sigma, and the 200-400 mm is again 25% larger than a 100-500 mm f/5.6.

  • 18mp D800 + 28-300mm VR for $3500

  • Martin

    24-120 f4 VR sounds too good to be true.

    • Twoomy

      I’d be happy with an F/4 24-70, 24-85, 24-105, or 24-120. Anything that’s a smaller alternative to the 24-70 f/2.8. I worry about 24-120 being such a long range that image quality is severely compromised. It better be better than the existing POS 24-120.

  • Where is my 18mm AF-S ED aspherical ?
    Where is my 300mm AF-S f/4 ED VR ?
    Where is my 200mm AF-S f/2.8 ED VR ?

    I guess I should stop using a DSLR and buy a digital disposable camera…..

    • If you think missing these lenses is holding you up, then your last line sounds like a plan.

    • ArtTwisted

      your right, nikon should get right to making YOUR lenses because YOUR the only photographer that matters.

      I personally love the idea of a new 85 1.4, even if its only so that I can buy the old one for cheaper. The 1.8 is still a great looking lens though so its a tough call. A new 135 would be great too, thats such a great focal lenght for headshots.

      • ItsaChris

        “your right, nikon should get right to making YOUR lenses because YOUR the only photographer that matters. ”

        Well to him he is the only photographer that matters. Why do i care what you need?

        its nice to have options and that the best thing about shooting nikon or canon.

    • ha!

      in the mean time, you can enjoy the 14-24 f/2.8, 200-400 f/4 and 16-35VR. or you can keep using your point and shoot 🙂

  • David

    I wish for 24/2.8 DX…

    • Anonymous

      i think there is one in the line up..what more do you want?

      • David

        I have the 28/2.8.. seldom used now, bad at night.

  • Bert

    I hope Nikon never comes out with a 35mm 1.4. I have been waiting on it for so long that I guess I really don’t need it. 35mm F2 is probably one of the most underrated lenses anyway.

    • Hah. That’s the one lens that I want more than anything. If it doesn’t come out by the end of 2011, I am going to be crushed. I’d buy the manual focus 1.4 but I hear it’s soft wide open, and I’m sure Nikon would finally release the AF version the moment I bought it.

    • Reggie

      Look at the great work that Pete Souza is doing with the Canon 35mm 1.4 as official White House phtographer. Most of his shots are with that lens. It’s a great photojournalism lens. The D700 and D3s are better bodies than the 5D Mark II that he’s shooting with now, but having that lens lets him get close and wide, and isolate the subject. Maybe that’s why he’s sticking with Canon. Come on Nikon, give us an AF-S 35mm 1.4.


  • Any word on when Nikon might introduce the successor to the D90?

  • Joe

    Wow Nikon is pretty fast. 16-35mm already in stock . Saw 10 in stock at a local camera store today. very well build

    • metal or plastic?

  • Fingers crossed for the 24-120mm/f4

  • ha!

    I’m so glad nikon is backing away from DX lenses now that they have more dx zooms than just about anybody else. Let the year of FX begin.

    • all I own is a DX camera and I don’t want DX lenses. Why handcuff myself?

      • T140Rider

        Using a NON DX lens on your DX body is hardly handcuffing yourself…

        My 200-400 lens on my D200 gives me an effective 300-600 lens.
        Using it on the D2X with High speed crop makes it 400-800 without a converter.
        Sure, I lose quality(compared to a modern FX body) and image file size(esp with high speed crop) but for photographing a golden eagle soaring over the Cevennes last Autumn it is just about perfect. Even with HSC, I can print up to A3 size no probs.

        • Thats what I meant. If (when) I get a full frame camera and all I had was DX lenses, I would have to buy all new lenses to use it. If all I have is full size lenses, I’m fine. The only DX lens that I had to get was the 10-24mm to have wide angle and I picked up a used 18-70mm when I sold my D80 since I had nothing wider than a 50mm for a trip I had planned. My point was that I don’t want to handcuff myself in only buying DX lenses. Then all i can shoot is DX format. I agree with what you posted too. I want a full frame but would always keep a DX camera for my bigger zooms for the same readson.

          • PHB

            I agree for zooms and long primes.

            But the 35mm f/1.8 DX is $200. The FX version of the same lens is likely to cost $1200. That is likely to be the case with other wide DX primes.

            One feature of the 10-24 is that you can actually use it on FX from about 14-24. It will vignette any wider of course, but certainly viable as a stopgap.

      • ha!

        what he ^ said.

  • low

    this is a nice lineup. thanks for the rumor updates.

  • Nau

    aaaawwww… no mid range zoom ?

    • SimonC

      You don’t think that the 24-120 f/4 VR is a mid-range zoom?

      • Nau

        I do think 2.8 for that range would be better 🙂

        • T140Rider

          Why? With an FX body and their ISO range, the difference between 2.8 & 4.0 is minimal in many areas of photography.
          I use the current 24-120(I have a good one apparently) on a D700 body at ISO 3200 or 6400 for night time street photography without the need to use a flash. When converted to B&W the results are great. going from F4 to F2.8 will increase the size, weight and importantly, the cost.

        • ha!

          24-120 f/2.8 lol. first I’m sure you’d never afford it, second I’m sure you’d never want to haul it around, third the whole point of the f/4 zooms is the be cheaper and lighter. The f/2.8 series 14-24,24-70,70-200 is plenty.

  • I don’t know about others, but I would trade all the listed releases for the 50mm f/1.2, because out of the list its the only lens would replace a MF, all the others are basically replacing AF and AF/VR similar versions.

    • Anonymous

      If that 100 – 500 rumour proves true I’ll be somewhat worried about the size and weight, and VERY worried about the price.

    • Anonymous

      It Is hard to fit 50mm f1.2 glass and AFS eletronics into a lens that fits the mount. It must be the next AF technology otherwise you will have a long, large diameter lens that is not ergonomically friendly.

      • ha!

        dude, it’s a 50mm. not a 500mm. there is weirder shaped nikkors that present no problem ergonomicaly speaking.

        and no it is not a new AF system. just a re-designed slimmer electrical contact module which will allow them to fit the rear glass element.

        people have chipped their 50 1.2’s with full contracts by chipping away at the contacts. if some guy in a garage with a saw can do it, nikon surely will have an easier time..

    • Bob

      Scott Borne, Photofocus podcast, brought up the possibility of a 50mm f1.2 a few weeks ago. He said that he had been told that a autofocus f1.2 on an f-mount was not possible. The mount is not wide enough for an aperature that large and the electronics associated with autofocus. It’s one of the concessions Nikon made in sticking with the f mount.

      • PHB

        Canon has been spreading that claim. It is not necessarily true.

        The old f/1.2 has a huge chunk of glass at the rear. But that does not mean that is necessary for an f/1.2 or that both the front and the back surfaces need to be that large. Nikon could even mount the electrical connections using the glass itself as the support.

        There is no physical significance to an f-stop number. It is the ratio of focal length to aperture. Aperture is the physical quantity. The 400mm f/2.8 has an aperture of 142mm, but somehow Nikon and Canon both make one.

        There are challenges at the wide end of course. But Nikon just launched a 24 f/1.4 that is nowhere near as extreme as their 14 f/2.8. Most people used to think the 28mm was the limit for f/1.4.

        The real challenge to the f/1.2 lens is how to focus the thing. Canon hasn’t solved that problem yet themselves. The depth of field is so narrow that the AF system has trouble. And with such a narrow depth of field any error in focusing is going to show.

        Nikon looks to be pretty much done playing catch up to Canon now. The return of the Noctilux would at least clean away some of the fanboys from the forums.

        • Bob

          Nice explanation off the difficulties in creating a f1.2. Glad to hear that despite what I have heard it should be possible. I guess the only thing we can say is certian is that if Nikon does release a 50mm f1.2 it will be major $$$

          • PHB

            No, we can also be fairly certain that Nikon will not release a f/1.2 lens unless it is totally awesome.

            Canon on the other hand is happy to lob s**t over the wall and hope it sells.

  • Jay

    es hat begonnen lol

  • ednafzger

    You can count me in for the 100-500 let´s make it come true and i don´t have to buy the 200-400 but yes i´ll upgrate from D200 to D3s i am saving the money for that FF already

  • Gerry

    Any idea (roughly what quarter) the 80-400 will be replaced? I have to dump mine before the resale plummets!

    • ArtTwisted

      if you dont need it dump it now, if you do then why not keep it?

  • Artur

    Why nobody [from nikon] mention about aspheric lenses? I mean, precision-ground asperical glases. Not hybrid lenses such as plastic-fantastic molded onto optical glass.
    Ground glass is only found in Nikon’s 58mm Noct , 20-35mm and 28 f1.4 lenses. Sure, they are extremely time-consuming and expensive but superior quality.
    My guess is that if Nikon put a ground glass aspheric element(s) in the 35mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.2 the street price would have pushed it beyond $2000.
    What we need is a hight quality optics.

    Any news?

  • Yay! I’m [REALLY] hoping that 85 pans out, though, admittedly, I wouldn’t be too upset if it ended up being a f/1.8

    • ArtTwisted

      I would love it if it was a 1.8, the 1.8 does an AMAZING job for the price, shoot wide open and it looks lovely, only stopped down does the bokeh start to get a little harsh.

  • It will never be a AF-S 24-120 F/4 VR; that range is to big (maybe 24-105 or 35-120). And yes, i belive in AF-S 50mm F/1.2 with nano-coating and metal construction.

  • Miksang

    So no sign of a 24-70mm VR or of a 180mm or 200mm micro VR (105mm is too short for full frame)…. What a shame. I believe that they would be best sellers… A Nikon set of extension tubes would sell well too I think.

    On the other hand, I wonder how many customers they will secure for all these primes at f/1.4. The real pro maybe.

    • Nick

      For me the only reason to have primes is when they’re fast. Otherwise I’m better off with a zoom. f/1.4 ftw!

    • Bryan

      I don’t think we’ll see a 24-70 f/2.8 VR. I really think that the only reason they put VR on the new 16-35 was to make up for it being f/4. I would guess that VR is much cheaper than f2.8 optics, so they figured that VR would make up for that 1 stop of light loss by letting you shoot at slower shutter speeds. If they ever made a 24-70 f/4, I bet it has VR, but I don’t see them making a 24-70 f/2.8 VR anytime soon.

  • masc

    I want an update of the AF-S 300/4.
    Preferably with VR but with the same price (i know it will probably never come).

    • plug

      Yes, a lightweight telephoto for travel.

  • Jackc

    honestly… are we really expecting to see a D90 replacement? or just an updated version like the D300s?

    Nikon just released D300s less then 12 months ago… and logically a D90 replacement should come AFTER D400 (since they should share the same sensor unless D400 is a FF) and we won’t expect a D400 this soon…..

    so i really doubt that the DX lens would be the “D90 replacement”‘s kit lens……

    • Markus

      People should stop trying to see logic in things they have totally no control over.
      The only logic thing is, that Nikon will announce new cameras’ and lenses when they are ready to be released.

  • Jason

    A 100-500mm/f4-5.6 seems an unlikely replacement for the 80-400mm/f4-5.6: it would almost certainly require drop in filters and have a front element about 90mm across. It would also be very heavy – maybe not as heavy as the 200-400mm/f4, but a lot heavier than what it supposedly replaces. 100-400mm just seems a much more feasible range for a long consumer lens

    • nobody

      OTOH, it would be a much better addition to the well regarded 70-300 VR.

      You want small and light and less costly? Get the 70-300 VR! Much smaller, and lighter, and cheaper than the 80-400. And just 25% less reach.

      You want as much reach as possible in a prosumer zoom? Voilà, here comes the 100-500 VR!

      Just a thought 🙂

  • Niko

    With Samyang & Sigma releasing their version of 85mm, the whole industry seems to have some kind of fast 85mm prime fever. A Nikon 85mm f1.4 is very likely, not so for 135mm f2.0, never heard any buzz on this one. 35mm f1.4 & 80-400mm are both very likely too since Canon camp is filled with rumors of such zoom lenses as well. And as far as all-purpose zoom is concerned, either 24-120, or 28-300 will be released, not both. Most likely: 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 VR II.

    If Nikon 16-35 f4 has better corners than Canon 17-40 f4, I will migrate to Nikonland. If the performance is similar: why would I carry something twice as heavy & expensive as 17-40 with the same aperture speed?

    • The huge size of the new 16-35mm f/4 can be explained by an effort to have good corner sharpness even wide open. It may cover a larger image circle than that of FX sensor. Plus the unnecessary VR function for a WA may have also contributed to this bulk.

  • John

    Release 24-70 f/2.8 VR please for weeding photographers!

    • Jeremy

      I think weeding is much better captured with the 14-24mm. You can get in really close to the weeds and have plenty of room for the weeder and an angry gray sky too.

    • santela

      well… if u would just get off that weed, u might not need vr anymore.

  • tim

    To all thinking about the 135mm f2 DC. Get it if you can! You WILL be hitting yourself over the head when its gone. Its one of the sharpest glass out there at wide open! Its 100% worth the money.

    I dont understad why a lot of people dont use the DC feature, when correctly used it makes the bokeh just magical and DOES NOT make its a soft focus lens. That is unless you push the DC too far. For example shooting at f2 and the DC at beyond 2.8. Its really that simple.

  • Dweeb

    Primes have been rumored for years. The 24-120 has long been referred to as POS. But where is a VR option at 300mm f4? That’s been on Thom’s list for longer than Nikon’s been 12MP.

  • marco

    Personally i don t like too much big zoom, But I totally see the big advantage to have one if you just want an easy lens or if you don t mind low quality vs comfort. But the trick will be the balance between the 2 of them, Nikon user can sacrifice a bit of quality for big zoom but not too much, otherwise the will be CANON useres 😉

    I’m looking forward for the new 85!! it could be the same level of the zeiss one or even more!!!
    the too medium zoom 14 to 24 and 24 to 70 are incredible lenses, with the same quality of a prime lenses… will the next lenses so good? if yes….wow they smash the market!!!

  • marco

    Since the new digital technology have made such amzing progress how many of you will spend a lot of money for a have big zoom when u can use a digitzoon much cheaper and much lighter?
    The quality of a digitzoom appears to be as equal as 90% of a convetional zoom till a magnification of 500 to 600 mm the decrise a lot.
    The only think i don t understad is y all the big brand they don t advertise it? Looks like only Carl zeiss is promoting a lot their digital zoom. Anyone have never tried one?
    One more thing….all binoculars have this thecnology, all military equipment have swip on it longs ago, and satallite don t have lenses anymore since long time….So why all this scecticism to use the?

    here a link: http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/dsystem/index.htm

    • Char

      That was meant to be ironic, right? Just to make sure…

      • marco

        it’s all true man!
        Soon we wont have anymore lens in our machines! May be an organic eye instead of the conventional lens!

  • marco
    • These are awesome! Just used an ED fieldscope two weeks ago and could see birds flying near the island of Kunashir 25km across the Sea of Okhotsk (from the Japan side). My friend and I were amazed!

      The things are darned spendy, tho’. As is the DSLR attachment (itself ~$900, IIRC).

      Asked the Nikon rep in Ginza, Tokyo about why they don’t use these (small, compact, but great range) for their DSLR lenses. He said they don’t present the quality needed for DSLR lenses.

  • ******* OFF TOPICS ************
    Does anyone know where I can buy the “updated part” for the rewinding fork on the Nikon F100 ?

  • Back to top