Rumor: upcoming lenses from Nikon

In addition to the updates for the 200-400mm f/4.0 and the 85mm f/1.4 lenses, I received some information that Nikon also has plans for a 24-xxxmm f/4.0 VR and a 70-200 mm f/4.0 VR lenses. Previous rumor suggested a new 24-120 f/4.0 VR lens, but the long focal end could "only" be 105mm. If true, this will reduce the size and weight of the lens (compared to 120mm) and will make it an ideal candidate to be the kit lens for the D700 replacement.

New lenses with f/4.0 aperture is probably what Mr. Sasagaki had in mind when he promised “more affordable” lenses are coming soon.

In 2011 Nikon will bring more fast primes: 35mm f/1.4 (see patent) and 50 f/1.2 mm (see patent). The report I received last year also indicated that the 35mm f/1.4 lens will be released in 2011.

Note: All those lenses could be a long term plan for Nikon and long term plans very often change, so [NR] probability for the 24-XXX f/4.0 + 70-200 f/4.0 to be released in 2010 and 35mm f/1.4 + 50 f/1.2 lenses to be released in 2011 is at 40% for now.

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


    • Joe R

      Do any of the fast primes seem like they could be relatively inexpensive? say $600 or less?

      • mike

        I have no insider information, but common sense suggests that they will be pushing $2k or more.

        • STJ

          My guess is that FX will be a premium solution (expensive) especially for primes, with the exception of the 50mm 1.4 which I’m not completely impressed with…

  • I_want_a_D700x_

    I can’t quite believe nikon would copy the range of 24-105 f/4L IS so directly. see the pattern:
    Canon EF-S 17-85 IS –a while later –> Nikon 16-85 VR DX
    Canon EF 17-40 f/4L –a while later –> Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR

    If we follow the pattern, 24-105/4L IS would give us a 21-105 in the nikon world?
    I agree 120mm f/4 would make it quite big and heavy, and for many folks they won’t need the 70-200 f/4 anymore.
    For the same token, I believe Nikon would resurrect the focal length 70-210 (they did both f/4 and f/4-5.6) from the 80s and make a AF-S 70-210 f/4 VR.

    • J

      Yeah… and Canon is SO NOT copying the 14-28, right??

      Come on!!

      It’s not like there’s one 50mm f1.4 in the world.

      • J

        Errr 14-24mm I mean…

        • Anonymous

          I agree, and Nikon also copy Canon by making digital cameras !
          What a world !

      • Joey

        With a lineup of now over 80 lens hoices Canon has no need or even desire to copy crap offerings from nicon. nicon has been sitting on their arse for a secade and plagerizes each new Canon innovation. When people decide to wipe their eyes and realize Nikon is the lazy Microsoft of the photo industry the world will be a much happier place! crall out of your holes ground hogs,

    • Tars

      Given the 1.6x crop vs 1.5x and starting aperture don’t you mean

      Nikon 16-85 VR DX – 2 years later –> Canon EF-S 15-85 IS

      tho this highlights how Canon doesn’t care if it has 2 copies of nearly the same thing, I mean 17-85 vs 15-85? Built in obsolesence/duplication?

    • Global Guy

      These lenses are not even close to being the same things. On a scale of 14-200, you are going to have overlap. The DX is not the same canons lens and the 16-35 is shy of 40 by a huge percentage. Nikon implemented VR, where canon took a slightly longer approach. These are different lenses completely even if the range overlaps. One could argue that Canon copied Nikon by brining out a new 70-200 VRII after Nikons came out. But that’s idiotic. Technology upgrades in VR and AF required upgrades to stay competitive to expectation on a highly popular product. Coincidences of overlap in less popular range sets are even less interesting, especially with such varied feature sets.

      Canon EF-S 17-85 IS –a while later –> Nikon 16-85 VR DX
      Canon EF 17-40 f/4L –a while later –> Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR

    • Mike again


      I think you got the calculation wrong, the 24-120/105? is a full frame lens so equal field of view for both Canon and Nikon, not 24 and 21 mm.

      You must have had Canon x1,6 and Nikon x1,5 crop cameras on your mind but still 24 mm on Canon would translate to 22,5 mm Nikon, not 21 here either.

      Then Canon do have another ‘odd’ crop camera x1,3 but it doesn’t fit into your logic at all.

    • Richard

      If it is a good one, why worry about the fact that Nikon and Canon concluded that it is a “sweet spot” to build to?

  • Salivating at the thought of the 50mm f/1.2 😀

    • Me

      There already is a 50mm 1.2, but it’s manual.

    • longtimenikonshooter

      50 1.2 will be released with introduction of D4.

      • Global Guy

        No wonder the 50 1.4 was such a crappy lens. Nikon was waiting to pull out a gold-line lens.

        • Joe R

          ??? My 50 1.4 AFS is not a crappy lens.

          • nikkor_2


          • nick

            unfortunately it was outperformed by the sigma 50mm 1.4

          • Global Guy

            Dont get me wrong, Joe, its an OK lens. And the AF is damn accurate almost all the time (something Sigma SUCKS at getting right — Sigma sucks so badly at focus that its embarrassing to try to take pictures with one, because only half come out in focus)…….. But the 50 1.4 is not a great lens. Its a perfectly good lens though. But I would never mistake it for a gold line lens. The AF is slooow as mud for one thing and that is really bothersome. The physically design is also fairly poor. Very small front element, just OK bokeh and weird movement to the lens.

            It just barely improved the old version, except in speed, where it trails horribly.

        • yum

          no kidding — if the 1.2 could focus even half as fast as the 24-70, I wouldn’t even look at the price

        • nicolaie

          actually, my 2x 50 1.4 AFD were nice, not so at 1.4. i replaced them with 1.4 AFs and i am impressed, good even at 1.4, sharp at f/2, very sharp indeed at 2.8. consistent focus, good tracking, very long focus path, very nice for manual focusing.

          with the introduction of the D3s, the 1.2 diaphragm seems like something hihly unnecessary, built most likely for avid collectors.
          i am saving for the 35 1.4.

    • Astrophotographer

      I think a 50 mm f1.2 is unlikely. The Japanese patent mentioned has several variations of a 50 mm lens. One was f1.2, the rest were 1.4. In short, the patent was for the 50 mm AF-S. The 1.2 was an optional design.

      • STJ

        Nikon has previously released some funky lenses but has in the past 10 (or so) years become much more mainstream (boring). To catch the old-time spirit they might just release a 50mm 1.2 to make a stirr….

  • priceman

    All I can say is that Nikon damn well better release a “new” kit lens with the D700 replacement… that may very well be part of the reason why they are holding back on releasing the New camera and pumping out all these rebates… it makes prefect sense to have a New “kit” lens released with the D700x replacement… and it damn well better be MUCH better than the poor excuse of a lens that the stupid 24-120VR available now… AGH!!! I’ve already replaced ALL my DX lenses with FX ones…I now have 12 FX lenses awaiting a body…. comeon Nikon…. lets get a move on here!!!

    • Niggon

      i really pitty you! go out and shoot and stop complaining about Nikon. 12 FX Lenses? Are you shooting them all at once or are you just looking at them?

    • nick

      If you have all that gear and your pictures suck, I have some news: the problem is you.

      • Global Guy

        I think you missed the fact that he doesn’t own a camera, just lenses.

        • Well, that’s a bit of oversight on his part as well, one might think, eh?

        • nick

          haha, you’re right I did miss that. It’s worse than I thought really..

          • 😀

            I wasn’t meaning you- I was meaning that was an oversight of Mr. Lensman up there.

  • Gerry

    I’m still hoping for the 100-500…. but I think I will be waiting for a while.

    • m35g35

      Unfortunately it sure seems that way. But one can only hope Nikon does the right thing… replace it already.

      • PHB

        The 200-400 upgrade might have taken the production slot.

        But news of a 24-105 f/4 is rather interesting as it would mesh very nicely with a 100-400 or 100-500 f/5.6. Probably get some DX shooters buying both so that they keep their options open re a later move to FX while having decently compact but sharp lenses in the meantime. Add a 10-24 for a DX bag and you are in business. If I moved to FX it would be because I had bought the 14-24 f/2.8 in any case.

        f/2.8 is better than f/4 if you are going to stick to zooms. But with primes in the mix the f/4 looks a better choice.

    • Jessica

      me too, would loooove a 100-500mm. But the 50 f/1.2 sounds nice too.

    • David Hasselblaff

      Oh yeah, a 100-500 f/4 weighing less than 7 lbs – a dream of a lens. Quite likely such a lens would be heavier than the 500 f/4 though.

      • Eric

        No shit, Sherlock!

        This lens would be either f/5.6 or not a constant aperture.
        The 200-400 f/4 already weights more than 7 pounds.

        • Global Guy

          100-500 /4 are you kidding?? Just be happy if you get a 100-400 VR III with actually snappy AF (70-200 VRII style speed).. If there is a 100-500, its not going to be constant aperture and for reasons of cost and weight, I wouldn’t want it to be. I want better than the Sigma with perfect Nikon AF that we all love and VRIII, thats all. It can stay affordable.

          • Todd

            I have had and sold both the 80-400mm & the 200-400mm. As we all know the 80-400mm’s focus is slooooooooow! The 200-400mm is of course an amazing lens but I do a lot of hand hold shooting. The 200-400mm is not your friend in that area. When wildlife shooting you often need to hand hold especially the unexpected opportunities that fly by you. I want something that is fast focusing, hand hold friendly in the x-400ish range. Nikon really needs to make this happen and happen soon. They simply do. Frustrated…

          • AlexV

            As you, I sold my 200-400mm and I’m selling my 80-400mm but completely frustated that Nikon didn’t update it and leaving us with Sigma option or Canon move. As you, I want a light setup in this range for pictures opportunities, but seem hard to find with Nikon in the moment!

          • Todd


            I also bought and sold the Sigma 120-400mm. It was a really bad lens. Low light at 5.6 was ridiculously bad. I hear the 150-500mm is better. Yet, I want to stay with Nikon. My money is waiting. I’ll wait until late Fall. If nothing, then I will go to Canon. I do not want to go to Canon. Simply tired of waiting and missing out on photo opportunities in the interim.

  • David

    24-120 f/4 VR with high IQ would be awesome and it would still be good if it just went to 105. 70-200 f/4 VR isn’t of much interest to me, as I’m saving up for the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII to replace my 80-200 f/2.8 (non-AFS). Instead of the 70-200 f/4, I would jjust get the 70-300 VR, but thats just me. The 70-200 f/4 VR is popular on Canon, so maybe it will be popular on Nikon as well.

    Now I just want to see the portrait lenses (105 and 135DC) reworked to add new capabilities (for AFS, nano-coating and VR) without compromising what currently works so well with them.

    • I’m not sure you can simply slap in AF-S on these lenses and retain the DC feature. However, it would be awesome if they continued making both lenses AND introduced a 135/1.4 AF-S. I’d buy two. One to shoot and one to cuddle with at night. And take pics with in the dark. But mostly to cuddle.

    • LGO

      I have the 70-200mm VR II and would absolutely buy a 70-200mm f/4 VR if it is just half the weight of the former.

      • I might be interested in an f4 version as well; if the price is reasonable.

      • The more you do it, the more you will be able to do it! I’ve done 12 days with my D2x and 70-200VR and now with the D700 with grip. The problem isn’t weight, it’s lack of muscles!

        • Erm, that should read “12 hour days”. Haha…had my 70-200 for about four years, not 12 days. Oop.

          • Len Wrockwell

            That’s right. All these poofs moaning about the weight. Get in the gym you ladyboys.

  • Bert

    Had been waiting on pulling the trigger on the new 24mm 1.4 in hopes that a 35mm 1.4 would be coming soon. Guess I might have to give the 24mm a try, but $2200 is a chunk for one lens.

    • Me

      Wait a few months. Unless you can bill with the 24mm 1.4 now, wait as the lens is still at the early-adopter-will-pay-any-price. It’ll be down ten per cent next year and there are certain to be promotions at Christmas. I’ve a 1.4 50mm and it’s great for nighttime when no-one is expecting anyone to be operating a camera.

      What I’m waiting for is the D700 replacement. Provided, of course, its more of an upgrade than the D300s was to the D300.

    • longtimenikonshooter

      35 1.4 could easily top two grand.

      • Bert

        Guess I am more concerned with 24mm being too wide as I have become accustomed to shooting the 35mm f2 over the last couple of years. From what I have seen distortion is better on the 24mm than the 35mm f2.

        • longtimenikonshooter

          35mm is not wide enough for my shooting style but for street photography 35mm rocks.

        • 24/1.4 would NOT replace your 35/2. It would only augment it. 35 is way different in terms of perspective distortion and DOF. A lot more looks in focus if you framed a similar image with a 24mm.

          • Eric

            Perspective doesn’t depend on focal length.
            But I understand what you’re saying! 😀

          • AH, fine distinction…reread that: perspective DISTORTION.

            Rectilinear distortion appears significantly different if one attempted to frame the same image with a 35mm and a 24mm.

  • I want a better live view system

  • Chris

    Damn…give me that 50mm f/1.2 and 35mm f/1.4 and I’ll be a happy camper :).

    • Artur


      Same here

    • i heard a rumor somewhere that you can already get those lenses…not sure who makes them though…

      • PHB

        Nikon already makes a 50 f/1.2 manual focus.

        Given the difficulty of focusing at that depth of field, an auto focus lens might well require a D4 series body to use it at f/1.2

  • longtimenikonshooter

    Holy sh*t! Where is my AF-S 135 f/1.4?

    • Hey, I’ll sign up for this one 😀

      • Joe R

        Nah, a 135mm f/1.2 with VR III please.

        • LGO

          A 135mm f/1.4 would be as big as a 200mm f/2 and would probably cost as much or more! 😮

          • Tabitha Green

            Pshaw. I need one for each arm. After a month I’ll have superhuman strength, and then where will your scales be then!??

    • Dr SCSI


      135mm f/1.4, that is more like a holly cow! How big and heavy would that thing end up? It would cost something like $3500-$4000. Just buy the 85mm f/1.4 and a DX body. You will save $1000 and get a backup camera while maintaining an equivalent focal length that is almost 135mm.


      • longtimenikonshooter

        Personally I never like 85 FL and I don’t shoot DX 99% of time. 135 f/1.4 can’t be fatter than 200 f/2, can it?

        • mike

          Should be about the same size. A little shorter, perhaps. Would look rather stubby …

        • Eric

          The DOF would probably be so shallow that you’d have to stop down to f/2 to nail focus.
          I would be pleased to play with it, but would rather buy the f/2 version.

      • Tabitha Green

        Give me something like Sony’s 135mm f/1.8 WITH VR and I’d be soo happy. 🙂 That lens is sweet.

    • STJ

      I could live with a 135mm 1.8 VR remake with close focus ability to make up for the 70-200 “problems”….

  • lunar

    just need one lens…. 10-300 vr4 nano ed asph IF f/0.95 with inner zooming, hooya

  • Paul

    A fleshed out f/4.0 line makes sense.
    Waiting till next year for the 35mm f/1.4 is a bummer though.

    • b

      totally agree with the 35/1.4 being a big bummer. damn, i could use it at every shoot. there just isn’t a 1.4 af around.

  • ArtTwisted

    In line for the 70-200 F4 and the 50 1.2

    • ArtTwisted

      thats IF the 70-200 is under 1500 and is built out of metal and ill just buy the old 50 1.2 if the new one is too pricy.

  • Chris P

    Re Nikon copying Canon. They have done that already instead of looking at practical photographic considerations and building on their own lens range.

    Example 1 – abandoning the true range of the excellent 80-200 f2.8 AFS, instead of adding VR to it, to copy the nominal wider Canon range of 70-200 and ending up, just like Canon, with a lens which was/is actually 73-193 mm.

    Example 2 – Updating the 28-70 f2.8 by going the ‘wrong way’ when extending the focal length and copying the Canon range of 24-70. A 28-85 would have been much more versatile for people photography as 70mm is far too short for reasonably close head shots so that the much bigger and less ‘handy’ 70-200 has to be used.

    Example 3 – The new 16-35 f4. Again following Canon’s ‘never mind the quality feel the width’ policy. Almost every review mentions that it is not so good between 16-18mm, no it won’t be as 16-35 exceeds the 2:1 ratio needed for optical excellence in wide angle lenses. If it had been made 18-35 as a direct replacement, all be it a far more expensive one, for the 18-35 f3.5-4.5 then it would have been smaller, lighter and optically excellent across the full zoom range.

    Now we have talk of a 24-105 mm f4 zoom just like the Canon 24-105, and just like the Canon it will suffer image quality loss and distortion at both ends of the zoom range, because it will have the same ratio of 4.375:1 which is too high to maintain high optical quality across the zoom range. Since we already have the 16-35 f4, Nikon should learn from Canon, whose amateur users tend to buy either the 17-40 or 24-105, and produce a 3.4:1 ratio 35-120 f4 of high optical quality. That way they have two lenses which cover 16-120 mm, so they sell both instead of either/or, have a lens which covers the most used ‘people’ focal lengths, which is much more ‘handy’ than the 70-200 and won’t suffer image quality fall off at both ends of the zoom range.

    • nick

      The three Nikon lenses in that category (24-70, 70-200, 14-24) are world class lenses…that receive extremely high reviews across the board. Professionals swear by these lenses as god sends. I’m not sure what you are complaining about exactly?

      • Chris P

        Hi Nick,

        I wasn’t complaining about the quality of the existing f2.8 lenses you mention, I was pointing out the fact that Nikon had followed Canon in producing the 24-70 and 70-200 focal length ranges, when 28-85 f2.8 and 80-200 f2.8 lenses would have been of more practical photographic use for the reasons I gave, and the focal lengths would have been very close to the ones marked on the lens.

        In addition I also pointed out the fact that the 16-35 f4 suffers image quality falloff at both ends, which numerous tests have verified, because, just like the Canon 17-40, the zoom range ratio is too large. The main point of my post was that if Nikon copy Canon again, by producing a 24-105 f4 zoom, it will suffer exactly the same problems as the Canon 24-105. It is about time that Nikon thought for themselves with their mid range lenses and put optical quality above some fanboy’s wish list for wide range zooms, hence my comment of ‘feel the width, never mind the quality’

        • Nikko

          I understand your opinion, however for me I disagree on most counts. I’d rather have a 24-70 than 28-85, I rarely shoot long and when I do I’ll switch lenses. I’d never buy a 35-120 because I need a good wide end. I’d in fact prefer a 20-60 f4 for instance. And finally I think you may be missing the point of the 24-105 type lens. It’s a quasi-superzoom. It covers lots of ranges well. Not superbly, but well enough. Cutting down the range makes it much less attractive to most buyers, including me, even if it improves IQ. Nikon has to find the middle ground to attract the most buyers, and that ends up making a few people upset.

          I agree on the 80-200AF-S though, love that lens except for the ghosting.

          • ArtTwisted

            I love the 80-200 as well but I would really love a cheaper 70-200 2.8 to compliment my primes. I want a full set of pro nikon primes within a few years for my shooting but sometimes you just need that long zoom, besides carrying a prime over 130ish gets silly imo. (except super tele)

    • b

      +1 on all accounts.

      • b

        the +1 was on chris’ p’s comment.

        • nick

          so the contention is that nikon is sacrificing quality by “copying” canon focal lengths?

          I just don’t understand this argument. These are some of the most highly regarded lenses Nikon has ever made. Reviewers deem them as near perfect (albeit expensive). Where is the presumption that they would be better if Nikon stuck with older focal length ranges coming from?

          I guess what I’m saying is – Citation please. or any indication whatsoever that this is not just some armchair dpreview reader coming up with random facts to support his world view.

          • Chris P

            Hi Nick,

            Quick further comment. The ‘some fanboy’ comment was not aimed at you, but at those who regularly ask for something like a 24-135 f4 zoom or some such thing.

          • b

            the lenses are near perfect. i agree there, too. but i should say that for me the focal length that chris had mentioned would make more sense. I did like how the 17-55 was noticeably longer than either the 24-70 or the 28-70 and i would give up the extra wide range to keep the quality high.
            but my view comes also from a different stand point. since switching to ff in 08 i’m also only shooting primes anymore. so to reconsider one zoom i’d want it to cover my most used ranges.
            thanks for keeping this discussion real.

  • Leaking Starfish

    Nikon douchebags………….we need a 24mpx sensor in a small body with video. Got it, not that hard, don’t need shitloads of lenses to mount on current bodies.

    • priceman


    • zzddrr

      the only 24MP Nikon can imagine comes in Mike Tysons body! Where are the Tiger Woods? 🙂

    • Kuv

      Then why not switch systems? 5D mk2 sounds like a dream for you. I very much like Nikon’s 12MP great-high-ISO cameras.

      • I’m with you.

        I’m definitely big on giving people what they want when they call me a douchebag. Even if a Nikon rep *was* reading these comments, you think they’re going to take your opinion seriously?

        • Joe R

          Speaking of douche bags… I hate people who cry for 24MP. That war is over. It’s a secondary spec compared to ISO. I don’t need or want a 24 MP workflow.

          Video I’ll take, 24MP, no thanks.

          • Dr SCSI

            @Joe R,

            Different people have different needs. I personally don’t need HD video in my camera. If I want video, I will buy one of the high end Sony HD video cameras dedicated, built and engineered to this task. Don’t get me wrong, the video idea is good, it is merging of technologies at a small cost. But the core purpose of a high end DSLRs should be to take digital stills, and the bulk of the R&D money should be spent there improving that functionality. High ISO and high MP counts are constantly making progress, and fortunately Nikon was smart enough to make two cameras targeted to each camp. Now with the event of video, maybe Nikon will make three different cameras, each marketed to a different audience. Can you say D3S, D3X, and D3V? I suspect the camera Nikon will release next will be a D3XS with 16MP and ISO up to 6400. Then the D4 after that will be a 16MP with ISO up to 12800. Many will cry about not having 24MP, and some will cry that the ISO boost isn’t any better than the D3S, all the while forgetting that they got increases in both ISO and MP simultaneously. I love my D3, and my only improvement request was a two to three stop ISO gain with current picture quality maintained when pushing the ISO on to its limits.

          • Totally agree that I do *NOT* want a 24MP workflow. I processed some D3x files that I shot last month and I didn’t like it. For those that want the MP, I hope you get them (if nothing else, to stop the incessant whining). Me, on the other hand, would love to have the D3s sensor in the D700. That would make me smile. It’s not necessary, though. My D700 is more than enough right now.

            Doc, good points all around. Hopefully someone @ Nikon HQ is paying attention. do believe Thom mentioned something along those lines recently as well. Hopefully it’s something he presented to them in Tokyo last month.

          • Nikko

            Secondary for some…many would prefer resolution over ISO, or other factors (dynamic range comes to mind). Over the last year (according to lightroom) I’ve taken 27,341 photos at ISO 400 or below, and 982 above. When it’s dark I use a tripod, unless I’m shooting the rare event requiring higher ISO and some flash. I love the D700’s ISO ability in those situations, but the truth is that they’re very few for me, and I’ll keep my D700 for them.

            If you can’t handle processing 24mp files, shoot at a lower resolution. I’ve handled rented D3x files just fine on not only my mac pro and the imac at work but also my 4 year old white macbook so long as I didn’t open 5 programs at once.

            Video would be nice, Canon has really knocked Nikon around with the 5Dii in the video world…but it’s just an added bonus. I’ve noted a handful of situations in which a client would have been excited if I handed them a few broadcast quality video clips along with their photos.

  • le_eiji

    i agree with Chris. The 16-35mm f/4 comes as a disappointment. We expect the same optical performance from the wide angle f/4 zoom as its bigger brother 14-24mm. But it was far from it. 24-105mm is obviously too long and won’t be as good as the current 24-70mm optically. I’d rather like to see excellent 28-85mm f4 than mediocre 24-105mm.

    • Totally agree on this – better yet a new 24-85 2.8-4 with the nifty macro. that lens is sharp, useful and not too expensive

  • Zorro

    The popularity of the AF-S 35/1.8 DX shows that the world needs more DX primes, not bloated and expensive FX boat anchors.

    • Chris_M

      An affordable 28mm equivalent DX prime would be nice.

      • Zorro

        Exactly! A perfect example.
        Make it f2.8 please.

      • ffip

        Can’t agree more. A 35mm equivalent DX prime would also serve me well. C’mon Nikon. Please take advantage of the DX system and produces lightweight, affordable lenses for users of D5000, D90, D300, D300s …

        • Kuv

          I’d very very very very much like to see a 24mm 1.8 DX for a street lens.

        • I agree.. DX AF-S 24mm f/2 would be just great.
          Faster focus than 35mm f/1.8 will be highly apreciated.

          • I do hope for 16mm f/2,8 DX and a 70mm f/1,8 VR DX
            A (low priced) AF-S 85mm 1,8 would be nice too…
            I hope Nikon is going to release some affordable prime-lenses….

        • Joe R

          However, please make it a good lens. I don’t care if it’s really sharp at f/8 and OK sharp at f/4. I have cheapo 18-55 for that.

          I want pro-quality optics in a DX form with no VR and a plastic body, but with a mount gasket.

      • if the 35 1.8 were fx and built the same it wouldnt cost any more and they would have sold way more meaning that even if the price difference were real (in construction i mean) then the exonomy of scale would dictate the same price.

        small format primes make no sense – why cut off part of your market. I get having ultra wide dx/efs lenses but every other lens just kills market.

        how many people that shoot a d700/d3/5d/1ds would love to have the 17-55 2.8 as a walk around lens? I would…for sure. Not based on the sharpness but on the range i’m saying before anyone that hates those lenses chimes in…

        • Gustav

          Let’s see the numbers and market research you used to conclude a 35mm FX wouldn’t cost any more than the DX version.

          • why would i need market research to determine that? the reason is that if you look at the lens it’s virtually the same size as the 35/2 just like the 17-55 2.8 and the 17-35 2.8 are the same size. Including the glass at the back (the imaging circle) – the other part that I wrote that you so snarkily ignored was the laws of economy of scale. Even if the lens cost 20 dollars more to produce they would be producing more and thus each would go down in cost…

    • Zorro

      Wow! All these people agreeing with me. Maybe Nikon should listen to me and not Thom Hogan.

  • grumps

    Great news, but Nikon is sure taking their time with the primes. I really do hope that they come through with the 50 f/1.2, 35 f/1.4 but was hoping for a 85 f/1.2.

    • ArtTwisted

      I wouldnt hold my breath on the 85 1.2, nikon has a reputation with there 85 1.4 and it would be tough for them to make a whole new optical design and have it beat the 1.4 since it would have too as it would be twice the price and weight about 3 pounds.

    • nick

      Why do you want 85 1.2 when an 85 1.4 is on its way?

      • grumps

        I wouldn’t hold my breathe either! I was merely staying that was what I would have hoped for from Nikon instead of their f/1.4. I have the Canon 85 f/1.2 and although I love it’s not perfect, but when you have multiple systems, you’ll want them as good as each other really!

        • ArtTwisted

          true but I dont think it will ever happen. Im sure the 50 1.2 will get a refresh eventually but considering they will be releasing a 85 1.4 around 1600 – 2000 price range (reasonable guess) the 1.2 would have to be much much more, and that would hurt.

        • PHB

          Do you really want a lens the size of a grapefruit?

          The reviews on the Canon f/1.2 are not exactly good. I can’t off hand recall a review of a $2,000 Nikon lens that concludes that the lens is good once you work out how to work around its many flaws.

          • grumps

            Most of the new lenses are already the size of grapefruits!
            On a different note, Canon f1/2 is not bad at all, it is like all very large aperture lenses, more difficult to use. Having said that the extra stop at f/1.2 at 85mm is extremely good and I’ll do it all again with a Nikon! Really you need to live with this lens awhile before you can cast a verdict, I thought it was a waste of money at the beginning… take whatever you will from that. I guess if the new Nikon 85 has VR and given the high ISOs camera like the D3s has to offer, I am sure it can be argued! I’ll know for sure when I have the lens in my hand.

          • PHB

            Yes but thats my point, Nikon don’t make $2000 lenses that people have to live with for a while to see the benefit. They spend an extra year or ten making them go above and beyond.

            A $2000 f/1.2 the size of a grapefruit is certainly no replacement for a highly practical, no problem f/1.4.

    • STJ

      85mm remake with VR and smooooth focus would do the trick for most people is my guess…

  • eru

    they need to wake up and give affordable lenses in the tele-zoom range, almost anyone can buy the 70-200 vr2 2.8 for 2.500$, but almost noone can buy the current 300 2.8, 400, 500, and 600

    TOP priority is 300 f4 VRII, 80-400 REPLACEMENT

  • Simon

    These rumours are not credible even if Nikon has applied for a patent.
    A 50 f1.2 is simply not possible because of the size of Nikon mount which max out at f1.4, only Canon EF mount can produce f1.2 and f1.0.

    • nick

      hey crazy guy,

      a 50mm 1.2 already exists in the Fmount.

      I hope being crazy works out for you.

      • Dr SCSI


        There is even a rumor about a legendary 50mm f/.95 in the Nikon F mount, but because its expense, it never went to production.

    • Genoa600

      The same Canon fanboy nonsense that we’ve heard for years.

      e.g. The f/mount is too small so Nikon lenses can’t:

      – have ultrasonic motors
      – have image stabilisation

      or Nikon telephotos don’t have fluorite elements so they aren’t as sharp as Canon’s
      or all of Nikon’s sensors are designed by Sony

      blah, blah, blah

      • Dr SCSI

        +2 @Genoa600

        It’s a good thing Nikon doesn’t listen to the rumors before they go to their drawing boards.

      • the first bunch are obviously nonsense but until 3 years ago the sony thing was true and it’s still true for 70% of the cameras that nikon sells

        • Genoa600

          Nonetheless there are still fanboys who believe that Nikon does not design its own sensors. Even with those sensors that are manufactured by Sony Nikon has had input into certain design specifics that are particular to Nikon’s cameras.

    • ArtTwisted

      they already have a 1.2, and smaller mount systems have even faster lenses , look at the noctilux so clearly mount size is just one factor. Ever think Nikon ran the numbers on the lens and realised releasing a bunch of 1.2 lenses was not profitable enough ?

      canon fanboy fail.

  • HDZ

    24-120 f/4 will come with a shape of 24-70 f/2.8.

  • glu

    OMFG, 70-200 f/4 VR… sign me up NOW!

    It is the only lens I crave!

    I do hope though for a summer release, I so want to use this in my trip to Tuscany.

  • Thanks for all the nice rumours recently!

    Perhaps Nikon is on it way to a new series of f4 lenses!

  • Do we really need this 70-200 f/4? The current 70-300 is Excellent! Great price, great performance, very well built.. I wouldn’t change it to the 70-200 even if it was the same price!

    • rg

      current 70 300 doesnt have weather proofing or internal zooming or build quality of a pro lens

    • “I wouldn’t change it to the 70-200 even if it was the same price!”

      Well, then that’s easy, isn’t it? Don’t buy it.

      • True, but there’s so much to do about the 70-200 while there’s already a perfectly good alternative in the shops.

        • Dr SCSI

          +1 Cesar,
          I own the older 70-200 VR 2.8, the D3, the 18-200 VR and the D300.
          When there is enough light, I won’t bother with the Pro gear, its too damned heavy. The DX stuff gives me fantastic results in a light package. At the long end of the 18-200 we are only one stop slower than the proposed 70-200 f/4 VR everyone is discussing here. My only complaint about the 18-200 is the barrel distortion at the wide end, but it still acceptable in most cases. Now if I was a D700, ONLY, owner, and I wanted high quality optics in a package that wouldn’t break the bank or my back, the 70-200 f/4 would make perfect sense. Thus the possible high demand expressed by many here.

          • Richard

            I think you hit the nail on the head at the last. People want a pro build quality lens without a lot of complex distortion (which the 18-200 is said to have, especially at the long end) and are willing to take an f4 VR lens because of the price and weight savings. One that is usable one FX and DX bodies would be quite attractive, if priced right.

    • ArtTwisted

      no, the 70-300 is a consumer – prosumer lens, i want a pro lens at 70-200 with constant apperture. I have primes for low light work, i shoot primes so dont need fast zooms, i do want high quality pro build zooms though and if the f4 isint that i would just fork out and buy the 2.8, of course im not waiting for the f4 if the money comes id just buy the 2.8, its a beautiful lens, just a bit heavy.


    Posted April 21, 2010 at 2:08 am | Permalink
    These rumours are not credible even if Nikon has applied for a patent.
    A 50 f1.2 is simply not possible because of the size of Nikon mount which max out at f1.4, only Canon EF mount can produce f1.2 and f1.0.

    Nikon already has a 50 f1.2, research before talking trash

    • nick

      the amount of misinformation on this particular set of comments is stunning really. A lot of people who read test charts but don’t know anything about photography

      • On this particular set of comments? I can’t remember a set of comments that *wasn’t* full of BS & hot air.

  • Tien

    50mm f/1.2 in 2011? GIVE ME IT NOW 😀

    btw can we have our old filter size back
    k thx bai

  • John

    Would love Nikon to do an updated version of the 70-180mm micro, combine it with the 70-200mm f/4 IS that Canon make to give you a 70-180/200mm f/4 micro with VR. Could they use a limiter switch to ensure you have fast AF for normal use compared to the slow AF you normally get on micro lenses?

    A lens like the above with the 16-35mm and 200-400mm would make a great wildlife kit.

    Then add the 24mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 VR for the wedding kit bag along with the 24-70 and 70-200mm, o to dream!

    • AlexV

      I like the idea to have 70-200mm VR micro as a replacement for the 70-180mm. It would be great for macro with fix focal plane zooming, we can dream about it!

  • Misasi

    D800 please…. OK?
    D800 please…. OK?
    D800 please…. OK?
    D800 please…. OK?
    D800 please…. OK?
    D800 please…. OK?
    D800 please…. OK?
    D800 please…. OK?
    D800 please…. OK?
    D800 please…. OK?

    • Markus

      D800? 🙂 It was the D900, right with all those Chinese batteries for it floating on the internet? All those who said D900 and D700X…#### ### hey, where are all those D900 proofs now? Till so far there are only a couple of people right on DPreview, I stick with them with the D800.

  • Triplet

    Minding the 2.8 12-24, 24-70, 70-200 triplet of lenses (+ 200-400)
    and the recently introduced f4.0 16-35
    should it be not more then likely that a new 4.0 midrange zoom would take off at 35mm and with the same zoom factor as the 27-70 end somewhere near 105mm
    My bet for the f4 line to complete what has been started with the 16-35:
    f4 35-105
    f5.6 100-500

    • Triplet

      27-70 typo, 24-70 ofcourse

      12 to 400mm range in 2.8/4.0 is covered by 4 lenses
      new f4/5.6 line would cover 16-500 with 3 lenses. Giving less wide angle and a bit more tele.

    • Richard

      A 35-105 is either too short at the long end or not wide enough at the short end. I had one on another brand camera and while it was a nice lens, I wanted more at the sort end. 24-105 makes more sense to me. It is a good “walking around” lens range.

  • Damn, I will have to get the 24-70 mm after all if this mid-range zoom does not materialise very soon. But 70 mm is so short!

  • DX2FX

    Would you think the new 35mm 1.4 be cheaper than the $2,200 24mm 1.4 ?

    • If so, probably minimally so. Judging by Canon’s price (~$1900 here in Japan), I’d imagine Nikon’s version would be initially the same as the 24mm f1.4 and then come down a bit a few months after introduction.

    • Alex

      I would imagine the 35 f1.4 should cost less than the 24 f1.4 at least according to current canon prices but only by $200 or so. So not too much but the wider fast aperture lenses tend to be more expensive then the longer focal length primes, excluding the super-teles.

  • C Benson

    Like I told the form two – three weeks ago Nikon, Is going to be pushing more lens instead cameras for next fiscal year. and

  • Roomer Boomer

    He 100-500f5,6 or make it more to 100-500 f4 and we all have to pay a trillion bucks and a crane to carry it

  • Ed Nafzger

    Thanks admin for this next round of rumours

  • Ed Nafzger

    Thanks for all this rumours it´s all better than the news in the washington post New York times El Colombiano El Tiempo De Haagse Courant CNN Fox News Volkskrant Die Zeitung

  • Ed Nafzger

    Apple lost his I phone genaration four can Nikon nut Put a 200-400 vr 2 or 100-500vr3 in my chimney and ps softly.
    I will tell nobody?

  • rhlpetrus

    I hope the f/4 line keeps growing, the 16-35 was a nice addition and a 24-xxx would be also welcome. But I wished Nikon would be more creative and produce, if possible, a 21-85mm f/4. That would be, at least for me, THE perfect walkaround lens for my basic travel and family shooting. And why not an 80-250mm f/4 or the like, iinstead of the usual 70-200mm range? f/4 should be used to expand a bit the ranges, like the 24-105/120, not 24-70mm as f/2.8.

    Cheers, Renato.

  • Mike again

    My walk-around lens is finally coming true,
    thanks Nikon for a razor sharp 24-105/f4 amen!

  • Fred

    Wonder if this means we’ll see a revamped 17-35 2.8 one of these days… ? Obviously the 16-35 f4 belongs to a different product line and is not intended to replace the 2.8 version. And don’t start me on going the 14-24 + 24-70 combo route instead! 😉

  • Jef

    I’ve been waiting for a decade for a new 80-400 (or 100-500, even better) with improved focus speed. I’ve had the money set aside for most of that decade.

    • Todd

      I hear you Jef. I want something that is fast focusing, hand hold friendly in the x-400ish range. Nikon really needs to make this happen and happen soon. They simply do. Frustrated…

    • SBGrad

      I haven’t been waiting THAT long, but I’m coming to the conclusion that I’ll have to get a 300mm f/4 and a TC if I want AF-S in the (mostly affordable) 400mm range.

    • Nikon rep in Ginza, Tokyo told me awhile back that the replacement was in the pipeline. No mention of *when* however.

  • Iceman

    I predict that regardless of the best knowledge, planning and marketing that Nikon will also follow the rule that they will not release anything until after I have grown frustrated and shelled out for a lesser product or competitor. Release dates will imediately follow any purchases I make rendering me continuously frustrated. Maybe I should go back to picking stocks or playing fantasy baseball.

    • “Maybe I should go back to picking stocks or playing fantasy baseball.”

      Or back to taking photos with the equipment you already have.

  • Edward Nafzger

    Thanks Todd for your Sigma comment i will safe my money for the Nikon 100 500 or even 200-400 vr2 i do have the old Sigma 170-500 but my nikon 70-300vr make better pictures so that´s why i stick to Nikon so i wait and wait for the next thinks to happen

  • What! Still no 300mm f/4.0 AF-S VRII Nano update????
    It IS f/4.0 and it is budget.

    Oh, man. We will wait another 10years I think.

    • nick

      haha interesting use of the word “we.” I wonder how many nikon users project their own personal desires on the entire nikon user base.

      • There are some people that think of “Me, myself & I” as three people. Therefore, one can see where the “we” comments come from.

    • plug

      One hopes that the wait is soon over.

  • Pat Mann

    f/4 zooms are the inexpensive lenses coming? I hope not – I hope these are full pro configuration and highest optical quality, like the 16-35. The less expensive lenses should be a wider range of primes for DX, including a 12mm, 18mm and 24mm, and an AF-S version of the 85mm f/1.8 or f/2 for both formats, the 105, 135 and 180. They’ve left the cameras that can’t autofocus without AF-S (and there are a lot of them out there now) with no budget upgrade path once they want to go beyond the consumer zooms.

  • Alan T.

    I can’t wait for all these lenses to come out 🙂

  • maybe ~~ 22-105/4 VR

  • Alex

    Personally, It’ll be a happy day when Nikon does release the 35 f1.4 and 85 f1.4. But I think my wallet will be sad. I guess I had better start saving up.

  • Dmitry

    don’t worry about your wallet, if these lenses are as hard to get/find as the new 24mm f1.4, our wallets will remain full 🙂

    • Alex

      True to that. =D

  • Photon-Fisher

    I don’t understand the need for a 1.4 135mm … the 1.4 85mm and 2.0 135mm do a great job … probably a VR for the 135mm is an option, but 1.4 135 would be just way too expensive.

    About zooms: we should probably re-think our wishes: what about weight classes like “below 1 pound” “2 pound” and “as much as it takes” … this will make a decision much simpler for Nikon to produce primes being lighter and zooms covering the weight classes.

    Back to the original rumor: after the 24mm hit the market, Nikon will for sure wait to sell a few BEFORE they bring the 35mm ..,

  • Gary

    My guess is that the new 85 1.4 will be a bit over $2000 US dollars, given the price of the new 24 1.4.

    • Alex

      I’m hoping the new 85 f1.4 will be somewhere between $1500-2000. I don’t see the price of it going above $2000 given the Canon’s 1.2 is $2000.

  • Back to top