Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.4 VR

Update: the picture was removed aprox. 3 hours after I published this post. The picture did not contain any EXIF data.

Michel Lammerse has a picture on his pbase stream that is labeled "cropmode, 85mm f/2.2 VR ON":

I cannot think of an existing Nikon lens with 85mm focal length, f/2.2 and VR.

In the past Michel Lammerse (website) had provided some valid information regarding upcoming Nikon products, but he also had few misses.

The Nikon's patent application (filed on February 25, 2009) also indicates that VR technology is present in the lens design.

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

    Please be cheap. Please be cheap.

    • zealot

      I couldn’t agree any more

    • VictorEleuterio

      Hahahaha i really dont think so.

      • David Hasselblaff

        Since we now know from that Russian source that the D4 will have 45 MP with a cropped mode of 20 MP at 10 fps it is quite likely that Nikon has to update all lenses to resolve that much detail.

    • fork()

      Dream on. Expect at least $2000 πŸ™‚
      This would be a killer lens, just like the 24/1.4. And the timing is right, this lens is up for a remake.

      • LGO

        It could still be $1,800.

        But if this is an 85mm f/1.2 VR AF-S with nano-coating, with , then it will definitely exceed $2,000.

        • HDZ

          ARRRGHHHHH 85 1.2 VR 85 1.2 VR

          • PHB

            The Canon lens is way too big for sensible use. There might be some people who want a 85 f/1.2, but far more who would buy a f/1.4.

          • LGO

            Agree. I personally would prefer an 85mm f/1.4 AF-S VR with nanocoat.

        • PHB

          I don’t think that is really in line with the market rates. $1500 is more like it, $1800 max.

          The old one is selling for $1150 at B&H. I would not expect cheap by any means, but $2000 would be excessive.

          Note that the 24 f/1.4, while expensive is still cheaper in real terms than comparable lenses were when Nikon introduced them. Also remember that the 35 f/1.8 is a bargain at $200. So Nikon do know the benefit of competitive pricing.

          • ArtTwisted

            Your dreaming if you think 1500 is my guess. 1800 – 2k+ is where my guess is. As a film and digital shooter though im happy to have the old one, its a fine lens and this new one means the old one will become a lot cheaper for those on a budget which is only good news.

        • Anonymous

          The 24mm is expensive because it more difficultnandncomplicated to design fast wide lenses. A fast 85mm lens should be relatively straight forward. I think it will either be a pro lens (in build quality and sub f/2.0 IQ) for $1,400. Or a semi-pro lens (in build quality and sub f/2.0 IQ) for $799. Like the new 50 1.4 but with the VR $100 premium.

          • Ronan

            WTF are you guys smoking… this is a $1800-$2400 pro lens…

          • Anonymous

            Since you clearly have one, otherwise one couldn’t make such a factual state ment, please tell me more about it.

            The AFS 50 1.4 is a pro lens too. It’s less than $500. I can’t see making this lens much more than the $1200 the current 85 1.4D goes for. If it has Nano coating (which it shouldn’t need) that would add some $. If it has VR, which it would benefit from, that will add $100. But if it’s plastic and not weather sealed, it could go for under $100.

            There’s nothing optically complex about it. It will have some large, expensive elements but it’s a portrait lens. It’ll probably be soft at the edges and soft all around, wide open. I don’t think it will be an amazing new glass. I think it’ll be a refresh.

          • santela

            If it’s 1,400 then i’ll buy you one when it comes out.
            If it’s more than 1,400, how about u buy me one when it comes out?

  • Davey

    it won’t be cheap, but it’ll be fuuuuun!!

    • Global Guy

      “CROPMODE ON” —
      Does that means this is going to be a DX lens….!??!?!?!?!? =(


      • I’m afraid. I’m very afraid. Ah well, there’s still a pretty darn great f1.4 on the market RIGHT NOW!

        • joebee

          I fully agree! I love the current 85mm f1.4!

  • longtimenikonshooter

    $2199 with much slower AF?

    • Dr SCSI

      -1 “with much slower AF”
      That just ain’t right….but it could be so true, so please take them pearly whites and bite your tounge. Has anyone heard anything else about the AF issues on the new Nikon 24 f/1.4? Or is this another false alarm like the 70-200 VR II and the flaking of the coatings? I guess only time will tell.

      A new 85mm f/1.2 VR II, with 9 rounded blade aperature, would be the killer low light portraiture lens when paired with the D3S. You could get nice washed out traffic lights behind your model in a big city. Give me that lens, that camera, and a trip to the Vegas strip! Ahhhhhhhh…………

      • longtimenikonshooter

        shoot 50mm f/1.4D and 50mm f/1.4G side by side. also, shoot 24mm f/1.4G and 28mm f/1.4D side by side, under the same lighting condition and using the same camera, in my case D3s, for the same subject. Two AF-S lenses’ AF performance is about 30% slower than their AFD cousins.

        • Ronan

          I do have to agree that the older D one’s are actually focusing faster… It’s noticeable if you look for it.

        • Dr SCSI

          I too have heard from others similar experiences. I guess with the 50mm f/1.4, I am fortunate and own the D version. I don’t have the 24mm f/1.4 or the 28mm f/1.4, not due to lack of trying. πŸ˜‰ I can’t find any retailer that has the 24mm, and I refuse to pay $4K for the 28mm. I only hope the 85mm f/1.4 doesn’t suffer the same AF issues as its smaller f/1.4 brothers, as this is another lens I want bad. I will wait until the first reviews, check the prices, and then decide if I get the new one or the old manual focus AIS version.

          • longtimenikonshooter

            I grew up with manual cameras and manual lenses so at least for me I don’t have problems getting much better glass AI-S 85mm f/1.4 at much affordable prices for portrait work. If you don’t use TTL, you don’t need AF-D. If you don’t shoot sports, you don’t need AF.

  • Willem

    Be cheap AND be here soon. Still need/want an ~85mm prime. 1.4 and VR would be nice…. Real nice

    • forget it
      look at the price of the 24 1,4
      You should wait for a afs 85 1,8 vr…

  • Seppl

    Perhaps a Nikon “replica” lens from China?

    • Seppl

      VR meaning: “sharp Very Rare”

  • What is ‘cropmode”? This lens is DX?

    • Dr SCSI

      No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No more DX lenses please…..Besides the 85mm f/1.4 was FX, the 85mm f/3.5 was a macro lens for DX. You can have the macro (very good focal length by the way), and I’ll take the 85mm f/1.4 VR II; thank you very much!

      • Global Guy

        105 DC is FX and 105 VR Macro is FX. 200/4 Macro and 200/f/2 are both FX. Nikon has proven that it is willing to produce overlapping primes when one of them is a Macro.

        So this lens COULD BE DX!

        • Instead of a 85 1,4dx, i would love a 70mm f1,8 (105mm fx) or a 90mm f2 (135mm fx)

      • preston

        I’d love for it to be DX for the cost savings on my D90! But I totally understand the frustration of all you FX owners out there. I think I’d be pissed too. .

        It’s cool if the 85 1.4 is FX though since I’m planning to upgrade to the D700x!

        • Global Guy

          If its f/1.8 — I’m seriously thinking its going to be DX. VR + 1.8 will be quite manageable and DX sells big.

          If its f/1.4 — its going to be FX almost definitely. But the VR creates a question. Is there going to be enough room for fast AFS?

  • …and why couldn’t this have been taken with the 70-200 VR at f2.2 and 85mm? is the 85mm the “lens type” field or whatever, or is it the “focal length” field?

    • amunk

      The 70-200 only goes down to F2.8

    • Andre

      Think again, the 70-200 has a maximum aperture of F/2.8 Ken

  • Me

    I have the 85 mm 1.8 and I used to have the 50mm 1.8 but recently upgraded to the 1.4 and haven’t looked back. The 50mm 1.4 is spectacular and worth every penny.

    I have heard that the existing 1.4 85mm is a bit slower in the autofocus and has definite trade offs for corner sharpness when wide open but it nevertheless has more contrast and saturation overall. One hopes that apochromatic elements in a newer lens will improve thus further.

    One hopes a newer lens won’t double the price from its existing $1000 USD price.

    • longtimenikonshooter

      Apparently you haven’t used Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 yet.

      • Me

        No, I’ve not. I admit it.

        • Dr SCSI

          @Me (not myself, the other Me),
          The older manual focus 85mm f/1.4 AIS continued to be made 10 years after the introduction of the autofocus 85mm f/1.4 D. The older lens continued to out sale the newer lens because of better IQ. Let us all hope the new 85mm f/1.4 G VR II NC (alphabet soup) lens out performs the original 85mm f/1.4 AIS. Don’t worry about never having shot the 50mm f/1.2, its over-rated anyway. The 50mm f/1.4 D and 50mm f/1.4 G are great lenses, and for the price of the 50mm 1.2, you could buy the 85mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4D brand new.

          • An other option is to buy the Zeiss 85mm 1,4 (1600 $)
            It is made of nothing but glass and metal and seems to be fantastic…

          • Anonymous

            But my Zeiss 85mm 1,4 takes FOREVER to autofocus.

        • longtimenikonshooter

          50mm f/1.2 is a Nikkor legend. Its ultra-sharp at f/2 while 50mm f/1.4D won’t reach its best sharpness at f/4. We’re not talking about cost here because we’re talking about IQ. One of the best Nikkor prime is 200mm f/2 VR. It offers the best IQ at f/2 among all Nikkor lenses except for IQ of 50mm f/1.2 at f/2.

          • Me

            Just noticed someone else is using my name. I’m me. Sounds kind of obvious.

  • I don’t think Michel Lammerse is in ‘the Nikon-test-loop” The info he gets about product releases comes from a source he has in a large camera store or something. On dpreview he often mentioned that his source looks in the inventory database for product order status etc.

  • longtimenikonshooter

    AF-S 24mm f/1.4G + 35mm f/1.4G + 50mm f/1.4G + 85mm f/1.4G = $7000

    • Anonymous

      You’re mixing DX with FX. Nikon are working on full product lines for each.

      • longtimenikonshooter

        which one is DX lens?

        • I think Anonymous accidentally misread the “35mm f1.4” as “35mm f1.8.” Easy mistake to make when speed-browsing πŸ™‚

          As for the $7000 price tag, please don’t do that. It hurts. Best to buy one at a time and not thing about the total πŸ˜‰

    • Dr SCSI

      Just buy the 24mm, the 50mm and a D90 body to go with your FX; then you get 24mm, 36mm, 50mm, 75mm and a backup camera. πŸ™‚ If you really need the 85mm focal length with f/1.4, you are probably shooting people anyway. Take your 50mm f/1.4, put it on the D90, take a step forward, compose and shoot. πŸ™‚

      • My that same logic you could add to a d90 an 85/1.4 and have a 127/1.4. And the problem with the whole “step forward or back to approximate differences in viewing angle” is that perspective and DOF aren’t the same.

      • longtimenikonshooter

        FL doesn’t change on DX because what changes is the angle due to the crop factor.

      • ArtTwisted

        And loose all the advantages of that pricey FF body. I love my D90 and its ability to make an image is far greater then my current skill but if your a pro spending that much on high end prime lenses, it would be a shame to have to use a DX body to get a longer lens and have to swap back and forth.

      • Anonymous

        Take your 50mm f/1.4, put it on the D90, take a step forward, compose and shoot. πŸ™‚
        The 50/1.4 is equivalent to 75/2.1 NOT 75/1.4

        • Dr SCSI

          @Anonymous, “The 50/1.4 is equivalent to 75/2.1 NOT 75/1.4”,
          How does that work? Maybe you can help put some light on this subject. Isn’t the aperature still able to be set to f/1.4? Doesn’t the focal plane distance to the rear lens element remain the same for both FX and DX? (I guess I will have to look in the body of my D3 and D300 with the mirrors locked up to see if lens flange mount to sensor distance differs.) Shouldn’t the amount of light coming in remain the same, but now you just record a smaller square area of that light due to the crop factor? The rest of the light just gets absorbed by the black cavity of the body. I would not think this is the same principal as losing stops of light and decreasing your DOF because of extension tubes moving the lens groups further from the focal plane. Shouldn’t corner to corner sharpness and IQ increase along with the DOF on DX, yet losing some bokeh quality in the process? Thus a DX would have a sharper image than FX when set to the same f stop. One would think that on the DX bodies, Nikon had to move the sensor closer to the rear lens element in order to optimize a smaller image circle onto the sensor. If so, this would be like removing extension tubes, thereby increasing the intensity of the light hitting the sensor, and increasing the DOF. I still can’t wrap my head around this one. I guess I will just have to jam a caliper rod into both bodies and measure the distance from the sensor to the edge of the F mount. πŸ˜‰

          • Nikon Fan

            @Dr. SCSI
            Take a depth of field calculator and plug-in the 50mm f/1.4 for DX and FX. Make sure you account for the focus distance change to get the same field of view for both.

            You will see that 50mm f/1.4 on DX is roughly equivalent to 75mm f/2 on FX in DEPTH OF FIELD for the SAME FIELD OF VIEW.

          • Only thing is DOF calculators are usually assuming a circle of confusion of the same size. You’re magnifiying the circle of confusion on DX, so it’s not exactly as people quote.

          • Dr SCSI

            @Nikon Fan,
            Thanks for the explanation, however I don’t trust most field calculators to do the math right. I need to see if I can’t find a website with a thorough scientific explanation of what is going on and why. I am still not sure if the focal plane (sensor) to the lens flange (F mount) is kept the same for both DX and FX cameras. I think there in lies the key to this puzzle. By moving the DX sensor closer to the rear lens element, then the circle of confusion would get smaller and fit preciser on the sensor. But because of the prism and mirror, is that possible, or will the mirror risk smacking the rear lens element? With a smaller DX sensor, you need a smaller mirror, thus would this remove the risk of the mirror smacking the rear lens element? Moving the sensor closer to the rear lens element, changing the size for the circle of confusion, would then result in no crop factor at all, correct? So if the sensor to f mount stay in the same in DX and FX, we get less of the circle of confusion on the sensor in DX, and thus the crop factor of 1.5. The same light intensity would hit the DX sensor, just less square mm would be recorded. But this still doesn’t explain why the DOF changes on a DX sensor, (i.e. it increases). Someone please post a link to a knowledgeable website with pictures and a good explanation. πŸ™‚

  • eru

    ok now 100-500 time

    • i dont give a shit on a 100-500
      just get a nikon 200-400 f4 or a sigma 100-500 or a sigma 200-500 f2,8…

  • edward nafzger

    To Eru yes 100-500 time please

  • I think Nikon are plotting against me. either that or they are checking my patience

    all I ever want is a 35 1.4. nothing more.

    • b

      you are not alone with that conspiracy…

  • i_want_a_D700x

    The current 85/1.4 goes for $1229 at B&H. Even by adding ~40% on it it would be $1721. So I am guessing $1749 or $1699.

    Nikon can afford to charge $2199 for 24/1.4 because you couldn’t buy the old version (28/1.4D) easily. For the 85, there are 85/1.4D and 85/1.8D aplenty everywhere.

    • Me

      Also, the farther you get away from 50mm, the more expensive it gets to bend the light. The 24mm is on the wide side of wide.

    • Dr SCSI

      @ i_want_a_D700x,
      The price point of $1699 sounds reasonable, but now that Nikon has everyone convinced that f/1.4 is the gold standard, they will surely try to push that price North and as close to $2K they can get. I bet we will see $1899 or $1959 for that lens when it first hits the streets. Then 6-12 months later, it will drop to the price you mention. Your wedding shooters will pay the price premium. Not to mention, 85mm f/1.4 on a DX like the D300s would be a phenominal focal length for a wedding snapper not wanting to get in the way.

      • Global Guy

        Oh don’t be so dramatic. The 50/1.4 is $440 bucks!!

        The 24/1.4 is probably a fluke in pricing due to low expectations on numbers sold and due to some effort at engineering from scratch. The 85/1.4 just needs to be update. Nikon never had a 24/1.4 before. 85/1.4 just needs to have VR fixed to it and switch the motor. They might improve the design, but they don’t need to figure out how to get 1.4 from scratch.

        Similar to 50mm D to 50mm AFS, there shouldn’t be that much of a difference. The VR will be the extra cost and we can predict the usual markup. If this was over $2,000, and the AFS is slower, I’d rather buy the old lens.

        • mark

          Nikon and “cheap” doesnt go together. Can anyone explain me why 16-35 f/4 has VR ? just to push the prices up. Otherwise how nikon is gonna justify the price premium over canon 17-40 f/4 ?

          i still remember how fanboys screamed that VR isn’t necessary for 17-55 f/2.8 as it is too short a focal length.

          • LGO

            The VR for the Nikkor 16-35mm is there because this lens was designed primarily for landscape and travel photography where most would use these from f/5.6 to f/16.0.

            For these uses, a minimum aperture of f/4.0 is fine as f/2.8 is hardly needed and would only make the lens even bigger, heavier and also more expensive.

            While tripod-shooting would still be best, the VR would be most useful where a tripod use is not allowed or is not feasible. I have taken very good results shooting at 1/2 second using the Nkkor 16-35mm due to the VR.

          • mark

            LGO, if 16-35mm was designed primarily for landscape and travel, I guess 14-24mm was designed for the same purpose, but doesn’t have VR.

            So according to nikon, landscape lens like 16-35mm needs VR but walkaround lens like 17-55mm doesn’t need VR ?

      • I_want_a_D700X

        the key here is the availability of the current AF-D 85 1.4. If Nikon price the AF-S 85/1.4 it too high, people might simply buy the older version [new or used].

        In the case of 24/1.4, there’s simply not a older version for people to fall back to. The 28/1.4D probably still cost more in the used market!

        • i think you are right!

  • Nash

    Heres my 2 cents!..

    Carl Zeiss makes a 85mm 1.4 for Sony.

    Sony has built in VR. .

    This could be a shot from a Sony Body, VR ON, with the Zeiss 85mm 1.4…….

    What do u think??

    • there is a zeiss 85mm for nikon too (without vr and af)

      • Nash

        Yes true… but Nikon bodies dont have VR, this lens doesnt have VR.. so the only logical conclusion i could come up with was that it was shot with a body with built in VR..

  • wheresmylens

    35mm 1.4G + 85mm 1.4G I will buy bought.

  • Char

    Wow. Rude language FTW. However, cropmode probably only means that it was used on an FX body which was set to crop mode. This does not necessarily mean that it is a DX lens.

    • disco

      yeah… but why test an FX lens in crop mode… seems a bit odd don’t ya think?

      • Anonymous

        No. It seems thorough.

        “Gee, I have an FX camera but I’d like to see how DX users will experiance this lens. Oh I know, I’ll put her in crop mode. “

        • Global Guy

          No, because you can see the SAME QUALITY by using it in FX mode. You just look at the middle. There is no point to using this lens in Crop mode unless this is a DX lens. More like the tester was testing the DX lens on a Fullframe camera to see how it performs on a pro body. Perhaps it is slow and they are wondering if autofocus speeds up on a pro body.

          • Global Guy

            By the way, I don’t think its likely that Nikon would make a 1.4 for DX based on the 35 1.8 and based on the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 all being Nikon historically “cheap” line. More likely it is an FX lens. The problem is that the crop mode comment highly suggests this could be a DX lens. If thats the case its a change for Nikon. DX users will be in love, but the rest of us are going to be pissed off after missing the 35mm update as well. And NO ONE was interested in the 24mm 1.4. We all want either a (30 or) 28/1.4 update or a 20/1.8. 24 was a stupid length to release right now. Too long for landscape and too wide to be used with people unless you keep their heads in the middle.

          • Tomao

            Shooting in DX will result in different metering than if you shoot FX and crop.

          • “NO ONE was interested in the 24mm 1.4.”

            Uh… really? That’s interesting. I seem to have one in my bag right now. I know a few others who have either already bought it or it’s on their shopping list. Have also seen a few people online complaining about the thing not being in stock. Why would they complain if they weren’t interested in it?

            Might want to reign in your assumptions there, chief. Just because *you* aren’t interested in it doesn’t mean that others aren’t.

          • Dr SCSI

            @Fried Toast,
            +28 to you…
            I can’t get the 24mm f/1.4. And the current used prices for the 28mm f/1.4 is clearly an indicator of the demand for such focal lengths. I think Global Guy also overlooked the fact that many landscape photogs like shooting verticle and stitching multiple shots together. Besides, Nikon probably didn’t build the 24 f/1.4 just for landscape shots, their solution to that was the 16-35mm f/4 VR. The 24 f/1.4 is a very special, highly sought after lens, built for those who want to include the surroundings for their subject while close focusing and washing everything in the background beautifully. Have you experienced the AF problems with the 24 f/1.4 lens (i.e. doesn’t always focus correctly on high contrast subjects)?

          • Doc, I haven’t noticed any AF problems so far. At least, if I’ve had them, they weren’t bad enough for me to freak out. Can’t recall any problems, tho’.

          • Yeah, uh… The 28mm f/1.4 was on the top of my “dream lens” list since I got into photography.

            I will likely pick up the 24mm f/1.4 in the near future.

        • preston

          and that’s the most interesting of the test shots – the one you’d choose to post for people to see? give me a break. .

          • preston

            (previous comment in response to Anonymous that he’s being thorough by testing an FX lens in crop mode)

      • PHB

        No, time was when 135mm was considered the classic portrait lens. On a DX body an 85mm f/1.4 is equivalent to a 127mm f/2.

        DX only lenses make very little sense above 50mm unless they are macro or otherwise specialist. A DX lens would only be 5-10% smaller, the cost savings are really not worth it. Even people like me who see no benefit to moving to FX with the current generation of cameras are going to want to be certain of FX compatibility in a $1000+ lens.

        When the D4 generation FX bodies arrive the base MP will rise to at least 18MP. At that point you get an 18MP FX body and you get a 9MP DX body free. 9MP is more than enough resolution for most Web work. And at 24MP or 36MP the ‘digital zoom’ capability becomes even more useful.

        • ArtTwisted

          Your comment is the reason why I bought the 85 1.4 for my D90. I know that when I go FF ill keep the 85 and also buy the 135 DC F2 lens.

          Ive read so many reviews including Thom Hogans that state that the 85 on a dx body is a bit too long yet the 135 is one of the most recomended portrait lenses and 135 in general has always been a very popular range for portrait photography. Either way the bokeh of all three small nikon portrait lenses is magnificent, 85 and the two DC lenses have some of the best bokeh that money can buy.

          • Iceman

            AT- The 85 on my D300 makes for great portraits. I use it more then my Sigma 50mm 1.4 or my 24-70mm for portraits. For full body you do need some space but when it’s their it’s my lens of choice.

        • Chris P


          A few points from your post.

          1 – 135 on 35mm was never the classic portrait length. It was a compromise, being approx 3x the 35mm film diagonal of 43mm, which could be used for portraits and other telephoto work. The classic portrait length was, and is, 90mm to 110mm, approx 2x the diagonal. This is the same ratio for different formats, hence 150mm portrait lenses on Hasselblads etc., where the diagonal is around 75mm.

          2 On a DX body the apparent focal length changes, as you say an 85mm acts like a 127mm, but the aperture value stays the same. It will still be f1.4, not 2.2.

          3 – You will not get 9Mp DX from an 18Mp FX sensor, it will be around 7.5Mp. The area of a DX sensor is around 44% of an FX one. This is why you get around 10Mp DX with the D3X 24Mp FX.

          • PHB

            135mm was regarded as the portrait length. Actually that was the marketecture of the time. But really there is no specific focal length for portraiture. Look at shots of the pros doing it and they may well be using a 200mm on a monopod from so far away the model can barely hear them.

            The point is that 127mm is a perfectly reasonable focal length for a portrait lens.

            On the f/number, there are two points of significance, the first is light gathering and the second is bokeh. If you put the 85 f/1.4 on a DX body you will get the same blurring &ct as a 127 f/2.

            If you calculate the f/number ratio according to the actual focal length then of course it is going to be 1.4 regardless of the body you use. But if you calculate the effective focal length to aperture ratio you get the effective focal ratio of two.

            Using the effective focal ratio is actually quite useful if you want to think in terms of how your photos are going to look. Contrary to what many FX bores imagine, what they imagine to be ‘differences’ between the two systems are really rounding errors or due to the fact that DX is not precisely half the area of FX, or due to the fact that because we use actual f/ratio instead of the effective ratio, the same sensor technology will report higher ISO numbers for a FX sensor than a DX sensor of the same number of pixels.

            There is a slight difference in the optics of course, due to the fact that great telephoto designs seem to be easier than great wide angle designs. DX bodies have to use wide angle lenses for the effective focal length range 50mm-70mm.

  • litebyte

    He removed the picture? The link does not work. He removed the new 70-200 images as well after some found out, this was about a month before the official launch of the lens. He forgot to take the exif out of those. Did the 85mm image showed exif? I hope it is a new 85mm f/1.4 with VR! For a price which is payable of course! πŸ˜€

    • Anonymous

      how can you be sure he “forgot” to take out of EXIF?

      Did you ever wondered if this guy is part of the Nikon viral marketing loop?

      • There were no EXIF data in the current picture, I downloaded it before he removed it.

        • Nash

          I concur…. i downloaded it as well.. NO EXIF Data.

      • mark

        May be, and nothing wrong in it. Just money matters.

  • Anonymous

    D700S, 24-105 f/4 VR , 85/1.4 VR sounds very good July 1st Launch material.

    (and perhaps the 28-300 VR for FX as well)

    • instead of a 24-105, Nikon will make 35-135 f4, because this one would match much better to the 16-35

  • Pxlpxl

    Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.4 VR? Now that would be awesome!

  • Iceman

    It’s like pure sweet music everytime I pull out my 85mm 1.4…adding VR would be like having the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing backup.

  • washy

    given that there is so much interest in this lens I hope Nikon gets the AF right (not right on the 50). While is is a very useful FL on DX, I personally dont think 85mm is all that useful on FX. 50 is great for bodyshots and inside/tight quarters. 105 or 200 for outside action/candids/head and shoulders portraits. 85 is too long for the former and too wide for the latter.

  • Artur

    There was rumor about Noct AF-S 50mm f/1.2G with VR.

    Could this lens be with VR, either?

    • Artur

      I used to be schizophrenic, but we`are ok now.

      • Tomao

        Ummm…I think you mean multiple personality disorder or dissociative identity disorder.

        • Fredbare

          I think these days it’s called “Multiple personality challenged” πŸ™‚

          • Fredbare

            OK, who said that !!!!!!!

      • That reminds me… used to work w/ a guy years ago that wore a hat that said,

        “Roses are red,
        Violets are blue,
        I’m schizophrenic
        And so am I.”

        Guess ya had t’be there…

        • Fredbare

          Jockey’s pep talk to his horse:
          “Roses are Red
          Violets are Blue
          Horses that lose
          Are made into glue”

  • Artur

    There was rumor about Noct AF-S 50mm f/1.2G with VR.

    Could this lens be with VR, either… or just my sick imagination.

  • All personal attacks/insults on other users, countries, etc. will be deleted, repeat offenders will be banned. Don’t waist your time.

    • Chris P

      Don’t know what this was about Admin, but well done anyway.

    • Iceman

      Thanks for taking control. I appreciate your work in this site.

  • So it can still be the 1.8 πŸ˜€

  • kljs

    You all are forgetting that Nano-crystal coating = licence to increase prices.

    At least that is what I think. πŸ™‚

    • I_want_a_D700X

      the unfortunate thing is Nano coating actually makes a difference.

      14-24, 24-70, 16-35 are all substantially better than their predecessors.

      • Anonymous

        is that due to Nano, or just because of the newer optical formula already?

    • I Am Nikon

      Nano Coated Lens..

      I call them

      “N Lens”.


    • Mark

      add VR and Nikon has a good excuse to bump the prices to crazy levels. but fanboys immediately get convinced that it is due to dollar/yen issue, price adjustment due to inflation, canon’s pricing policy bla bla bla.

  • Nikon is well known for overpricing their stuff, especially highly sought after lenses. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is priced at $1800~$2000 πŸ™

    • litebyte

      …seeing the price of the new 24mm f/2.8, it’s not even that bad! Just hope it will be a payable 1.8! πŸ™‚

      • Anonymous

        new f/1.4

  • taurui

    why is this post tagged ” Nikon AF-S 85mm f/3.5 DX VRII” ?

  • PhotonFisher

    Just a question: why would one want VR for a 85mm f=1.4 lens? We’ve got ISO 3200 and above – so what? VR makes it heavier, more sensitive to damage requires more energy etc.pp.

    Anyone who can provide good reasons for a VR at 85mm?
    Anyway: such lens, if comparable to the ZF is very much welcome.

    • stepper

      quote: “Anyone who can provide good reasons for a VR at 85mm?”

      Being able to hand hold at candle light sounds like reason enough for me.

      I’m not one who feels the need for VR but I think it is definately useful.
      Especially on a telephoto even if its as short as 85mm.

      • Fredbare

        Yeh but as one get’s older there are more candles on the cake which becomes brighter than a sunny sky.
        Also, if you’re photographing your spouse the darker the picture the better.
        Hence no need for VR πŸ™‚

        • disco

          why photography the spouse? ah…you obviously do not have a mistress πŸ˜›

          • Joe

            I want

  • Vl33d

    This is a DX lens, for sure. Who would be stupid enough to make a test shot of a WONDERFUL FX lens on a WONDERFUL D3X FX Body in a dumb crop-mode ??

    So maybe AF-S VR 85mm f1.8G, cheap as the 35mm is, like 300-400$.

    Sorry FX Users, you will have to whine alone on your old Full-frame price. (And so what? I own an AI-S 24mm f2.0 and I am loving it!).

    • Vl33d

      I meant Prime not price, of course!

  • disco

    could only mean one thing if this is indeed a DX lens…

    … the new crap err crop bodies are coming!!!!

    D4000 – D7000 – D90x – D500

    blah blah… whatever πŸ˜€

  • mr splashy pants

    wow a Dx 85mm 1.8 with vr. SWEET. the 85mm 1.8 now is already one of the best portrait lenses EVER. this will be way better, hopefully. and CHEAP!

    – obviously, a dx user.

    • Vl33d

      BTW, it would be an excellent reason to stick with DX bodies.

  • Anonymous

    if it has even a slightly closer min. focus difference I am all over it. That is my biggest complaint with the 85 1.5 which I own and love.

  • Anonymous

    haha 85 1.4

  • cole

    I think they need to focus on lenses that don’t exist yet instead of improving on existing lenses. The only thing keeping them form being the absolute best is fast professional primes. Come on 35/1.4, 50/1.2! I also hardly think this kind of lens needs VR.

  • le_eiji

    It’s very difficult, if not impossible, to make an 85mm 1.2 for 44mm throat F mount. Leave it to Canon.

  • Anonymous

    Probably shot on Canon S90 because it have 85mm in its zoom range, F/2 maximum aperture, and internal image stabilizer.

    • That Guy

      Couldn’t be since Canon calls it IS and not VR.

      S90 doesn’t have a crop mode either.

  • Ray

    *waits for people that will bitch about how useless a 85 1.4 is and how they will need something else instead such as the 35 1.4*

  • fxed

    It will be expensive for those who ridiculously low ball the price, like under $1700. C’mon, Sigma lists their 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM for $720 and 85f/1.4 TBD. (Not to get off track but I have the Sigma 50 and @ $499-15%= $424 the lens is superb).

    I’d bet the Sigma 85f/1.4 will go for $1300β–Ό, at least what they will show on their site and of course it will be discounted in the real world. Now the Nikon 85 that’s a different story. Minimum $1900 and no discount. I’m going for it since it fits in to a part of my shooting style and FX of course.

  • we dont need update of generic glass.
    we need new glass to desire for.

    Photographers dream 50-105 f2, 35-70 f2 zooms
    17-55 DX should have been f2 at that size and price too
    35 f1.8 is lame, 50G is lame,

    one fast focusing 35 f1.4DX would put whole new look to all DX cameras. zooms are for lazy bones. especially those DX ones

    • ArtTwisted

      Your needs arent the only ones, I couldnt care less about a 50-105 f2 since my 85 1.4 is close to all those focal lenghts and is 1.4, also a 35 – 70 f2 would weigh twice as much as the 24-70 2.8 if not more. The 50g was a needed upgrade, i dont like the G part since i have a fm2n as well but its a good lens and they would not make a 1.4 dx prime, they would make it FX given the price point needed and market it to the pro market.

      Funny how you say zooms are for lazy bones yet you want three extremely large, expensive and very heavy zooms to be produced.

      • yes, 50g was needed upgrade but why make it on one side so expensive that amateurs won’t buy it (especially for DX system where it makes less sense) and on other side so bad that even at f2 you cannot seriously use it, set aside the AF performance so bad that it is faster to tell couple to walk forward then Afocus? Why not make 50f1.4 500Eur equivalent of 85 f1.4 and quick release some f1.8DX?

        at the point zooms offering f2.8 they make really little sense yes, specially on DX, but in tight areas, you cannot beat the flexibility. sadly 85 is often too long and 70 f2.8 is often too short. 50-105 f2 would make awesome portrait zoom. size wouldnt need to be really that huge, with expensive optics you can easily pack it to 62mm, with 77mm definitely doable. and 35-70f2 would be awesome DX portait zoom.

  • Back to top