Is that it? (Nikon 35mm AF-S f/1.4 N)

I received this picture (original source) few days ago and my initial thought was that this is the current Nikon 24mm f/1.4 lens. Ever since, I received multiple emails from readers pointing the differences between the two lenses (thanks D40-owner and everybody else who sent that in):

  • One aperture in the DOF scale (probably 16), the 24mm has two.
  • The focal length seems to read 35mm (the 85mm f/1.4 lens is expected to have VR, the lens on the picture clearly does not have VR)
  • The max aperture definitely reads 1:1.x
  • The border just behind the focus ring is very thin, much thinner than the 24mm.
  • On the 24mm f/1.4 the gold "Nikon" label is much closer to the end of the plate (look at the letter "N").

For comparison, here is the current Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G N lens:

Update - here is a close-up of the plates:

What say you?

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Patros
    Posted June 27, 2010 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    … a 35mm f:1.4G would show the F:16 and F:11 DOF markings as well…

  2. Ed
    Posted June 27, 2010 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    I don’t get something, why do we always get these rumor photos and they can’t be super sharp so we know what it really is? I like rumors where you can see “clearly” what it is and someone managed to snap a good photo of the new equipment. But no, we get grainy or terrible photos.

  3. Jabs
    Posted June 27, 2010 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    Hey Administrator,
    An an aside, I have noted twice in a row that someone’s name and email address are being left in the top of the POST COMMENTS box when I come to this web site, EVEN when I have not posted anything but just reading here.
    Perhaps you check it out?

    • Posted June 27, 2010 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

      Jabs, are you sure someone did not use your computer to post comments here on NR? This info is usually stored locally in a cookie files – I cannot see how this cookie file can move from one computer to another. I will clear the blog’s cache justbin case.

      • Jabs
        Posted June 27, 2010 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

        Hey Administrator,
        No! – no one else used my computer to post anything here. It seemed like a glitch and I first noted this a few days ago when I did not post but just read here and today when I posted. I scrolled down to the end of the page and there was a name and an email address there already.
        The name plus the email address was clearly there BUT I did not see a name like that here, though I did not search.

        • zzddrr
          Posted June 27, 2010 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

          Yes, Jab is right I noted that too on Friday. It was some Elisabeth

        • Posted June 27, 2010 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

          ok, I cleared the cache. I also checked and in the past 2+ years there were no comment made by Elisabeth on this blog.

          • Posted June 27, 2010 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

            I am curious if you see the same name on other WordPress powered blogs.

          • GlobalGuy
            Posted June 27, 2010 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

            This also happened to me (on Saturday, I believe). I got someones entire information including email.

  4. Anonymous
    Posted June 27, 2010 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    14mm f/1.4

  5. D700 (feels like F3)
    Posted June 27, 2010 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    a 85 1.4 please – the 35 2.0 is good for “most” situations … and a sensor, that “knows” how to be curved to correct the actual flatness of the image … if it works in telescopes, why shouldn’t it work in cameras …

    • Eric Pepin
      Posted June 27, 2010 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

      the current 35 is good but the current 85 is great. They both need upgrades but there is no AF 35 1.4 so that should be first if nikon has any sense. Also we then need the new 20, 24, and 28 primes.

  6. D700 (feels like F3)
    Posted June 27, 2010 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    a 14mm 1.4 would have a much larger front element … unless we talk DX only – then it would be a big as the 24 1.4 for FX

  7. Anonymous
    Posted June 27, 2010 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Who cares… I want an FX 28-XXXmm VR zoom.

  8. The invisible man
    Posted June 27, 2010 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    That’s a D90, I’ll bet $100 with anyone !

    • LGO
      Posted June 28, 2010 at 3:07 am | Permalink

      Just $100? 🙂

  9. Posted June 27, 2010 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Hmm definitely not a 24mm lens.. The second number is a 5, the first one is a guess. Could be a 3 or an 8. Which ever one it is, it’s good news Nikon will come with a new lens soon 🙂
    Hoping for a 35 though.. the currens 85 is top already.

  10. Fractured Gonad
    Posted June 27, 2010 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    It’s a cupboard

  11. NIKE ON
    Posted June 27, 2010 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    SCOOOP !!! its a 3.5mm / 0.14 :

    it shoots all girls cloths in street in 1 shot with No distortion & auto HDR to recover the burned skinn.

  12. NIKE ON
    Posted June 27, 2010 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    Trought the clothes I ment…

    • enesunkie
      Posted June 27, 2010 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

      No, throught the clothes you meant

      • Miky
        Posted June 28, 2010 at 5:06 am | Permalink


        • Fractured Gonad
          Posted June 28, 2010 at 9:33 am | Permalink


  13. funky_chilli
    Posted June 27, 2010 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    all these different theories….
    i hope it’s a new f1.4 35mm…..have been waiting for such a lens for a while now
    hope it’s not too expensive…..not too much more than $1000 would be nice 😉

  14. Zorro
    Posted June 27, 2010 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    There are plenty of FX lenses already. That’s why the in-body focus drive is important, right? We need DX AF-S primes for the bodies without the in-body drive.
    I’d have been happier if this thread showed an AF-S 24mm f1:2 DX attached to the long-rumored D40s.

  15. Eric Pepin
    Posted June 27, 2010 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

    I cant wait for this lens honestly. This will be the duo for my 85 1.4. These two along with a 70-200 will be 90 percent of my use, throw in a 20 2.8 and thats my lens kit right there once i get it all.

  16. Anonymous
    Posted June 28, 2010 at 12:47 am | Permalink


  17. Bart
    Posted June 28, 2010 at 1:12 am | Permalink

    The dataplate on top looks fake, somehow.

    And why the lenscap? Wouldn’t showing off the front element the most logical thing to do in a spy shot? Unless the lens you’re showing is not the lens you *claim* you’re showing, of course.

  18. Posted June 28, 2010 at 1:34 am | Permalink

    I love how people say “It can’t possibly be a 24mm because…”

    It’s called photoshop, people. Just wait, you’ll see.

    (BTW, this is coming from someone who DESPERATELY wants Nikon’s next pro prime to be a sweet 35 1.4… I just don’t think this is it, nothing makes sense about the photo…)


  19. Ken Smokescockwell
    Posted June 28, 2010 at 2:24 am | Permalink

    Obviously a fake. This is clearly a 24mm 1.4 lens on a d90. Can’t you tell? It has the same exact dimensions….. clearly a REAL 35mm lens would be smaller……or at least a different size. Descent photoshop job though….but there is one mistake. The lens cap is still on. I can wait….In the meantime i’ll keep shooting with my 24-70mm, wait to get this 24mm 1.4 when i get the loot, and in about a year and 3 months purchase the d700 replacement for my aging d300.


  20. azmir
    Posted June 28, 2010 at 2:29 am | Permalink

    I wish they made them like the ais lenses. They were real sweet. The 35mm 1.4 ais is sweet.

  21. Posted June 28, 2010 at 3:47 am | Permalink

    If you look closely to the focal length you will see two highlights on the first digit. These highlights can only be that bright if there is a straight edge on the digit. Look at the “O” from Nikon. If it would be a “8” indicating 85mm, the highlights must be damped like the “O”. But because it is not like that, it must be a “3” indicating 35mm focal length.
    It makes sense that the new 35mm is very similar in size and design. Look at the old AF series 24mm F2.8, 35mm F2 and 50mm F1.4 – they are looking all the same. And if you take a look on Canon, their 24mm F1.4 and 35mm F1.4 are also similar in size and design. And you will notice, that Canon only uses UD (Ultra low Dispersion) glass on their 24mm lens. All the longer lenses until the 85mm F1.2 don’t have UD/ED lenses.

    So if it’s not a fake I’ll bet it’s a 35mm lens without ED glass. But that will not reduce the price very much, as you see at Canon.

  22. Confirmed
    Posted June 28, 2010 at 5:05 am | Permalink

    It’s an af-s 35mm 1.4G N lens, and a matter of week or two.

  23. anonymous
    Posted June 28, 2010 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    This is not a spy shot, it’s a mistake; this new lens was not meant to be photographed on the D90.

    And it’s not Photoshopped lol. Give it a week or two.

  24. Ken Rockwell's Dog
    Posted June 28, 2010 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    Any Ais lens on my master’s trusty D40 is better than anything you losers will ever use. Please donate to master so he can feed me.

  25. nikonboy
    Posted June 28, 2010 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    If it’s a FX lens, why are they using a D90 body? Hope it’s not DX!

    • Eric Pepin
      Posted June 28, 2010 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

      because its a spy shot supposedly, and im sure many D90 owners including myself would love to have a 35 1.4 AFS

    • King Of Swaziland
      Posted June 30, 2010 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

      Because it was at an SD card event. Needs to be on an SD card camera.

  26. Posted June 28, 2010 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Wonk #1: “Hey, there’s a reflection on the shutter release! Enhance grid B7!”

    Wonk #2: “Okay, there’s something there. Let’s compute the eigenvalues and then use that to map to the reflection lens off the ceiling. Enhance.”

    Wonk #3: “There! Pan left and sharpen grid C4. Oh my gawd, it’s a…”

  27. chris
    Posted June 28, 2010 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    it really blow my mind that nikon doesn’t have a 35mm 1.4 with AF. It is so hard to make one? I waited long enough and finally have money to get a Canon 35mm L.

    Protraits taken with a mild wide angle and shot Dof at is blowing my socks off. But damn do i miss the Nikon AF!

  28. GlobalGuy
    Posted June 28, 2010 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    I just noticed an important point:
    – “ED” is not mentioned on the ID plate.

    This is why the plate text is indented in front of the “AF-S” statement.
    Why wouldn’t this lens have ED glass???????????

    • GlobalGuy
      Posted June 28, 2010 at 4:11 pm | Permalink


      50 1.2 non-ED?
      85 1.4/1.2 non-VR?
      35 1.4/1.2 non-ED?

    • Anonymous
      Posted June 28, 2010 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

      every golden ringed nikor…HAS ed glass…so maybe its fake?

      • Ed
        Posted June 28, 2010 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

        The very interesting thing about this lens rumor is that no matter what photo was taken of it, it just “happens” to not show the far right side of the top that shows weather it has ED glass or not. Most likely it will.

    • Posted June 29, 2010 at 6:53 am | Permalink

      How can you say the “ED” part is missing from the ID plate – that part of it is not visible?

    • Anonymous
      Posted June 30, 2010 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

      people, people…again..every golden ringed nikkor..HAS TO BE WITH ED GLASS IN IT

  29. Victor Hassleblood
    Posted June 28, 2010 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Whatever it is, it looks like crying “please take me for a precious valuable thing, you see I’ve lots and lots of golden writing all over me. I must be a real treasure.”

    Nikons body design is without question the best available. I’m not so sure about the inside anymore and (as many) waiting for some D700 replacement. What I know for sure is, that I totally dislike this screaming golden letters, no matter what they have to tell* me. In russia you even get golden labels for bodies and flashlights to pimp up your Nikon gear (and make it look as cheap and tacky as the lenses already do). I still recall when Nikon was satisfied with a single golden ring, that only was awarded to really good performing lenses (like the 180/2.8 ED Ais). Nowadays every f***ing Nikon lens gets covered in piles gold. They just look like shit, completely tasteless.

    *BTW, to me the lens looks like the 24.

    • GlobalGuy
      Posted June 28, 2010 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

      Agreed on that point. Even the gold-line could be thinner. And personally I would prefer for all the lettering to be black, including the “NIKON” lens cap and the M/A switches. Its all done by touch and there is no reason for it other than to look gaudy.

      THAT being said, Nikon has improved slightly since the last generation of lenses, which had gold plates. At least the plate is black this time and only the letters are gold. The gold plate looked like a rapper’s golden “dog-tag” bolted to the lens in the previous generation 70-200mm vr, for example.

    • IanD
      Posted June 28, 2010 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

      I Agree. The gold lettering just looks tacky and overall design of the nameplate seems a bit outdated. Nikon should take a look at the Carl Zeiss lenses for Sony alpha, some of the best looking lenses out there. This simple face may tip the scales for me when deciding on my next camera purchase and since I only own 1 Nikon lens, it wouldn’t put me out too much.

      • Markus
        Posted June 29, 2010 at 8:11 am | Permalink

        Absolutely, I would not buy a lens when it does not look good….image quality I don’t care but the look of it….bleep bleep

        • Discontinued
          Posted June 29, 2010 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

          “image quality I don’t care”

          Nobody said that. But what I indeed found quite often on NR during the last month and among the comments was the rather frequently raised flag of “the right feel and look” for Nikon equipment … which has never attracted such a comment. Well, what could that mean?

  30. Mike
    Posted June 29, 2010 at 2:49 am | Permalink

    Price will be somewhere between $1699 to $1899 US

    • GlobalGuy
      Posted June 29, 2010 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

      I believe Nikon is considering a flat rate for lenses : $2,000 per each. Pick your variety.

    • Eric Pepin
      Posted June 29, 2010 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

      I agree, that price makes sense and is below the dreaded 2k.

  31. 澳大发疯的
    Posted June 29, 2010 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    You gave the wrong original source.

    The real original source is:

  32. Elv
    Posted June 30, 2010 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    I think it is à photoshoped 17-35.

  33. Ken Rockwell's Dog
    Posted July 4, 2010 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    I think it’s a bone.

  34. Lars
    Posted July 6, 2010 at 2:00 am | Permalink

    DOF scale – clearly 85 mm lens.

  • Back to top