Questionable Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.2 ED VR listing spotted in China

Update: here is a better screenshot from (click on image for larger view):

A Chinese forum has a screenshot from July 20th of Nikon China website displaying a new AF-S 85mm f/1.2 ED VR lens. According to the text, the image was removed the next day - here is the before and after shot (click on image for larger view):

This type of manipulation can easily be done on a website offline, for the purpose of taking a screenshot. Unless someone can confirm that they saw this new listing live online, I say this rumor is busted.

I do expect however a new Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.4G N lens to be released before Photokina.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • d40-owner

    first? 😛
    Smells fake to me…

    • d40-owner

      Besides, the lens looks a very odd shape to be an 85mm.
      Looks like a crappy photoshop of a 14-24

      • David Hasselblaff

        I don’t think that it is fake. In China you can buy pretty much anything.

        • The invisible Man

          @David Hasselbloff
          Yep, even things that are made in China !

    • maybe they took the image from here:

      • d40-owner

        Makes sense, looks the same lens.
        And both have a stupid hood shape, a useful hood for an 85mm would be quite longer, specially petal shaped.

    • Niko

      Fake fake fake,
      just look at the date and you´ll see they took the intro date, they just took it from 200 400 intro date and photoshoped it, the ´2´ ,´7´and ´0´ looks absolutely cloned.
      and thode dumb chongs forgot to add the ´G´ after the aperture designation.

  • nir.ex

    But seriously does the Nikon mount can physically go F1.2? not sure

    • d40-owner

      Are you serious?
      The CURRENT Nikon catalog has the manual 50mm f/1.2 AI-S.
      You can buy it.
      And there were f/1.0 lenses in the past.

      • d40-owner

        And you also have the legendary 58mm 1.2 Noct.

        • nir.ex

          So the question remains why Nikon never had f 1.2 longer focal length

          I was first today 🙁 NR admin didn’t like it…

          • The invisible Man

            Same for me I was first yesterday and then I was deleted !
            No fair because I was never first (second or third neither) at school, Nikon Rumors was for me the only opportunity to be first in something !

            • ArthurCH

              When you are an invisible man, no wonder why they didn’t notice you at school.
              Man please stop behaving like a kid…

          • No one likes it. You and a couple other kids are the only ones that care.

            • My reply (for nir.ex) didn’t nest properly. Forum’s being whacky again.

      • The invisible Man

        Even f/0.95 !

    • there is an old 50mm f/1.2 unsure about 85mm, sure someone can shed technical insight on whether its possible at that focal length.

      • d40-owner

        The longer the focal length, the less you need a big mount.

      • woble

        It’s not whether it’s possible of not, but whether there is a financial gain. Production costs of hyperfast lenses did and still costs a lot because of the complex designs and high quality glass. Nikon made 300/2 ages ago, but only a handful were sold. I am pretty sure they lost money on that one.

        So until there’s a huge demand for such lenses, don’t expect Nikon to do anything in that regard. There is however no doubt they could be or already have engineers working on all that stuff. And when time comes, all will reveal itself.

        • Roger

          I’m pretty sure they made money on 300/2. It didnt sell for peanuts.

    • they make a 50 1.2 so that would be yes

    • Jabs

      It is now an ‘Urban Myth’ that the Nikon F mount cannot do F1.2.
      Nikon has released several F 1.2 lenses over the years.

      1. Several 50mm F1.2 as far as I remember.
      2. A legendary 58mm F1.2 NOCT that was optimized for wide open night shooting (or bright lights shooting) hence ‘nocturnal’.

      Actually, the problem is related to being able to autofocus at F1.2 and then photographers complaining when the camera DOES autofocus but not on what they wanted as the depth of field is very shallow or razor thin at F1.2.
      The advent of high ISO digital cameras as compared to the film days has almost rendered the need for an F1.2 lens also. I have looked through a 58mm F1.2 NOCT Nikon and indeed it was hard to focus but on an F3HP with the right focusing screen it was great, as the F3 had better focusing screens plus more varied ones than any current digital SLR. I looked at it at a Nikon place and I had several F3’s with me having different focusing screens which were easy to remove/replace by simply taking off the camera head.
      I wish Nikon would go back to that, but SEALING issues are now blamed as the reason for them not using that.

      • Recent Convert

        All f/1.2 lenses that Nikon made over the decades were not of the AFS type. Take any lens you own and look at the (up to) 10 pins that rest in the 12 o’clock position, once engaged. They take away about 2.5mm on the radius, which means 5mm on the diameter. That’s a reduction of about 15% of the rear element, compared to the old manual-focus Noct etc. For his reason, it has become so much more difficult to make lenses that naturally have large rear elements, such as f/1.2 lenses or VR for 1.4 etc.
        Nikon’s optical designers are some of the best in the world, and they may come up with modifications of the Gauss type that reduce the size of the last element, but it sure is not trivial!!

        • Anonymous

          The available space for the rear element is almost irrelevant. Sure it’s always easier to work with more room.

          Nikon is slow to relase any f/1.2 lenses because new ISO performance negates the speed advantage and the DOF difference over an f/1.4 lens is negligible in most cases.

          It has NOTHING to do with the size of the f-mount.

        • Astrophotographer

          Perhaps if you researched you’re claims first you would have discovered Nikon already designed a 50mm f1.2:

          Can’t you back up “it sure is not trivial!!”

          • Recent Convert

            Astrophotographer: I am fully aware that this 50mm f/1.2 patent exists (I do read Admin’s patent update faithfully). In truth, it is only f/1.25, which leads to a front element of just over 40mm. In a true Gaussian type Anastigmat (which is the base for every 1.4 lens or larger), the front and the rear lens are the biggest. Nikon’s designers managed to contract the optical design, so that the second last element is actually larger than the rear element. This complicates the issue (i.e. it is non-trivial), but I did not write “impossible”. It’s one of those compromises one needs to make to work within the parameters that constrain the design. If you want me to go into further detail: asymmetric designs tend to have issues with keeping the focus plane a true “plane”. Leica has some wide-angle lenses where the focus “plane” is curved (if you are focussed on 5m at the center, it may be infinity at the edges). Nikon does not do that. If one is constrained by the rear element size, it means one has to go to an asymmetric design. To get the focus plane “true”, this likely forces the designer to utilize more aspherical elements, which are expensive.
            I believe I may bore most readers, but if you want more detail, send me a PM.

            • Joe R.

              I’m not sure if you’re implying this but an asymmetrical design is not caused by the rear element. Having a small rear element doest not necessitate an asymmetric design.

              The reason there are no AFS f/1.2 50 or 85 mm Nikon lenses is a function of marketing not of design. The f/1.2 lenses are very far from a priority. They necessarily have a lot of glass (large elements) and are thus expensive. Moreover, they don’t sell well. There is very little advantage to an f/1.2 version of a lens for which 1.4 and 1.8 versions already exist or are being replaced soon.

              The 1.4 versions do (and future revisions will) to differentiate them as higher quality pro lenses verse the more consumer geared 1.8. Take any give current or future 1.8 lens and shoot wide open against it’s 1.4 counterpart. The 1.4 is sharper down the line. It’s a better built, professional lens.

              Nikon simply has no reason to spend the effort designing 1.2 lenses of any focal length. It doesn’t make sense for their line up. This is especially true with the current high ISO performance of the cameras that anyone who would look at a 1.2 lens likely has. The DOF argument is just as moot.

              DOF for a 50mm lens on an FX body at 10 feet:
              f/1.2: 0.86 ft
              f/1.4: 1.02 ft
              f/1.8: 1.29 ft
              Nikon’s not going to design lens and manufacture a lens to give you an extra 2 inches of DOF.

              DOF of an 85mm lens on and FX body at 15 feet:

              f/1.2: 0.67 ft
              f/1.4: 0.79 ft
              f/1.8: 1.00 ft
              Here we only gain 1.44 inches of DOF.

              Sorry, it’s just not worth it for Nikon. It would make more sense for them to stop making 1.4 lenses and replace them with 1.2 but that’s also pretty silly.

              …I think.

            • Jabs

              Hey Joe,
              One of the most overlooked things when it comes to making F1.0 AF lenses is the human factor.
              The cameras can focus BUT often not on what you want to as the human eyes ‘SEES’ differently from the AF module and thus problems.
              The depth of field at F1.0 or F1.2 are so razor thin, that parts of a face often are not in focus. There was also a benefit of throwing the background more out of focus with these shallower depth of field lenses leading to better bokeh.
              The old reason for F1.0 and F1.2 lenses was in the film days, you had a much brighter viewfinder with which to focus with that BUT you still had the razor thin depth of field issues.
              THEN, you could blame yourself but now with AF, they blame the camera so useless to manufacture them often and get even more complaints.

            • Astrophotographer

              The key issue you claimed, which I didn’t want to address before I double checked, is that by adding the electronic contacts they reduced the useable rear opening. Anyone can look at an AF Nikon lens and see the contacts are the same distance as the aperture linkage inherited from AI lenses. Simple put they did not reduce the usable rear opening, certainly not by 5mm.

        • D40-owner

          Totally wrong.
          Just 3 days ago I installed a Dandelion chip in my 50mm 1.4 AI-s.
          If you know that lens, it has a HUGE rear element, and it takes almost all the space available. However….. the dandelion chip glues to the OUTSIDE of the available circular opening in the lens. So your reasoning is incorrect.

          The size problem with AF-S lenses is making the barrels bigger, because the micro-motor or the circular wave motor take up space around the glass elements.

      • Discontinued

        Thumbs up ! ! !

        I want my F4’s interchangeable viewfinder system back as well. Wish there was a digital back for these F4’s.
        I’m not so keen on replacing the prism (even though it makes sense for low camera positions) but would really like to be able to change this annoying screens we have today. They are so bright (and almost clear) that DOF control/prediction has become a joke and manual focusing has become painful, as your eye manages to focus through clear optical systems to a certain degree.

        Today’s screens don’t deserve that name anymore. They are just windows, placed between mirror and prism. I don’t get it. Why does it have to be this way?

        • Discontinued

          This (above) is @ Jabs.
          Subject screens.

        • Jabs

          Hey Discontinued,
          Some of the replies are not showing up below the post that they refer to.

          Yeah, the old F3 focusing screens were the best ever from Nikon, as I had almost all of them plus all the heads except the F3P one.
          The screens taught me how to focus well especially in MACRO and bright sunlight with a polarizer but alas, autofocus would not work through all of the different screens.
          I personally liked the F3’s ‘P’ screen (I think that was it) which had a center line both horizontally and vertically plus a split-screen center point that lets you know exactly when you are in focus.
          The F4, which I had – never had the extensive focusing screens as the F3 series and thus, I stuck to my F3’s though I loved it also.
          About the heads – my favorite F3 head was the High Magnification one with a rubber eye cup (think DW-4 or 6 was the name) and I could shoot really low or really great closeups of things with certain screens and get consistently great results even with long lenses, Macro lenses or tricky subjects. Removable heads were an asset now being replaced by articulating LCD screens but I don’t know if they are the same in critical high magnification applications. The removable heads also had one major advantage – you DID not have to remove a screen through the lens (disturbing your carefully set up camera) with a pesky tweezer or such and when I was shooting on a tripod, all I had to do was quickly change a screen by removing the head and be ready in a few seconds (remember the F3 did not have an ISO hot shoe on the head but on the rewind knob area left of the camera facing from the back with say the AS7 adapter).
          Wish that there was now the equivalent of an F3HP in digital today from Nikon with easily removed heads and screens.

      • PHB

        This is my understanding as well.

        Reviews of the Canon f/1.2 suggest that it is a poor performer as far as focusing is concerned. Complaints about the softness of the lens may well be really due to it not focusing quite right.

        The thing about the Noctilux was that it has absolutely no sagittal coma flare. It is not the depth of field that is significant but the fact that it can be used to take sharp photos of ultra high contrast night scenes with neon signs.

        I would not be surprised by a return, given that Nikon is clearly back in the fast primes game. With a 24, 50 and 85 f/1.4, there are not so many other primes that make sense. They can do a 35 f/1.4 and a 135 f/2. They can revamp the 300 f/4 and maybe add a 400 f/4. Assuming the goodies are on their way, on the zoom side the only major lack is the 80-400 AFS.

        Nikon are currently concentrated on upgrading their entire line to AFS and computer aided designs. Once that is complete would be the time to look at exotics and I would not be at all surprised to see some of the legendary lenses return.

    • Roger

      Yes, it can.

      The now legendary “Nikon cant do F/1.2” sentence comes from Canon fanboys.

  • how jolly exciting, shall prepare to cash in some bonds =D


    the 7K lens ?! thanks, not for me.

    • The invisible Man

      But think about this, 85mm f/1.2 + x2 teleconverter = 170mm f/2 !
      And with 2 teleconverters you get a 340mm f/4 !
      All that for only $7000 !

      • d40-owner

        85mm f/1.2 + x2 = 170mm f/2.5
        85mm f/1.2 + x2 + x2 = 340mm f/5.0

        • COOLPUKE

          dont speaking about the slow af & blurry pics. better go with evil or micro 4-3. I really dont understand this logic.

          1.2 lens = portrait low light lens.

          • The invisible Man

            I was joking (I know sometime it look so real !)
            By the way, a x2 teleconverter does not change the depth of field, so you still have the “f/1.2” effect.
            I may be wrong on that one but I think I’m right.

          • COOLPUKE

            lol ok then, some answers are pretty affraying here sometimes 😉

        • The invisible Man

          f/1 f/1.2 f/1.4 f/2 f/2.8 f/4 f/5.6 f/8 f/11 f/16 f/22 f/32
          You’re welcome !
          I’m always right (except when I’m wrong)

          • Char

            … like in this case.

            Correct would be:
            f/1 f/1.4 f/2 f/2.8 f/4 f/5.6 f/8 f/11 f/16 f/22 f/32

          • The invisible Man

            @ Char
            Yes, thank you !
            NO 1.2 between f/1 and f/1.4

        • The invisible Man

          Yes you’re right but If I use a calculator I get f/2.4 and f/4.8.
          Is f/2.5 and f/5 more “standards” apertures ?

          • Segura

            Depends if you are calculating f/1.2 in 1/2 stops or 1/3

            Here are 1/2 stops

            And here is 1/3 stops

            Obviously the 1/3 stop is a more accurate representation of the lens, so here are your two stops from 1.2 (1.8/2.5)
            If you are counting in 1/2 stops, then you get (1.7/2.4)

        • Halogenic

          But think about this, 85mm f/1.2 + x2 teleconverter = 170mm f/2 !
          And with 2 teleconverters you get a 340mm f/4 !
          All that for only $7000 !
          Posted July 21, 2010 at 1:16 pm | Permalink
          85mm f/1.2 + x2 = 170mm f/2.5
          85mm f/1.2 + x2 + x2 = 340mm f/5.0
          I think you both are wrong, hehe with a 2x teleconverter you lose two steps of light not half of the value, so from 1.2, next is 1.4 and next is 1.8, therefore you will get a 170mm f1.8 and a 340mm f2.8 (f1.8 – f2 – f2.8) respectively.

        • Jivee

          D-40, youre wrong. Invisible man is right

          • The invisible Man

            Well, actually D-40 is right, there is no f/1.2 between f/1 and f/1.4.
            By the way I hate the 1/3 and 1/2 aperture steps on the D90, I wish I could set the D90 with full apertures steps.
            Anyone have a trick ? Firmware update maybe ?

            • Bart

              “By the way I hate the 1/3 and 1/2 aperture steps on the D90, I wish I could set the D90 with full apertures steps. Anyone have a trick ?”

              Use lenses with aperture ring that clicks into full steps. 🙂

      • Jabs

        To Invisible Man,
        I know that you are joking but is it possible to use two Nikon teleconverters on a Nikon body?
        When you use a Nikon Teleconverter, BOTH the F Stop and the lens length are multiplied by the factor of the teleconverter.
        I used to use a TC 16AF.

        • The invisible Man

          I have no idea, I never used a teleconverter (well, not in the last 25 years).
          I would not put 2 teleconverters on one lens, the lens sharpness will be cut x4 and you will loose 4 f/ steps.
          Good FX lenses have a definition able to cover a 50MP sensor, in few years when FX cameras will have 40-60MP it will be easier to crop the picture than using teleconverters.

        • PHB

          It is possible, but only if certain parts are ground off to allow it to happen (at least as far as I know from web articles)

          The front element on the teleconverter projects out into the lens and that is why it can only be used with certain telephoto lenses. To stop you damaging a non-compatible lens there is a prong. Allegedly some folk have ground off the prongs on certain models and got them to work.

          Probably not a great idea.

  • D700 (feels like F3)

    85 1.2 some kind of dream – but for real? The cost must be enormous …
    If it is real – yes please!

  • d40-owner

    Well, the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II is $1,970 at Adorama, so the Nikon would cost roughly the same.

    • So the Nikon would cost a great deal more you mean.

    • Son the nikon will be more then or equal to twice this price.

  • Why would an 85mm prime have a flower shaped hood?

    • Plus I don’t recall any Nikon standard press photo that features the lens with the hood. Apart from the 14-24mm for obvious reasons…

      • The invisible Man

        In most cases you don’t need the hood but if Nikon start to sell the hood as an accessory (like it was 20 years ago) people will complain.
        Personally I don’t like the hood provided with my 24-70mm AF-S f/2.8 so I use a 77mm circle metal hood (if you use DX camera you can use a hood not as large than the original one).
        An other reason why I don’t like the original 24-70mm hood is because if you use the camera’s flash you get shadows (I don’t use it anyway but even with my SB900 the original hood make little shadows).
        And finaly, it’s not very discret, when I take pictures and my wife is with me she always complain: “Hey ! People stop looking at me, they look at your camera !”

    • The invisible Man

      The flower shaped hood is to make it more efficient, the DX of FX sensors are rectangles, so you can make the hood longer on the top (longer side).

      • Please correct me if I’m wrong, but other than wide angle primes like the 24mm f/1.4, I don’t recall any prime that comes with a flower shaped hood. Neither in Nikon nor in Canon land.

        • The invisible Man

          My 105mm micro AF-S f/2.8 does have a “flower” hood.
          Nikon started doing that only few years ago.

          • Anonymous

            Both the 35 & 50 AF-S come with normal hoods.

        • The invisible Man

          Yes, the 50mm AF-S does have a round hood.
          It could be round also to save cost, it’s cheaper to make the round hood than the tulip one (the Nikon “flowers” hoods on pro lenses are made with better quality plastic, still made in China).
          Also the 50mm AF-S have a plastic body and it is made in China (Japan for the 24-70mm & 105mm).
          Anyway I think the 50mm AF-S is overpriced.

        • I Am Nikon

          Longer focal length primes usually gets a bayonett type hood since it’s horizantal view is not wide enough to cause vignetting like Wide Angel lenses do.

          I’m guessing this is fake.

  • C
    • thanks for that link

      • C

        Well the simple translation of that Chinese sentence is:
        Nikon is proud to announce the launch of AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.2 ED VR lens. This product is FX-compatible portrait prime lens.

  • Recent Convert

    The “real estate” for a manual lens is bigger, because the 10 electronic pins need not to be accommodated. Canon has the advantage of having started all over again with the EF mount (making it huge), while Nikon was nice to its customers and retained the F-mount (which was huge by 1959-standards). There are serious space limitations now (with the data transmission pins) that will make a 50mm/1.2 very difficult (with AFS), and make an 85mm/1.2 (with AFS) even less likely, especially, if VR is also involved, as VR makes the rear-most lens bigger still.
    If cost is no object, may-be it can be done, but cost usually is an object, especially, as the Canon lens puts a $2000-line in the sand.

    • Anonymous

      You completely and utterly incorrect. The only restriction imposed by the size the f-mount would making a larger than 35mm sensor.

      Nikon would simply need an additional rear element and a tiny bit of extra lens length to get the proper imaging circle. I forget how the math pans out but it’s something like 18mm of otherwise unnecessary length at the mount side of the lens.

      I really wish folks would stop playing the “f-mount is too small” card.

      • PHB

        Indeed, there are 55 f/1.2 Noctilux lenses that have been adapted to add chip pins.

        From a lens design point of view the f stop ratio is not a fundamental constraint in any case. If is merely a useful number for calculating exposure.

        An 85mm f/1.2 has an aperture of 70mm which is way larger than the Canon flange. A 400 f/2.8 has an even larger aperture. The aperture is nowhere near the flange, it is at the wide end of the lens.

        Canon pull this crap because they are somewhat unscrupulous. It is not at all clear that the noctilux rear element actually needed to be so big for performance. If you look at how it is ground it looks to me like they needed it big on one side and is was as easy to grind the whole of the rear face. But if you look at more recent lenses they have much more complex carving on the rear

        The real reason Canon can put a f/1.0 out anf Nikon cannot is that Nikon has nothing to prove. They do not need to add a hugely expensive, poorly performing lens in their catalogue just to show they have done it. Canon on the other hand appears to do so.

        The Canon lens is way too large for practical use, it weighs more than most cameras and is the size of a grapefruit. I would much prefer a f/1.4 that was manageable size.

    • Astrophotographer

      Where did you get this claim? Or are you guessing? Unless you are an optical engineer or can quote one don’t make claims you can’t back up.

  • Casey

    So fake. Now if they had an 85mm f/1.2 shot at the same angle as all the other lenses…

    • Michael Vang

      Right on. That was just what I was gonna say too. All the lenses are faced at an angle except for the supposedly 85mm f/1.2 VR. 99.9% fake.

  • d40-owner

    lol… I just noticed that, I posted “first?” bu I was second to you.
    What did you do to NR-Admin, hem?

    • Yes, I am deleting those type of posts because it started to get out of control with first 2nd,3,4,5…..etc. There are many comments after each post anyway and some readers are trying to make sense of the provided information – comments like first, second, etc definitely won’t help. The rule has always been if something is not related to the discussed topic, it will be deleted. Personal attacks and profanity is also not allowed (Ron, your read that?). I have been very forgiving in the past but you know the day will come when I will have to turn the page. Just look at what happen to the CanonRumors blog – all of their comments are now redirected to their forum that requires registration (not a bad idea if you ask me).
      Please keep it clean everybody, otherwise I may have to do some changes as well (and I do not want to).

      • The invisible Man

        I 100% agree with you, and some of my comments don’t help neither.
        Deleting the “first, second, etc..” comments on a new post is a good idea but what about “last” in an old post, is that ok ?

        • nikkor_2

          “… what about “last” in an old post, is that ok ?”

          But, if your comment is last, ‘it’ has not begun; instead, ‘it’ has ended. If ‘it’ has ended, we are all sad.

          ‘It’ must be unending!

      • D40-owner

        Fair enough, NR-Admin.
        I will refrain from such posts.

      • It’s about time the elementary schoolchildren were booted out. Sorry, kids, come back when you have a job.

        (Sorry if I’ve maligned any mature elementary schoolers)

      • here are the rules for posting a comment on NR (from gizmodo):

        • For anyone who wants the bottom line of Admin’s Gizmodo link:

          These things will get you banned automatically—no warning necessary:

          * Commenting just to say “First!”
          * Comments with little more than LOL, LMAO, THIS, tl;dr, or equivalent
          * Repeated or multiple comments with nothing but an image
          * “Slow news day?” or equivalent
          * Graphic or disgusting images
          * Spam or malicious links
          * Revealing personal information (such as addresses, phone numbers, etc) of others

          Have to say, I particularly like the first one. That rule pretty much sorts the problem out ASAP.

          • and I should add one more: don’t ask me if there are any new rumors, if I have anything worth writing about, it will be online asap

  • thefunk

    I am holding out for the 1.1. I would buy one in an instant. Listen up Nikon.

  • thefunk

    I am holding out for the 1.1. I would buy it in an instant. Listen up Nikon.

    (I can’t believe any of my posts still stand)


    I Hope it comes with THE LIGHT LEAK OPTION !!!

    • The invisible Man

      Lol ! Best joke of the week ! Thanks !

      • GlobalGuy

        I am more interested in the “metal sparkles inside” and the “forward-backward focusing” models, like 70-200 VRII and 24-AFS-G. The 24-70 “light leak” is too pro of a feature for me. Maybe it can come with a “slip-off-never-stay-on cap” like the 14-24/2.8. Oh! I really hope that its as slow to focus as the 50/1.4-AFS.

        I would really hate to see Nikon make a perfect lens, it might ruin their reputation.

        • GlobalGuy

          (By the way, I love Nikon — nothing is perfect; its just teasing. Hopefully Quality Control/Assurance has thoroughly reviewed this lens, because it must be embarrassing, recently, for those guys. All of the lenses above are quite good.)

          • The invisible Man

            Actually sometime Nikon does make perfect lenses !

            My 105mm AF-S f/2.8 micro is the BEST lens I ever used, it is more than sharp (sharpest ?), the focus is fast and quiet, it is built like a German tank, it has NO distortion, the falloff is totally gone at f/4, the VR work very well, the body is short so it does not make shadows when used with the flash (important in macro photography).

            I think Nikon made a mistake selling that lens for only $800, I would have buy it even at $2000 !

            Of course I am very lucky to own a perfect one and with all the quality control issues Nikon have now you may not be able to get a “perfect” one.

  • Alex

    Why is NEW written in red for the 85mm f/1.2, yet the others say (NEW!) in black

  • Alex

    Why is NEW written in red for the 85mm f/1.2, yet the others say (NEW!) in black!!

    • Oh dear

      Because it’s made by Canon

  • SNRatio

    Why no 85/1.2 so far? I don’t think the mount is the biggest problem, I guess it is simply that Nikon takes the most important lens versions first. The 85/1.2 doesn’t give that much more than an 85/1.4 by itself. While another low seller, the 135/2 DC, uniquely fills a specialty function.

    But, if you look at the 50/1.4G AF-S, and the rumors of a non-ED 85/1.4G AF-S are true, you can get the idea that Nikon is making room for more costly top-of-the-line models here: the 50/1.2 and an 85/1.2. So, I think it will materialize in a few years. But Nikon is really stupid if they don’t come up with a new 300/2 first! 😉

  • Peter

    it has a cut in lens hood, these desings are used only in wideangel lesnes… this is 110% fake…

    • The invisible Man

      Most new Nikon pro lenses(any focales) have a “tulip” hood, more efficient (see comments bellow).

  • Anonymous

    WTF takes so long for this goddamn Nikon?

  • D800

    D800 is…..???

  • low

    built in hoodies??? grrrr

  • The invisible Man

    I just received the same infos form 2 of my Asian customers (already posted 2 weeks ago)
    D700 at $1995 at the end of August and D900 (not sure about the name) announced one week before photokina.
    Infos from Japan and South Korea.
    No new informations about the 3 sensors DSLR (probably not before 2011)
    I hope they are right about the D800/900, I can’t wait any longer !

  • cirtap

    Way back about 3 or 4 months ago..I was talking to some friendly folks at one of those places that sells Nikon’s & Canon’s…..I had the Canon People on one Side…and those Nikon’s on the other side….And you would truly think those people would know what is about to happen…. When both sides their peace…I came to the conclusion…..NO one knows Crap. Nikon people said that the new cameras were going to replace the D90 and D700.. one even said nothing above 12.1 MP…Which made my head spin…..

    Canon People were saying that their new cameras were going to be more high end up 1080p….and with nothing less than 16MP….Which truly has panned out.

    I still go into the same store..but they keep saying Nikon is about to drop 4 new cameras… And their new MP count is nothing below 14mp.

    When I asked them and they know me up there…cuz my camera is needing Oxygen and life support…WHEN? WHAT TYPE of DSLR…and so on..

    I need a new camera and I don’t want the D700..aint even thinking about D90…Not even a D300s…or EVEN the overpriced D3X…or the 12.1mp D3S….


  • zzddrr

    NR Admin, you do not have to post all the crap that is out there. I mean, I thought we’d learn by now that you can get anything from China ….

  • zzddrr

    Nr Admin, your site is fu_ked up again, it post comments all over the place and again, the same email issue back

  • Ren Kockwell

    Yeah, the forum is being wacky again for me, too. Instead of engaging speculation on interesting rumors, I’m just getting dudes nerding out about glass engineering! Fix it Admin!

  • d300

    I think that we’ll see a 35/1.4 and 85/1.2 🙂 This year is Nikons’ lens year.
    after 24-XXX/4VR there will only be 70-200/4 to wait for..

  • D700 (feels like F3)

    I wonder, why we need to discuss DOF at 10ft. I’ve got the 24 1,4 and I care about 2ft only – anything else is jus far away and and “play” with perspective is not leading to good results. For 85 I can see a need to have stunning portraits. Now my question: are you working at 10ft for a portrait? I’d assume many photographers get much closer i.e. 5ft.

    For the 85mm it is less relevant having a 1.2 then a 1.4 even if it is kind of “cool”. Image quality must be acceptable (at least!).

    to the other end: the 135 2.0 is also great – it is just a factor 1.5 … consider such lens with a fast focus and you’ll love it. The 85 is a lens being smaller, light weight comapred to 135, but it will never be as much exiting as a 24 or 35 1.4 …

    Anyone having similar thoughts?

  • Roger

    100% BS

  • Roger

    100% bullshit = 85/1.2. Not gonna happen, time to wake up guys.

  • Nikon 50mm f/1.2 AF-S G spotted in Romania!

    It’s so easy to create rumors like this. You only need Firebug :))

    • since nobody has seen this live online on the Chinese website, I agree that it is a fake

  • Back to top