Expected prices of upcoming Nikon lenses

Those are the expected prices of the rumored lenses from Nikon. Please note that the prices may vary in different countries and may not be 100% accurate due to the different exchange rates and price policies:

  • Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.4G N: around $1600
  • Nikkor 24-120 f/4 ED VR N – around $1300
  • Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR (or 28-300mm) – around $1000
  • Nikkor 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED VR DX - around $300
This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • The 24-120 would be a very interesting lens to me.

    • LGO

      As expected, the price for the 24-120mm is indeed close to the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4.0G VR N.

      What I am surprised is the price of the new 85mm f/1.4. The lower than expected price probably means that this lens does not have VR.

    • yes, please!

      • David Hasselblaff

        At our studio we recently bought a second 70-200 VRII and it seems Nikon has changed a few things with the latest production cycle. The zoom ring feels a bit different compared to the first model and a part inside the lens has a different color.

        • DarkNikon

          It is better? I am going to buy the new 70-200 and the 85 1.4 next.

        • Victor Hassleblood

          What is the color?

        • fxed

          As dumb a post as I have seen here. What feels better with the zoom ring, wider?, tighter?, and what was so bad with the zoom ring prior. A different color?, what color and what part? so what’s so different? Few = three you named two. Please don’t mislead the naive into thinking optics change.

    • injurytime

      same here … could be my next walkaround lens

    • Same here, will be great with 16-35mm.. wait.. it will be AF-S FX right?

    • peter

      Are you sure the last one isn’t more like $3,000.00? If it were just 300 I’d be so suspect of the quality of the lens I would not even consider buying it.

  • The 85mm seems reasonable—even low. It’s higher than I can probably pay in the near term, but compared to the 24mm, I’m surprised it’s so “inexpensive”.

    • Segura

      I agree, that lens seems pretty low. I think everyone is completely shocked how much more lenses are, especially the 24mm 1.4. I think Nikon is liking the new price point of $2000 – $2400 (24mm and 70-200mm) for high end pro, and $1800 for mid pro (14-24 and 24-70). I think $2000, or $2200 like the 24mm.
      The 18-200mm I still don’t think it is possible, and it will be more like $2000 if they make a 28-300mm.
      24-120mm VR, yeah I agree, but probably the same price and build quality as the 16-35mm
      55-300 DX . . . who cares.

      • John

        >mid pro (14-24 and 24-70).
        >mid pro
        >implying it’s not just a gift from the gods

        • >implying that implications of that sort have been made

    • Anonymous

      Well if you look at canon’s line up the 24 1.4 does cost more than the other primes in the 1.4 range. I hear that it’s more costly for them to make wider fast aperture lenses compared to more telephoto fast aperture lenses not including the 1.2s. If you look at it the suggested price is still about $400 more than the current nikon 85 1.4

      • Anonymous

        A 28-300 for $1,000 seems about right when compared to the price of the dx version.

        55-300 seems cheap so I doubt it’s optically any better than the 55-200. Shame.

        The rest seem about right.

        • Singapore

          Don’t judge the performance by the price

          • DigitEye

            maybe, but for this price performance must be absolutely high !!

    • Paul

      Yea, if only the 24mm f/1.4 AF-S was closer to $1600…

  • Rob

    an even better 85mm (with VR hehe) I think I found my reason not to buy the 24-70

    • Sam

      To be honest, the 24-70 isn’t that great. If you couple the 85 1.4 with the 50 1.4 and perhaps a nice wide angle lens, there is very little use for a 24-70.

      • Except for speed. I do miss the days of a dedicated 2Xmm-70mm range (since my 28-70 was stolen I’ve stuck with primes for that range). It definitely makes my occasional wedding painful during those critical moments when speed matters and I’m stuck switching the 50 to an 85, or resorting to the 17-35 if 50 is a touch too narrow.

        Other than that, the image quality, accuracy, sharpness and speed (f/1.4) of great primes trounces the zooms all the way.

        • 35f2 on pro body is faster in low light and same in good light then 24-70

          • *faster focusing*

            • And speed as in not having to switch lenses all the time.

            • fix for it is called walking. try it. 🙂
              Zooming changes not only framing, but also perspective and DOF. You need to think too much about technical details when using zooms (unless you are of course snapshoting and not care about such things).

            • Zooming does *not* change the composition. Walking around, or even closer/further away does. It alters the relative position and size of objects in the scene. This is why the often stated “fact” that you can replace a zoom with primes and walking is not correct. And before all prime shooters set off to get me, note that I am not contesting any other claims, e.g., more light, less weight, etc. Just the myth that you can shoot the same photo with focal length x as with a focal length y but from another spot. You cannot. Having a zoom gives you one extra variable, which is the focal length.

              Just how does zooming change perspective? Perspective is the way objects further away appear smaller than those closer and parallel lines seem to converge to one point. Zooming does not change that. But walking around changes the effect of perspective.

            • Anon

              focal length does not change perspective? are you serious? There is a reason why people don’t use an 18mm focal length for typical portrait shots.
              someone needs to go back to photography 101.

            • The invisible Man

              Alfred Hitchcok was using that trick in his movie, the camera is moving backward/forward and simultaneously the zoom is moving on the opposite direction.
              Fantastic effect !

            • Victor Hassleblood


              I am not much of a zooming guy either, but you must admit that VeronikaB has a valid point here. And BTW, walking around does not only change the perspective to what you’ve seen before from another spot, it’s also quite funny to imagine you running around like mad on one of your Hochzeiten and spoiling it … on top of it coming late to every shot and situation you could have captured with a zoom. Fred Fast Feet, the furious fedding-fotograffer. This is quite good fun actually.

            • iamlucky13

              @ Anon

              Veronika is correct. Most people don’t use an 18mm for portraits because they don’t want to frame so wide. The alternative is getting closer to tighten up the framing, but when you do that, it’s the distance that alters the perspective, not the focal length. Veronika is trying to drive home the point that these are distinct elements of composition.

          • This is precisely what I am talking about. Dolly zoom effect is achieved by *moving* the camera. Moving the camera changes the composition. Hence my comment that you cannot shoot the same shot with focal length x from point A and with focal length y from point B.

            (The invisible man, I agree the effect is fantastic.)

            • All good and well, but if you’re shooting a wedding you need speed. You can’t ask for a bit of time during the exchange of the rings for example, just because you need to change your prime lenses. Of course you can move around on your feet but you can’t shoot an entire day just using your 50mm…..

            • @VeronicaB is correct. And that is exactly what I am talking about. Cesar has some great points as well.

              The fact of the matter is that when you’re on a wedding, you’re in the trenches. There are times when, especially depending on your style, you need a few zooms to get the shots you want in the time you’re given. The time to change a 50mm to a 28mm or an 85mm can mean the difference between getting the shot and losing it.

          • Speaking of speed in getting the proper framing, not speed as in light gathering capabilities of the lens. There are definite advantages of quickness when using a zoom compared to primes, especially if you are in a setting where you cannot get back far enough for a longer prime, and don’t want the distortion of a shorter one.

            Of course, primes are better in many aspects, as I stated above.

      • I Am Nikon

        Nikon’s top primes will always be faster and sharper than the 24-70 f/2.8. It’s just that the 24-70 is more convenient to use on some if not most occasions than primes do.

        • me is nikon

          no way in heck.

          my 24-70 is sharper than the 35f2 hands down.

          it rivals even the 50f1.4

          and not to mention it looks bad ass on a camera too.

          • PHB

            The 35mm f/2 is an ancient design from the days when the lenses were designed with sticky tape arrows on a piece of card.

            Nikon pretty much abandoned primes because their CAD developed zooms were better. They have only returned to them now because Canon have proved that there is still market demand and the new high ISO cameras make larger apertures more interesting. It is now practical to use a fast prime and a D3 and go without flash in a large number of cases where flash was once essential.

            There will still be a need for supplemental lighting, but I think that strobe lighting is now on its way out except for cases where you really need to stop motion at 1/50,000th /sec. The LED lights don’t put out quite as much power, and their peak power is much less, but they can provide continuous illumination for a sustained period.

          • Roger

            he said top primes. 35/2 and 50/1.4 are crappy primes.

            • ErikM

              This thread keeps getting dumber and dumber.

      • GlobalGuy

        WRONG — the 24-70 is very great. And much better, in my mind, than the 50.1.4, which has a really boring perspective and rarely suited to outdoors or indoors. The 24-35 is critical. And the 70 is just barely there, but gets you there. If there was a 24-85/2.8 VR at the same quality, it would be amazing to have.

        • GlobalGuy

          By the way, my point is about the boringness of the 50 — it cannot replace the art you are able to generate with the 24-70. The 85, however, is quite nice. I just personally hate the 50.

          • Eric

            You know a lens doesn’t have a perspective, do you?

            • Anon

              you know focal length changes perspective, don’t you? ever try shooting a 18mm for portrait?
              go back to photography 101

            • Eric is correct, Anon is mistaken. Working distance changes perspective, focal length does not. Focal length generally *dictates* working distance, hence the confusion.

              Shot A: Shoot a subject with a 50mm lens, filling the frame almost entirely. A 3/4 length portrait works well (use a nice, wide aperture for all of these shots, so everything is somewhat in focus).

              Shot B: Now shoot the same subject from the same distance with a 24mm lens and crop down to the same field of view as the 50mm shot.

              Shot C: Now shoot the same subject, *again* with the 24mm lens, but get close enough that the subject fills the frame as they did in Shot A.

              Shots A and B will be identical in terms of perspective, albiet with much lower resolution on Shot B. Shots A and C will have different perspective (subject/background compression/expansion), due to the different working distances.

            • martin

              Focal length dosent change perspective. Moving dose. Read this, http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread266.htm I havent read the whole thread but it seems like the poster got the idea

            • preston

              To Anon – please stop being childish and telling people to go back to photography 101. Every architectural photographer (a field in which perspective is critical) knows that focal length does NOT change perspective. The reason you wouldn’t shoot portraits with an 18mm is because you would need to MOVE IN TOO CLOSE to the subject in able to frame the shot properly. Therefore, the elongated effect that appears to be caused by the lens is actually created by you being (walking) too close to the subject. As proof, try making a portrait with an 85mm lens from the same distance from the subject that you would have with the 18mm (this will require stitching several shots together). I guarantee you will get the same perspective with both lens, meaning that focal length is does NOT affect perspective.

          • I’ve got a friend that ran didn’t take the 50 1.4 off of his D700 for over a year. Not once! He may disagree w/ you on your take on the “boringness” of the 50.

            Personally, I love the 50 now that it’s not on a DX cam. I hated it then/wouldn’t use it. The 85 was nice. Now that I’m full frame, I don’t care for 85mm whatsoever. There’s not a cell in my body that cares for the upcoming 85mm announcement. If I were mainly shooting w/ my D300, then I might have my interest piqued.

            So personally, I’m the exact opposite of you in feelings regarding the 50 & 85 focal lengths. Interesting world we live in.

            • I think the reason some people find the 50mm boring (especially on DX) is due to the fact that it fits so nicely in the range of what humans would consider a “normal” focal range, similar to what we see with our eyes. In fact, my 50mm on a D300s is dang near identical to what my own naked eye sees in regard to magnification. Instead, 28mm and 85mm lenses tend to show a greater extreme from what we naturally see, and therefore look more exotic to the human eye.

              I’ll disagree with the notion that the 50mm is a boring lens. It is indeed a very normal lens, and many could (and do) mistake that for boring. But it isn’t boring at all. It isn’t exotic right out of the box, and therefore requires the photographer to really think about and design his shots to become interesting, whereas the more extreme focal lengths will automatically do a great deal of that for the photographer.

              If you ever want to see how good of a photographer you really are, or challenge yourself and your craft, superglue a 50mm to your camera and don’t take it off until you are consistently impressing yourself and others. THEN go to the more extreme focal lengths, and you’ll be amazed at how much better of a photographer you’ve become.

              ***Don’t ever take anyone else’s advice—certainly not mine—when it comes to any camera gear and superglue.***

          • The invisible Man

            The 50mm is boring because it have the human’ vue angle.

            • Victor Hassleblood

              Oh yes, human, this is really boring.

              I would agree with the as disagreeing predicted pal of fried toast. When I started photography as a young teen (which is a quarter of century from now) all I had for my first year was one SLR and a 50mm. This really brings you back to focus on a subject and how to picture it and further more, it brings you back to “what do I want to say with my pic”.

              Really boring are these “Oh look, I’ve used an extreme wide angle to do landscape or architecture” shots. Even worse are these “Look, I have an extreme tele lens” shots. Unless you really know what to do with it, every lens is just plain boring. If the main content of a pic is, that it was taken with a certain focal length, doing certain things differently to the human eye, then the picture says just nothing.

              Everybody can attach this or that lens to a camera. What’s the big deal? Very few people actually really know how to use it.

            • The invisible Man

              @Victor Hassleblood

              The reason why 25 years ago the SLR were sold with a 50mm it’s because it’s easy and cheap to make a 50mm (the optical formula is very simple).

              I’ve been using the 50mm for many years and yes, I find that lens boring, but that’s just my opinion, thanks God I live in USA where everyone can have differents tastes !
              My favorite lenses are the 35mm, the 105mm and the 180mm.
              I also like the 50mm but when it’s mount on a DX camera !

            • Joe R.

              If it’s boring it’s your fault.

            • Bob

              Boring is what boring does. To see what a person with visual talent can do, check out the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson.

            • The invisible Man

              @ Bob
              I don’t need to look at Henri Cartier-Bresson’s pictures ! I can look at mines !

              Funny how everybody refers to him when it’s about the use of the 50mm lens, I guess he must be the only photographer to use it !

              I don’t really care of what people think about my photographic talents, as long I like what I do, as long my customers like my work I’ll be fine.

              No offence to anybody but I wonder how you guys can juge others’s talents without even seen what they do .

              Even if I’m graduated in photography (optic, laboratory and studio) does not mean that my pictures are great.

              I don’t juge people’s work without seen it.

            • @The Invisible Man: That brings up an interesting point: I would be thrilled if everyone commenting on this site would list their website with examples of their work. I think it’s only fair to state that this one thing can greatly alter a persons credibility when posting to forums like this, and sadly, probably a reason why some of the more outspoken naysayers have declined to share their work with the rest of us.

      • 24-70 isn’t that great? LOL!

        • Tom Parker

          People who say the 24-70 isn’t any good have either never tried it or can’t afford it.

          • The invisible Man

            Or bought a lemon…

      • The invisible Man

        Well, I see that the war between zooms and primes is still going on !

        2 years ago I was working with primes lenses only;
        18mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f2.0, 50mm f/1.8, 105mm micro f/2.8, 180mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4.

        Add 2 bodies, the flash, accessories, and you have a backpack who weight a ton ! (reason why I still look good at my age !)

        I tried the 28-70mm f/2.8 Tamron for few months and I was very happy with the convenience and the quality of the lens, so I ordered my Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S
        Well, I was a little disapointed by that lens, the zooming ring was not smooth, the focusing ring make noise, and the distortion at 24mm is clearly visible.
        I admitt that it’s more convenient than primes lenses (but I also gain 2 lbs of fat !).
        And few weeks ago I noticed that the lens was acting like a variolens (that zoom is suppose to be a “true zoom” parfocale).

        I called Nikon technical support and a guy from “India-Africa-China-Brazil” told me that it was normal to re-focus everytime I change the focale !

        So I called Nikon corporate and they told me to send the lens back.
        It’s now 15 days since I sent the lens and the zoom is in “repair shop” for a B2 (moderate repair with major parts replacement).

        For $1800 I could have buy few more prime lenses…….

        • We’ve all had bad copies of a lens. I’ve had a few primes that aren’t great. Then again, there are those of us who have had spectacular copies, like when I briefly owned my 17-55mm 2.8 that was so sharp it literally caused my sensor to wig out with a type of artifacting I’ve never seen before or since. That lens had so much acuity it blew my mind. Too bad I only owned it for a week or so, as it was a DX lens on a 1.3x crop sensor (Kodak DCS760). I thought I could live with it—I wanted to because it was so sharp—but in the end I had to give it up for the softer 17-35mm 2.8. That was a sad day.


    my thoughts too. Keep an eye on the new Sigma 85mm 1.4 HSM prime, this will be something for sure.

  • Kevin

    I wonder how the 55-300 will be like at 300mm compared with my 70-300

    • Anonymous

      I was thinking about the same thing, but if you compare the 55-200 to the 70-300, the 70-300 is better everywhere and that is reflected in the relative prices. So if the 55-300 is cheap like the 55-200, it’s gonna be really soft at 300 with lots of CA. Probably slightly better at 200 than the current 55-200, but still not as good at 200 or 300 as the 70-300. I expect it’s a budget & lighter option but not as good as the 70-300. But if NR is wrong and the lens will exist alongside the 55-200 as a better and more expensive option then who knows ? I think it won’t and Nikon have done this to go one up on Canon’s 50-250. So nothing to get excited about for me….

      • iamlucky13

        I don’t imagine the 55-300 and 55-200 being on the market at the same time. It’s a lot of products to push at consumers.

        I think it’s rather a case of consumers wanting as much telephoto as they can get for cheap and being drawn to 3rd parties since the basic specs are usually better. Most who will be buying this lens won’t care to make an extremely close scrutiny of its quality, but 50% longer focal length will give many of them a fair amount of added value for the extra 20% in cost.

        The 70-300 will undoubtedly still have better image quality, and perhaps as importantly, continue to be *the* lightweight, inexpensive FX telephoto lens.

  • Bob

    previously, I am looking forward to 24-120 VR.
    Now I have more interest for the 18-200, it’s more valuable compare to the 28-300, I think..
    and for the price, i think all these lens are reasonable.

  • Ivan

    The 18-200 with VR at $1000 will be vary very attractive to replace my 18-35 & 24-85

  • 85G will be 2k lens almost for sure

  • It’s a shame the 24-120 will cost that much. It’s supposed to be the D700 kit lens?That’s not the price of a kit lens.

    • JED

      And hopefully it does not perform like a kit lens either….

      • Aaron

        To be fair, though, there’s about a 50% chance it’ll be pretty damn sharp.
        Kit lens(es):
        18-55 (VR) = sharp
        18-70 = sharp
        18-105 = soft
        18-135 = sharp
        18-200 = soft
        24-120 = soft

        3 sharp, 3 soft. All relatively speaking, but the 18-55s and 18-70 are incredibly sharp for their price.

        • Yeah I used the 18-70 a long time with lots of success. I hoped the 24-120 would be like that: a cheap performer.

        • Joe R.

          My 55-200 was as sharp as my 18-55 VRII is. It’s cheap plastic so it needs to be at f/8 to be sharp but there, it is extremely sharp.

          I suspect the type of person buying a 55-200 doesn’t know much about when to use VR and when to use a tripod and such. I kept my 18-55 for my light-weight photo walk kit. I got rid of the 55-200 after I got my 100-300 f/4 and i miss it terribly.

          There’s something to be said for sharp-when-stopped-down light-weight plastic lenses.

    • Drew

      I don’t think anyone confirmed the 24-120 as a kit lens. Sounds around the pricing that Nikon would put considering that Canon’s 24-105mm f/4 L is over a $1000 also. I wonder what the build quality will be like though.

      • PHB

        It certainly isn’t a kit lens for a $2400 D700 at that price.

        Nikon does not do kits on its professional cameras, but they do do bundles from time to time which amounts to the same thing. I got my D300 bundled with an 18-200VR which I immediately sold as I already got one.

        Nikon does not do things in a logical order necessarily. The last time they had a camera/lens launch that really made sense was the 14-24 with the D3. They launch DX lenses with FX cameras and vice versa.

        If the rumors of the D90 becoming less plastic are true, there might be a similar model D700 in the works.

    • LGO

      If the 24-120mm performs as good as the 16-35mm f/4, then the price for this lens is not just reasonable, but I would consider it as a great buy.

      A perspective on what I mean that the 16-35mm f/4.0 is good: I have a 14-24mm f/2.8 and used to own a 17-35mm f/2.8. I sold the 17-35mm which I sold 3 months after I got the 16-35mm.

    • Jose

      Cesar the current 24-120 is not a good lenses according reviews you will find on the web, I hope this new version fix the problem of the old one.

      • For that price I pretty darn hope so!

  • psychophoto

    18-200 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR… now with a price tag of $1000… is this for real?

    • pulu

      it’s going to be 28-300. it can’t possibly be 18-200 fx *and* only $1000.

      • PHB

        24-300 or 28-300 would make a lot more sense than 18-200.

        A 24-300 at $1000 would be very attractive to the much more numerous DX photographers. Paired with a 10-24 you have complete coverage of the FX equivalent of 14-450 and you have the option of using it with an FX body at a later date.

        Its the same story for the FX purchaser. 18-200 is a really useful range on DX, but on FX the challenge is at the long end, not the short. A 24-300 would fit in to the range much better. If I ever buy an FX camera it will be for the 14-24 or some other superlative ultra-wide that beats my 10-24 DX. I cannot see an 18-200 FX doing that.

        Making a 18mm f/3.5 cover the FX frame would be very difficult. Making a 24mm f/3.5 is not such a stretch. There have already been plenty of 300mm f/5.6 FX lenses. It might only manage 28mm at the wide end, but 24 would seem more likely given the rest of the Nikon range.

        A 24-300 FX lens would be an ‘FX version of the 18-200’. Extrapolating from the price differential (60% markup on the DX) it is precisely the same price ratio to the 18-200 as the D700 is to the D300s.

    • nau

      a bit to low for something like that (if it is) its one of a kind and it its not complete sh!t they can push the whole idea of cheap-FX body (due soon) and this lens

  • f-stop

    no way the 85 will be less then 2k!..

    • Roger


  • nobody

    Those prices seem reasonable, provided that the 18-200 is actually a 28-300 consumer zoom. I like the 24-120, finally a standard zoom for my D700 🙂

    But still no affordable long lens! No 300mm f4 VR, no 80-400 AF-S. Wouldn’t these lenses make more money for Nikon than a $300 55-300mm DX? I don’t get it!

  • @Admin:
    How do you get those prices? Are these just your speculations or do you have them from a reliable source? It seems a bit strange to me that the (street or catalog?) prices are already out but it’s not even sure those lenses will be released in the near future.

    • Anyway: If the 85mm f/1.4 has VR and will cost “only” $1600 it’s a no-brainer to me. I will definitely buy it!

    • Markus

      I also would be careful to mention these prices, not to create any false expectations…otherwise we get those posts “I thought that it only would cost…etc”

    • The prices are are not very reliable because of exchange rates and different price levels in different countries, this is why I did not add any ratings, but the general price range should be right.

  • Myst

    18-200 is nearly impossible for Full Frame and for it to be 1000$ it is surely impossible. You have to be mad to try and make a 18-200 for full frame, it’s performance would be sub par because of it’s design and it’s size would be huge.
    it will be a 28-300mm lens which shoud be around 1.3 kg.

  • Chris P

    If the prices are reasonably accurate then the 24-120 will be about £1,000 here in the UK. Hopefully this means that it will be of a similar optical/mechanical quality to the 16-35 f4, usable, due to distortion/aberations wide open, stopped down a bit between 24-28 & 105-120 and absolutely cracking between 28-105 where I would be using it most.

  • Anonymous

    There prices seems a bit off, and the lenses listed are a bit weird.

    What’s the point of 55-300, when you have 70-300 that works well at the given price? and also 18-200 on FX doesnt sound right.

    I also think that 85 1.4N will be close to 2k.

    • PHB

      55-300 makes perfect sense to me as the standard kit lenses on a D5000 are 18-55 and 55-200. The 55-300 is positioned as a replacement for the 55-200, either for people who bought a one lens kit or as a new kit.

      The other way to address this would be to have a kit with an 18-70 and a 70-300. But that would require both lenses to be bigger and heavier than today and allow much less flexibility.

      This is going to be a cheap, mass production lens sold by the million. Expect more copies sold than the rest of the new lenses put together.

      • ffip

        Agree. It is a much needed telephoto zoom for DX users. Nikon has produced a few inexpensive lenses with more-than-acceptable image qI have a D90 with the 18-105VR as kit lens. I was thinking of buying the 55-200VR DX but soon decided that its range overlapped too much with 18-105. So I bought 70-300VR not without some hesitation as it was significantly heavier than 55-200.

      • ffip

        Agree. It is a much needed telephoto zoom for DX users. Nikon has produced a few inexpensive lenses with more-than-acceptable image quality. The 55-200 VR DX is one of them. But it is not telephoto enough. I have a D90 with the 18-105VR as kit lens. I was thinking of buying the 55-200 but soon decided that its range overlapped too much with 18-105. So I bought 70-300VR not without some hesitation as it was significantly heavier than 55-200 and the wider side is still too “telephoto.” Now if it goes to 300 I have no more reason to keep the 70-300.

  • Anonymous

    The 55-300 sounds awfully similar to the Pentax equivalent… Wonder if they’re the same lens? The Pentax one is highly regarded for a consumer level lens, with much contrast due to the relatively simple lens formula. It’s just known to be a touch softer past 250mm, but otherwise a great range for a DX camera… D90 replacement dual kit lens?

  • Yes Nikon!
    We need more of the XX-200, XX-300 cheap tele zoom lenses! We don’t have enough of them.
    Just be sure not to update tele primes like 200/2.8, 300/4.0!

    • Jesus


  • We need more of the X-200, X-300 cheap tele zoom lenses! We don’t have enough of them.
    Just be sure not to update tele primes like 200/2.8, 300/4.0!

  • Zupi

    Are you people serious???

    18-200 FX???

    That is like 1000000000000% fake, that lens would weight 2kg+ and cost 2.000$+ so nobody would buy it, hence nobody is making these, it will hapen NEVER

    • plausible if they will market it as DX+FX where only on DX it would do 18-28 or select autocrop on those lengths on FX. Or if it is for 1.3x crop new format lens (or for mirrorless system).
      nikon quite often made such weird stuffs in their lifetime. Quality will be bad, so i dont care, but lot people will do.

  • xavi

    An expected price for a rumoured lens???

    • Discontinued

      That question did hit me too.

      Guess tomorrow these lenses just
      materialize and drop from the monitor
      directly onto my desk. Hope they won’t break.

      • For those prices, they should have decent build quality. Wouldn’t expect much breakage. Well, depending on how far onto your desk they’re dropping, that is.

  • John

    I really am flabbergasted that someone still really thinks 18-200 FX could be possible. And now it even has a price?!

    Nothing in that video pointed that there would be a 18-200FX. He was talking about something equivalent than the 18-200DX is.

    Admin, this kind of nonsense compromises this sites credibility. It really does.

    • Parci

      I have to agree with the 18-200 FX hurting the site’s credibility, especially, because opposed to other rumor sites, NR usually does a lot better not posting every BS, analyzing the information etc.

      18-200 FX just doesn’t make any sense in any way. Possible (everything is possible), but doesn’t make sense. 28-200 does and there have been 2 versions of that lens already and is only a simple typo from 18-200. 28-300 also makes sense of course.

      • nobody

        A 28-200 or 28-300 would make sense with a lower cost FX camera, say an FX D90 variant. And it would make sense especially for video.

        So this fits well with the rumour that a 5DII competitor (below D700 level) may be coming at Photokina.

        • Joe R.

          Maybe it’ll be a D900 and serve as a D90 FX and a D700 upgrade.

    • pete

      x2. ridiculous to the point of utter stupidity.

      the 85/1.4 will be around the $2k mark; if you add VR its gonna be around 2200.
      1600 ? you’re dreaming. the pricing of the new 70-200 and 24/1.4 should be giving you guys good indications of new lens pricing. but i suppose it helps your hitrate cos all the whiners will be here complaining about how its too expensive. lol

      • fork()

        A new 85mm is an incremental upgrade, a 24mm required a lot of R&D, hence a higher price. For $1600 the 85 1.4 seems to be without VR, and is a very reasonable price for this type of lens.

        See, you don’t just buy the raw material when you get your $2000+ 24/1.4, you also pay the thousands of man-hours invested in designing it from scratch.

        • fork()

          Oh yeah, and the 70-200 f/2.8 is a monster of complexity (and VR) compared to the prime 85/1.4

      • I would not compare the 85mm to the price point of the 24 1.4.

        With the canon 85 1.2 selling for only $200-300 more than the 1600 price point and the sigma 85mm 1.4 selling for $700 less (and has a very nice mtf), I see no justification to buying nikon on this product at that price.
        300 less and i might change my mind.

        the other 3 lens look to be price nicely. even if non are on my short list of needed lens.

    • The lens could be 28-300mm – I just don’t know 100% yet. I am gathering this information from different places and some of it could be lost in translation as well. I am trying to find out the real focal length. I will add 28-300 in the lens listing above.

      • venancio

        hi, while you’re at it (specs verification and pricing), maybe you could add the weight of each item so that the techie readers/evaluators can also analyze whether they’re looking at semi plastic bodies, composite material, or breakthrough in cheaper metallic mechanisms…
        thanks admin…

      • Rodrigo

        Admin, do you know which is AF-S apart from the 85?

        • all of the lenses are AF-S, I think it is safe to say that all future lenses from Nikon will be AF-S

        • Roger

          every Nikkor now is AF-S. there will never again be another autofocusing lens without AF-S

  • Anonymous

    not that neither of these lenses are/will be high money makers, but don’t you guys think the 55-300 will sort of kill sales of the 70-300. pretty equivalent range. same aperture. MOST people buying full frame aren’t going to bother with the 70-300 so in that case we can consider both working for the DX market. The better optical perfomance, probably marginal, of the 70-300 won’t entice general consumers to spend almost twice as much, assuming the 55-300 will be $300. i dunno. what do you guys think?

    • Anonymous

      I think the 70-300vr will be discontinued soon..

      we already seen 16-35 f/4, after 24-120 f/4 comes out…
      I would guess there will be a 70-200/f4 in the future and priced about the same as 16-35 f/4 and 24-120 f/4, but the current 70-300vr cost only half of it….

      so the 70-300vr has to be discontinued in order not to interfere the sales volume of the 70-200 f/4

      • Jose

        Sorry, but i am not agree with you 70-300 means 105-450 in a dx, more rnage than 55-300. otherwise you can not use 55-300 in fx body

        70-300 is designed for d700 owner relative good performance (according reviews) an low cost.

        • Anonymous

          55-300mm is ~80-450mm on DX body as well… DX crop factor happens on ALL lens, not just full frame lenses. 14-24 is still wider on FX bodies than the 10-24 on DX bodies. so i’m not understanding your idea of 70-300 has more range. Yes the 70-300 works on FX, but honestly, If i had the money to buy an FX camera, I would buy a faster lens first, then save again buy FX body after. I would think most people think this way. Lenses are always more important than bodies.

          • Jose

            I am not sure about your first comment, if you see the lense behind, you will see a small windows compare with a FX lenses DX range supouse to be corrected, regarding 70-300 is too cheap for FX owner, agree if you have 6000 bucks camera but no agree if you have d700

            • Anonymous

              I would buy a d300 and 70-200 vrII or 300mm f4 before buying a d700 and 70-300… much rather have faster glass than high iso.. faster glass you don’t need the high ISO as much plus typically have better bokeh.

              but yes crop factor ALWAYS takes place when dealing with a DX body. An 18mm lens and an 18mm lens have same field of view on a dx camera… equiv of 27mm.. but a 18mm dx on a full frame will have 18mm field of view, but with blacked out corners.

              Exmaple 18-200DX has 8 degree view angle at 200mm. 70-200 2.8 full frame lens on also has 8 degree view angle at 200mm on dx body. same crap factor.. both types of lenses.

            • Anonymous

              correction.. “crop factor”.. not “crap factor”

  • SNRatio

    These prices fit well with the overall picture. The 85/1.4 will probably use non-ED and one aspherical element (Canon 85/1.2 has also one apsherical element), and, traditionally, Nikon’s lens pricing has reflected the components and the build. And they would rather be somewhat cheaper than Canon on important medium/high volume pieces of gear, than more expensive. Expensive glass is often listed as a minus point for Nikon in comparisons. And still, this leaves room for a $2300 85/1.2 super-cream-machine some time in the future.

    The 24-120/4 will have pro build, and they place it at about the same level as the Canon 24-105/4 – quite reasonable.

    It it is for real, both lens and price, the 18-200 pricing tells an interesting story. Nikon wants to send a message here, and very likely, they will be heard. If they can place the new enthusiast FX body with 18-200 “kit” at around $3000, they will have an extremely attractive and competitive package.

    • Roger

      I dont think Nikon will ever bother with 85/1.2. Why would they? So they can compete with Canon in a dick measuring contest? 🙂

      Just give us the best possible Nikkor 85mm F/1.4 AF-S and everyone’s happy.

  • Johan

    I understand that FX users would like an upgrade of the fast primes but there is no need to rack down on the 55-300 VR it will be great for DX users who do not feel like lugging around on a fat 70-300 VR made for FX. And the 15 mm in the wide end makes a lot of difference. The 55-200 VR has superb performance for the price and is a joy to work with because of the light weight. Outdoors I often use it instead of the 70-200 for that very reason. Of course it can not match the IQ, AF etc of more expensive lenses but my 55-200 is better than 18-200 across the entire range they share.

    Extending it to 300 without making the lens to heavy or inferior optically would be a great boost. 80-450 mm (35 mm equivalent) will be great to have in a portable format.

    Otherwise most of these lenses look interesting for my coming d700. But 18-200 FX???

  • D700 (feels like F3)

    relax – the 24-120 and the 85 will be very attractive – te other ones are perferct to generate rumors, but will unlikely be the lens selling easily.

  • Bobby

    I would have to agree with fork() on this one. $2000+ for the 85 1.4 is starting to reach the 85 1.2 range. I think the new 1.4 will probably range between 1600 and 1900 depending if there is VR or not.

    1.) If you compare the old 70-200 and VR2 there was about a increase of 500 over the current price for a new VR1 at the time of launch.

    2).Plus wider fast primes tend to be more expensive at least looking at the canon lens lineup…. 24 1.4 $ > 35 1.4 $ >= 85 1.4? $ (again just speculating based on Nikon’s current pricing of their 85 1.4)

  • Nikon Boy

    with these prices I just can not afford being a Nikon user =\

    • Well, if you truly are just a boy, then start learning to budget your money. Work more.

      Where there’s a will, there is a way. If these prices were impossible, no one would be buying them and Nikon would either go out of business or lower the prices until people starting buying them.

    • Roger

      if you cant afford those prices, you cant afford Canon prices either.

  • Anon

    ugh, i was hoping for a cheap f1.8 wide angle prime option for dx shooters, like 24mm

    • AG

      Keep hoping… but don’t expect any new lenses for DX…

  • me is nikon

    are those prices costco prices?

  • Matt

    Better rename
    ■Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR (or 28-300mm)
    ■Nikkor 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR (rumored as 18-200mm)

    18-200 is not going to happen!

  • AG

    1600$ for the 85/14? I’m starting to believe that Nikon’s marketing dep is smoking too much grass….

  • Mike

    The 85 mm price sounds reasonable. As noted above, the 24 was designed from scratch. It is also harder to correct for wide angle distortion the further away from 50 you get. 85 mm doesn’t have much distortion to contend with. Which shows how amazing the 14-24 is. It truly is an example of great optical engineering. Look at Sigma’s 28, 24, 20 f/1.8’s. They get more expensive as they get wider. I don’t think the new 85 will cross the $1800 line.

  • hah

    looks too cheap to me. the 85 should be around 2k and the f/4 zoom around 1.5k. The price will off course reflect the image quality and be the best 85 and f/4 zoom you can get for full frame cameras on any brand.

    • puh

      Not if Nikon is planning to compete…. because right now Nikon prices are delusional for the most part…

    • Drew

      I wonder why $1.6K is too cheap for the new 85mm? The current one runs around $1.3K or so. Granted the new lens would command a higher price being new, having nano coating and AF-S but definitely I would be happier if Nikon didn’t make it more expensive. Or maybe I am being naively optimistic….

      • Remember the rumor that Nikon was ready to release the 85 1.4 but then Sigma released their version and Nikon had to make some adjustments (especially the MTF caused some waves):


        The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is priced @ $899 in the US:

        maybe that’s why Nikon decided to keep the price down.

        • LGO

          Horaaaay for Sigma!

        • Bob

          Actually, if Sigma is pricing their lens at $900, Nikon will surely price their lens at over $2K.

          But, I don’t think Nikon cares what Sigma is doing–it’s a different part of the market. Sigma already has a 24mm f/1.8, but Nikon priced their lens significantly higher.

          Sigma is going for those users that don’t/can’t spend the money for the Nikon original–who will then wind up selling the lens for significant discount, and buy the Nikon version (been there, done that, also noted by Thom Hogan). Sigma’s QC is variable–their 85mm might be good, but you may have to go through a boxful to find one that measures up. MFT’s don’t mean much, unless you shoot MFT charts–it’s like the smart kids at school that tested well, but never succeeded in the real world. If MFT’s were important, some Leica and Carl Zeiss lenses, which don’t measure well but draw beautifully, should technically be dismissed.

  • The Man from Mandrem

    Is the target market for an 18-200 mainly DX? Great if they have a new version of that lense (if it’s better) If as someone said it has some range for FX I can imagine it being marketed as an FX lense. The price point is consistent with this.

    On the other hand alot of people buy BMWs, Mercedes, Aston Martins, and Porches and drive them like my grandma (and buy Bose stereo systems) so there may be a big market for a convenient but compromised lense for the “top of the line” camera bodies. All you need is Ken Rockwell to give it stunning praise (warranted or not) and it’s on it’s way to stardom…

  • Anonymous

    doesnt really matter. you wont be able to get one anyway.
    has anyone actually bought a 24mm 1.4G yet?

    • SimonC

      Yes, I bought mine. A 2nd shipment arrive in North America a few weeks ago. This batch is good – no reports of any AF issues so far.

  • JMan Ral

    I take it the 55-300 VR being only $300 an introduction almost assures that it will be a plastic mount lens. That’s a shame, I really want something like a 55-250/300 VR, metal mount, non-rotating front element. Introductory price would probably be like $400 and drop to $350 after a few months. However, it like like they probably just gave us an extra 100mm, same rotating front element, same plastic mount. That’s a shame. Anyone think this is could still be a 52mm filter thread?

    • Char

      300/5.6 = 53.6. You think that this will be a 52mm filter thread?

      A lens very close to what you want already exists, it is called 70-300 VR, but some people will just never stop whining. Good thing we have the internet.

  • nikobe

    i don’t think 28-300mm will cost less than $2000. canon’s version is well over $2000. if it turns out to be 18-200 fx, it will cost a lot more than $1000.

  • John

    Lets hope the 24-120/4 AFS VR N is not a huge behemoth of a lens (mostly length) – Nikon seems to be making lenses larger and larger to the point that the “carry around” lens is not very nice to carry around.
    My hope is that with a mirror-less system the length of these lenses can be reduced substantially.

    Also, it would be nice for the price of some of these lenses to not be into the stratosphere so that some of us advanced amateurs that want to go FX can actually afford something more than just the camera body!


  • R

    If you compare the rumoured 85 f/1.4 at $1600 to the 105 2.8 VR, the 85 is not that cheap. If you say 2k is more realistic for this lens and Nikon feels it can realistically charge it, they will. The 105 is a good prime with a wide aperture (albeit not 1.4) with great glass, AF-S, VR and Nano coating. Does a new 84 f/1.4 really have to cost that much more? Think about it. Where are the additional manufacturing costs beyond the 2.8 to 1.4 glass? There may be a market to charge more (clearly the responses here indicate this) but I suspect that this would mean only bigger margins for Nikon.

    • Shasta_D

      Another aspect to think of when looking at how Nikon prices these new lenses is the expected demand and production capacity. The 85 will be in much higher demand than the 105 and thus they could price it higher to make more profit. I don’t like it but that is the market.

    • Roger

      here’s a hint – 85/1.4 and a 105/2.8 VR 1:1 Macro HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON.

  • Brian

    The lens rumors make me thing a entry level fx body might be coming.

    Thinking of the lineup in terms of kit lens combos:
    d5000 18-200vr or 18-55vr+55-300vr
    d90/d300 replacement (top end dx model) 18-200vr or 16-85vr+70-300mm vr
    (17-55dx discontinued and turned into high $$$ collectable model on ebay (i own one 🙂 )
    budget fx model 28-300vr
    d700 replacement 28-300vr or 24-70

    + primes for the hardcore users 🙂

  • Noob

    Why is it that the 70-300 is selling for around $500 and the 55-300 coming out is $300?

    • Johnny

      70-300 = FX so more glass
      55-300 = DX so less glass

      • El Aura

        FX lens:
        Nikon 70-300 mm AF-S VR: 745 g (the two non-AF-S and non-VR version are only 425 and 505 g)

        43 lens
        Olympus 70-300 mm: 620 g

        The Olympus does not have VR. Looking at the weight the AF-S and VR additions brought to the Nikon lens, it is reasonable to say that there is not a significant weight difference of the glass alone between a FX lens and 43 lens. That is a factor of two in image circle.
        An even clearer comparison comes from the 300 mm f/2.8 lenses both companies offer (comparing the VR-less but AF-S containing Nikon versions):
        Olympus: 3.3 kg
        Nikon: 2.6 – 3.1 kg
        Above maybe 100 mm and certainly above 200 mm, the size of a lens hardly changes with image circle.

    • Merv

      The 55-300 is a DX lens, the 70-300 is a FX lens

      • Noob

        Does the Nikon 70-300 have better IQ compared to the 55-200 from 70-200mm?

  • Still hoping an 80-400 replacement, similar to the patent you showed in June, will be included with the lens announcements!

  • cyron123


    i don’t understand this threat. There are the prices and no real confirmation of all lenses. There are no pictures e.g….And the focus range is already unknown (18-200 or 24-300 or …). But the 24-120 VR ist really cooooooool. 🙂

    • Vladi

      This is rumor website Cyron123. These are incomplete information, nothing is confirmed, there are no pictures or anything. If you looking for pictures and focus ranges of real Nikon lenses maybe you should check on Nikon’s official website.

  • Singapore

    I wonder what happened to the 80-400 replacement 100-500 that was heavily reported on earlier. There’s no word on it anymore. Has Nikon dropped it?

    • There was even a patent for a new 80-400 posted in early June! That was the main lens I have been waiting for. If I were to move to FX, then the new 24-120 would be very welcome, but for wildlife, an updated 80–400 is still a very high priority!

  • akvisuals

    Am I the only dx user who is looking forward for the 18-200 full frame lens? On a dx body, say the d90 replacement, the lens due to its full frame design will have the sweet spot effect on a crop sensor. Sharp from center to corner, low vignetting, very high resolution (quite possibly exceeding 12mp) and overall better looking pictures than any other kit lens available for nikon? One downside, price.

  • camaman

    Tamron has a 28-300mm VC fulframe lens for ~$600…
    Why do you guys suppose Nikon will have justification in todays market to cost anything above proposed $1000??
    Other than being elite priced with Nikon brand on it…

  • Ron Scubadiver


  • camaman

    Hoping not to be last! LOL
    I was really hoping for an answer there… :-P:-P

  • D700 (feels like F3)

    to close the thread: 600 USD for a 28-300 is 100% wasted money … this can’t provide any decent image quality not is it leading to good results …

    the point is: it does not lead to results, if you as a photographer are not concentrating on the images you are going to take. using equipment like 12times
    zooms puts a user into the danger zone: ever possible shot is taken, but if it worth while? possible not – too much is too much.

    The reason, why people are willing to spend more money is simple: they can afford it.

  • Back to top