Interesting Nikon lens patents (incl. 10mm f/4 FX lens)

Three interesting lens patent applications were just published. The first one 20110109974 is for a 10mm f/4 full frame lens:

  • Example 1 is for a 17 mm f/4. Interestingly the image height is 33mm. This makes sense for a tilt-shift with +-12 mm of shift:

F0 = 17.11 FNO = 4.08 .omega. = Y = 33.00 TL = 188.30 BF = 53.036

  • Examples 2 - 10 are for a 10 mm f/4 FX rectilinear lens. The images are from example 2. The field of view angle is an incredible 130 deg:

F0 = 10.3 FNO = 4.17 .omega. = Y = 21.6 TL = 132.78 BF = 38.10

Patent application 20110109979 is for a collection of full frame macro lenses. Note β, "where β (negative) denotes an available shooting magnification". All these have a maximum 1:1 (β = -1). This also explains why so many elements. The current 105 micro is a 14/12 design.

  • Example 1: f = 199.96976 FNO = 2.46, 15/12 design (f=focal length, FNO=aperture)
  • Example 2: f = 169.98735 FNO = 2.50, 13/10 design
  • Example 3: f = 198.00003 FNO = 3.21, 14/11 design
  • Example 4: f = 219.98771 FNO = 2.04, 14/12 design
  • Example 5: f = 160.01928 FNO = 2.87, 12/9 design

Patent application 20110109977 contains 10 different lens examples, most are for a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 DX, but examples 3 and 4 are for a FX ~28-90mm f/4-5.6, 10/7 design. Sounds like an FX kit lens, maybe for the D700 replacement or another low end full frame camera? Example 10 is a fixed 18mm f/3.5 DX lens.

  • Example 3: f = 29.0 50.0 91.7 FNO = 4.1 4.5 5.8 76.6 46.8 26.3 Y 21.6 21.6 21.6 TL 129.10 121.85 138.77 BF 38.91 51.29 75.04
  • Example 10: f = 18.5 FNO = 3.7 78.0 Y 14.25 TL 131.37 Bf 38.35

Thanks Brian!

This entry was posted in Nikon Patents. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Nikkorz

    These lenses are out of the ordinary…

    • A macro lens kind of makes sense, since the 200/4.0 is the oldest Nikkor still in production, I think. Personally I was really hoping for some lightweight FX primes like a 35mm/2.0 or 2.8. The current 35mm/2.0 is the Nikon lens I enjoy the most.

      • Anthony D’Atri

        A modern 135 f/2 and a 70-200 f/4 are to me the glaring holes in the lineup

        • plug

          + 300 f4 replacement.

          • Manuel

            Completely agree with both of you!

          • Richard

            + a bunch!

        • Arthur

          135/2.0 or f/1.8 is the only lens I reaaaaaly desire! 🙂

  • I Should Be Shooting

    I was considering going to Canon for their 17mm t/s, but I think I’ll wait a bit. Thanks 🙂

    • north

      You’ll be waiting for a very long time 😉

    • The invisible man

      OMG ! I went to the immigration office this morning to renew my green card !

      They took a picture of me with a CANON camera !

      I’ve never been so humiliated in my entire life !

      • Mac Rockwell

        Yes, I can imagine…..

      • Rob

        Don’t you mean they “tried” to take a picture of you, but just ended up with a shot of the backdrop you were standing in front of?

        • Global

          Because he is the Invisible Man … or more realistically: Because no self-respecting person would ever allow their self to be photographed by a Canon! ;-P

        • bernie javier

          Y’all have to be cruel to Canon? Their cameras are perfect door stoppers. I own two. One for the front door and one for the back door.

  • Interesting.. How long does it usually take to go from patent to finished product?

  • tferroato

    does anybody else have anything close to a 10mm full frame?

    • No, there’s nothing particularly close to a 10mm FF lens out there. The widest rectilinear lens for 35mm right now is 12mm for the Sigma 12-24/4-5.6 FF and the 12/5.6 Voightlander Heliar for Leica RF mount. The widest Nikon has ever made was a 13/5.6. The only way you could get a 10mm FOV would be to stitch several images made by shifting Canon’s 17mm T/S lens. I’m inclined to think that this is more likely to be used in the 17mm form as a competitor for Canon’s T/S than as a regular 10mm lens.

      • I’m inclined to think that this is more likely to be used in the 17mm form as a competitor for Canon’s T/S than as a regular 10mm lens.

        You can’t use a 10mm lens as a 17mm lens. The Canon 17mm T/S lens is an actual 17mm lens. You could however, hack the lens on to a large sensor/film and use its ~65mm (diameter) image circle to get a 3:2 aspect ratio image that has a field of view close to a 10mm lens on a FF body.

        All that aside, the spec says the 10mm lens has a image circle that just fits FF (Y = 21.6). So it can’t shift on FF.

        • Richard

          On a crop body, the Canon 17mm T/S provides the approximate field of view of a 24mm on an FX body. I have seen some images captured with the Canon lens and it is about time Nikon filled the gap for DX bodies…and it does not hurt to update the offerings for the FX bodies.

      • ShaoLynx

        Nowadays you can use stitching to get an even far greater FOV than 10mm-130°.
        It just takes multiple exposures and a computer.
        And you can use any available lens to do that, e.g. the 16-35 F/4.

        • Discontinued

          All true but you don’t want to stich video or to stich a still that shows one or more moving targets, do you? I see as much purposes for any kind of lens nowadays as I’ve seen yesterday.

          • ShaoLynx

            My reply was to Roger Moore’s statement: “The only way you could get a 10mm FOV would be to stitch several images made by shifting Canon’s 17mm T/S lens.”
            So, we allready were in the train of thought of ‘stitching’.
            My point was that the technology of stitching allows for flexibility than Roger’s statement.
            As to your points:
            – yes, you can have moving subjects in a stills stitch (as long as they don’t cross image boundaries). E.g. PTGUI allows for selections and exclusions.
            – yes, the technology of video stitching exists as well. I saw the result of that in a SGG HDAV Gala event in 2010 (oct.) in Holland. And I swear: you couldn’t see the stitch.

            On the other hand: I do understand the point that being able to take a shot using just one lens once is a lot easier and less computer-intensive. So, the more Nikkor-lenses to choose from, the better (provided we can afford them).

      • NisseHult
        • Twoomy

          Yes, but that is a fisheye, my friend. Much different from a rectilinear lens which everybody is talking about here.

      • hah

        “The only way you could get a 10mm FOV would be to stitch several images made by shifting Canon’s 17mm T/S lens”

        un no. any lens will do. even a camera phone lens with the proper software can yield 360 degree panoramas easily.

        plus you’re confusing things. The reason you want a 10mm FX lens is to NOT have to stich and deal with the artifacts, specially in places where you CAN’T stich such as in moving subjects. could you stitch a picture of a skateboarder in mid jump? I guess only if you had multiple cameras and some mad software, but not worth it.

        • iamlucky13

          Well, the other reason is convenience. Stitching is still another editing step, and a very major one at that.

          • Soap

            Yes it is another step, no it is not a major one.

            I say it is not a major one because if you are shooting cleanly (pivoting or sliding on your nodal point) there is absolutely no human involvement in the stitching process – it is 100% script.

            Calling stitching a major editing step is like calling refrigeration a major cooking step. Sure it is technically difficult, but not something one actually gets their hands dirty doing.

            • Eric Pepin

              coming home from shooting all day and having 60 shots to stick vs having only 60 pictures means a lot more editing, wether its scripted or not.

            • Soap

              I don’t think you and I share the same concept of “scripted”…

              unless you’re claiming all your photos come out of camera so perfect they don’t even need placed into a proper directory on your PC.

        • El Aura

          Regardless of stitching artifacts (incl. moving objects), a stitched image will look different to a single rectilinear one (except for stitches coming from shifted lenses, they are pretty close to single rectilinear one).

          Stitching is normally done by rotating the camera which means parallel lines will converge for anything but at most one image (usually the center image), parallel lines do not converge in the image generated from a single rectilinear lens (except for residual distortion).

          • ShaoLynx

            Hm, you should look into the options of your stitching SW a little more closely. You can choose different projection methods. Rectilinear, Vedutismo and Mercator are amongst them.
            And you can use different blending algo’s – I myself have good experience with SmartBlend. This greatly reduces stitching artifacts.

            • El Aura

              With that argument you could also say that fish-eye and rectilinear lenses produce the same kind of image. Of course you can change projection methods in post but except for small changes you loose a lot of resolution with this (and even small projection adjustments destroy your pixel-level acuity or at least what was left of it after AA filter and de-mosaicing).

            • ShaoLynx

              I can’t seem to reply to your comment El Aura (the Golden One?), nested too deeply?
              On your first point: correct, I did that once, and the result was the same. The fisheye was cosiderably slower but it worked.
              Before stitching I always convert my RAW files to 16 bit Tiff and at least Adobe RGB. The loss of sharpness due to the projection method remains low. Have a look on some pano’s I made this way:

      • I have a 10-20 sigma that can shoot at 10mm at f3,5, I guess I might still buy this lens since it will probably have less barrel distortion

  • Those macro lenses look very interesting! The 200/4 Micro is one of the lenses that obviously needs updating, but a speed bump to f/2.5 (example 1) or even f/2 (example 4) would be a totally unexpected change. The f/2 seems unlikely; it would be even more of a beast than the 200/2 VR.

    • Does the fact that it doesn;t have to be f/2.5 at close focus allow it to be smaller? This is going to big, but that big won’t be practical, and Nikon knows that.

      Personal dream: revival of the 70-180 micro Nikkor, but i doubt that will be!

      • hah

        all macro lenses aren’t the advertised aperture at close focus. some manufacturers cheat *canon cough* and report it wrong in the exif. nikon tells you the actual aperture.

        • That’s actually not true. You can keep a constant aperture for a macro lens as it focuses closer, but only by using other tricks like shortening the focal length. The Nikon 70-180 was much faster as a macro than its indicated speed because it didn’t get slower as it focused closer.

          • Jim

            The maximum aperture changes as you focus closer on macro lenses (or for that matter any lens used in a “macro” situation). The old Nikon 55 mm Nikkor actually adjusted the aperture to maintain the same effective aperture as you focused closer as long as you didn’t select an aperture that couldn’t be maintained as you focused closer (e.g., the maximum aperture (which was f/3.5)). This was done primarily (my opinion) because the cameras of that era did not have internal metering. As you focus closer you need to either increase the aperture or lengthen the exposure (when you are in a “macro” situation, generally images greater than 1/10 life size would be in that range). Now we not only have cameras with internal metering but with automatic aperture/shutter speed control, and autofocus, and…

            • Roger Moore

              Again, no, the maximum aperture does not necessarily change with a lens as you focus closer. Something has to change about the lens, and designers usually choose to make the thing that changes the most be the aperture, but that isn’t always the case. A lens that focuses exclusively by moving elements between the subject and the aperture stop (i.e. a front focusing lens) will not have any change in apparent aperture as it focuses. The Nikon 70-180 Micro was exactly that kind of design, and it kept a constant speed as it focused closer. You can look it up.

  • RN

    The FX ~28-90mm f/4-5.6 confuses me. They already have a 24-120 F/4, so why this? Slower, not as wide on the wide end, and not as long at the long end…. So unless they are doing something amazing with reducing distortion, or greatly increasing sharpness, or something else not obvious, why do it?
    *scratching head*
    Nope. I got nuth’in….

    • Alex

      This makes FX kit lens like the 18-55DX. This could possibly mean an entry level FX.

      • That’s an interesting thought. But I wonder if non-pros would really care about FF.

        • Not sure where you live but a majority of the FF buyers are probably not professional photographers 🙂

          • sade

            But those reach FF buyers will also prefer to buy a pro lens like 24-70 or 24-120 or even 28-300 instead of a plastic 28-90 f/4-5.6.
            I personaly wish to see a 28-90mm but with constant f/2.8 and VR indeed!

            • sade

              I meant rich!

            • M Jesper

              When i’m buying FF i’ll do so to use kickass primes. Of which DX is seriously lacking. The low-light performance is just a bonus, and the tank-sized cameras they come in today i really do not care for. Or actually i do care because i really hate it.

        • +1 Would be interesting to see if Nikon start directly marketing FX cameras to ordinary consumers -which to borrow a Thom Hogan phrase would already have FX if they needed it.

          • Geoff

            Need vs Want ….. All some of us need is to justify the additional expense to go from DX to FF.

            If they toss out a D700 size body with video at least 18 MP I can likely justify the additional costs.

      • B.O.

        perhaps nikon is going to update the FM10? 😉

    • hah

      it’s a kit lens.

    • The 24-120 f/4 is probably too expensive for a kit lens? The Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G that came with the D700 costed around $600 (1/2 the price of the 24-120 f/4).

      • King Of Swaziland

        Cost, not costed. All seventy of my wives lament your poor grammar.

  • Thom Rockwell

    Would that be a rectilinear 10mm or a fisheye?

    • Paul

      Says 10 mm f/4 FX rectilinear lens.

  • asdf

    10mm and not a fish?! :-O

  • Any news about D700 replacement? The d800 thing is pretty silent lately.

    • Jeremy

      I’m astonished at the number of people who think Peter’s holding out on them.

      • M Jesper

        Yeah if there was any news, why post it on a rumors site 😉

        • correct, I have no new info – the rumor mill is always dead after an official announcement (and we had two announcements recently)

  • Astrophotographer

    Both of these patents imply a new class of lens designs. The wide angle patent includes a radical aspherical element (look a surface 4).

    The patent for the macro lenses has a diverse set of examples, implying a lot of options for new designs.

  • Davo

    220mm f2 micro-nikkor….Holy $h1t !!!
    Well at least they’re pushing the boundaries of design even though there’s little chance of seeing it to production.

    • Arthur

      That’s what awed me too in the first place! :O

  • It is astonishing how many lenses are being used in modern designs these days. But what if it’s all meant to get in the heads of their competitors?

  • Jason

    One very obvious implication of these patents: Nikon has been working for some time now on a macro lens in the 200mm/f4 range. They’ve been aiming high, too – so if the result that comes to the market is a 200mm/f2.8 it won’t be too surprising.

    As for the 10mm – that’s a very aspherical second element, and it could push the price way up.

    • Not that high price would be too much of an issue with this sort of optics – the 13mm f/5.6 sold for well over £15k most of the time 😉

      • Eric Pepin

        except the 13 5.6 DIDINT sell which is why it got discontinued. Now it fetches huge prices on ebay but thats because its collectible because of how little it sold.

        • PHB

          And the original point of making it was that it could be made, not that it was particularly practical.

          The most significant shots taken involving the Nikon f/5.6 fisheye were the iconic shots OF the Nikon f/5.6 fisheye as the face of HAL in 2001 A Space Odyssey.

          With Nikon coming close to having completed the AFS refresh of their lineup, now is the time to start working on new designs whose sole purpose is to do something that Canon cannot.

          The main area of weakness in the Nikon lineup at the moment is affordable professional telephotos, the 80-400, the f/4 telephotos. I doubt it will take long to fix it.

  • Sorry but the wide angle looks like a modified copy of the Canon TS-E 17L:

    Just like the 24 1.4G is a close copy of the 1975 Canon FD 24 1.4L:

    I guess anti-plagiarism laws don’t apply to patents 😀

    • iamlucky13

      I’m not sure how much you’re joking, but I’ve likewise noticed a Toyota Corolla looks fundamentally like a Nissan Sentra, a Boeing 767 looks similar to an Airbus A330, and an M-1 Abrams main battle tank has basically the same shape as a British Challenger 2.

      Form often follows function.

      • Just as you are fundamentally like me…. 😛

    • Roger Moore

      The Canon 17mm TS design is not especially similar to the Nikon design. They’re similar in ways that are more or less inevitable for the lens design- they have big negative meniscus lenses up front and a positive rear group- but the details are very different.

      For example, the Nikon has two aspherical elements (a PGM element and a hybrid aspheric) while the Canon has one. The Nikon design uses a cemented PNP (net negative power) triplet as part of the second lens grouping which is not in the Canon design. That cemented element is cited as one of the design elements of the patent, and looks as if it’s a design alternative to the two negative ED elements in the front group of the Canon design. The rear groups are completely different, too.

  • ShaoLynx

    Well, if a new 200mm micro-Nikkor came out, I think I would get it.
    With such a lens you can more easily keep your distance, e.g. for taking pictures of insects.
    When discretion is no issue, you can even use the 16-35 F4 to make a, well, ‘close-up’ of your subject (e.g. flowers).

  • arturo

    woow! i would buy the 17 PC-E f4
    I wanted to switch to Canon for this reason too…

    • Would love Tokina to make something like a 16mm FX shift lens for a reasonable price , just like their 11-16 😉

  • Carl

    to come up with a TS 4.0/17 would be a good move of Nikon, especially against Canon competition.

    About a year ago a rumor was issued, that there would be a replacement of the 2.8/14-24 with an 2.8/10-24 along with the introduction of the D4. Maybe there’ll be a 4.0/10-24 instead or in addition to this famous lens.

    Now, that Nikon’s capacities are still not occupied by the production due to the Tsunami issues, I’d really like them to put some more of it to products for the pro and semi-pro section.
    The in-depth-review of the Fuji X100 would make a good cook-book for a really pro rangefinder as all the existing products including the Leica X1 couldn’t fully convince. And the moon-prices paid to get one of the X100 prove that there is a market above the collectors realm.

  • Carl

    About a year ago a rumor was issued, that there would be a replacement of the 2.8/14-24 with an 2.8/10-24 along with the introduction of the D4. Maybe there’ll be a 4.0/10-24 instead or in addition to this famous lens.
    To come up with a TS 4.0/17 would be a good move of Nikon, especially against Canon competition.

    Now, that Nikon’s capacities are still not occupied by the production due to the Tsunami issues, I’d really like them to put some more of it to products for the pro and semi-pro section.
    The in-depth-review of the Fuji X100 would make a good cook-book for a really pro rangefinder as all the existing products including the Leica X1 couldn’t fully convince. And the moon-prices paid to get one of the X100 prove that there is a market above the collectors realm.

  • Dweeb

    The 10 would be great if they get rid of the distortion. You throw away quite a bit of AOV laying on the corrections. I could see it replacing the 14mm which has seen it’s day. And it’s too bad Zeiss packs it in at 18mm. And the 17mm TS actually has me interested in Nikon again. Too bad it will be years before we see these. From a company that can’t even put VR in a 300 ƒ4 or AF-S in a 80-400.

    • Agreed. The 10mm would be lovely; however, I’m afraid it might be more impractical than I wish with the distortion, etc.

  • Peter

    When film was the only game in town the lenses did not have to be as fine yes? What are some descriptive terms that would help explain a factor of increase in the quality of the lenses now with something like the D3x? One old film pro describes the new lenses as “looking through coke bottles” with all the coatings and his imagined (my term) lack of quality in the new stuff. I now have three major eye ailments that will affect my ability to discern lower quality but for now, it seems like the new lenses are better than a lot of the old and by necessity, or competition, are gaining in quality. Can anyone help me to get my head around the changes that have evolved to tailor this new glass for the digital age? You know, why not a 10mm f/1.2?

    • ShaoLynx

      Have a look on DPReview and compare old an new lenses.
      The coatings eliminate or greatly reduce artifacts like ghosting, lens flare.
      The new lenses also use special elements like ED (extra low distorsion) and have better distorsion and CA characteristics. They can resolve finer details and show far less vignetting. Many lenses also add VR (vibration reduction), which adds to the flexibility to use them.

      • sade

        ED stands for extra low dispersion . Not distorsion!

        • ShaoLynx

          You’re absolutely right! And serves to help to counter CA (chromatic abberation). I was too fast jotting down some terms to answer Peter’s (not NR admin) post.
          I stand corrected. Thank you.

          • Eric Pepin

            and none of it matters, my 24 2.8 is very sharp regardless of the body I put it on, and its 20 years old. My 55 micro is sharper then any other lens I have ever used which is most from Nikon and its just as old. For zoom lenses theres something to be said but an old prime vs a new prime there is little difference other then the obvious auto focus and some better contrast due to the coatings.

            • ShaoLynx

              Sharpness, OK, could be so.
              How about:
              – bokeh
              – vignetting
              – ghosting
              – lens flare?

    • New lenses should be better in many terms and they are because if you compare thickness of film plane where image should be focused and digital sensor plane, difference is like thousands of times. Film plane is much thicker thus allowing lots of tolerances to chromatic aberrations, focal plane curvature, etc.

      • Eric Pepin

        I dont know what your talking about, yes film itself could be thick but the actual emulsion layer was very small and the machines that were pumping and are pumping it out are very precise. As precise as digital chips, I would assume no but extremely precise none the less. I hate the whole film vs digital but compare Velvia, Provia, Ektar, TMX, TMY, Delta 100, Delta 400, Efke 25, Efke 50, and many more against most digital SLRs with a good scanner and they still resolve quite a bit, not as much but plenty (plus the pictures look better too)

        btw.. i never got purple fringing on film with my lenses, so somethings have indeed gotten worse with technology.

        • Watch video on this page starting at 5:20 and you’ll understand what I’m talking about

        • ShaoLynx

          “purple fringing”, good point.
          This artifact is caused by overflow between microlenses on the photosites of a sensor. You don’t have that with film.
          A soon as the photosites cover the complete surface of the pixels, the manufacturers can drop the microlenses and hopefully this artifact will disappear.

          • Chris Lilley

            Oh, the old ‘CCD overflow’ argument rears its ugly head again.

            Purple fringing is often caused by axial chromatic aberration. It happens with CCD sensors, and CMOS sensors, and film … because its an optical aberration of the lens.

  • Gordon

    I was just thinking about this exact lens today (PC-E 17mm) and was trying to think of a way to lobby Nikon to make this lens. I really hope this comes out sooner than later, I’ll happy replace my 17-35mm with this lens upon release.

  • Gordon

    Does anyone know what the patent is for the current 24mm PC-E lens to compare technical data with?

  • could the 10mm be a TIltt shift lens for dx?

  • that is a lot of glass, probably with a hefty price tag

  • 10mm FX sounds like a breakthrough. I wonder how much the front lens element is going to protrude 😮

    • The invisible man

      10mm ?

  • DeVita

    Patent 109979 figure is a camera but this camera really is not a mirror. See for yourself, it’s not full frame.

  • Zack

    I know this is not the right topic, excuse me, but WHEN will Nikon announce a replacement for D300, D700 and the likes? This is getting ridiculous.

    • really? i mean come on have you been hanging around here the past year?

  • DeVita

    Patent 109,977 absolutely has no fix lenses, only 8 variants of zoom 18-55 mm 3.5-5.6. This is an error in the table of Example 10.

  • Benjo

    17mm PC-E you say…

    I’m sure it’s a long way off if it happens, but I rent a 5DII and 17mm PC-E for certain architectural work…I’d be much happier just renting a lens or even buying it, as it really makes new shots possible.

    I dismissed the 17mm TS-E until a client hired another photographer who avoided the trees in my 24mm shot by getting closer with the 17. Stung a bit, as I’d attempted the same shot with the 14-24, photoshop and stitching, and his was obviously superior.

    • Eric Pepin

      I believe the 24 is sharper and distorts less though. I have used the 17 canon on a 5d II and it was certainly nice, gotta agree nikon should make something similar or up the ante and make it a 16 or 15.

  • 10 mm would be an INCREDIBLE lens! Can’t wait.

  • VTX

    Yawn….. Just get the 16mm fisheye and defish it. For a lens that has minimal utilitarian value, what’s the big deal. Or you can wait 15 years for Nikon to actually produce this and get it if you want to satisfy your curiosity.

  • Bullsnot

    10mm F4.0 FX will likely only be a prime, not a zoom… and even still be out of the reach of most photographers $$$. A “halo” product that few would procure, but for a pro that might need it the comfort of knowing it’s available would be welcome.

    I don’t see a point in making a 200mm macro faster than f4.0. Macro work usually requires stopping down greatly to get ANY kind of useful DOF. Also, with the ISOs current (and near-future) cameras are capable of, that extra stop isn’t as important as it was a few years ago. There are other lens choices for distance shooting with narrow DOF.

    28-90mm F3.5-5.6 would be a lot cheaper to manufacutre than the 24-120 F4.0, and therefore much more “kit friendly”. Also, the resolving power of the 24-120 is questionable and is likely not up to the job for future high-res cameras. Maybe the day of an affordable FX camera is approaching… how much longer can the camera companies keep fooling people into believing a full frame camera costs 2-3X as much to build as its APS-C equivalent? Larger sensor, mirror and pentaprism, same everything else.

    17mm TS-E F4.0 would be a fantastic addition for professionals… several have spoken up here already and pointed this out as a large hole in Nikon’s lineup that Canon has long covered. From what I’ve read, stitching images from conventional lenses is usually a less precise and elegant operation than it is using a TS lens. Then there are the in-camera perspective control advantages to consider…

  • kyoshinikon

    Like the 28-200mm f/2.8 I would buy the 10mm rectilinear in a heartbeat if it was made. I find that the 14-24mm isnt always wide enough (or the 10.5mm dx fisheye) and being a sucker for wide angle lenses would use it all of the time…

  • Chris

    DUDE PLS MAKE A 70-200 F/4 update with VR…an equivalent to the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS USM….PLS PLS PLS.

    • just buy the 80-200 2.8 its bette than canons by a mile.

    • kyoshinikon

      Canons 70-200mm is not only unimpressive but several other lenses cover that range at a similar f-stop. Nikon has no need for “L” glass as their 70-300mm and 80-400mm and 18-200mm all cover that range with fine optics. The 80-200mm f2.8 is a fantastic alternative…

  • This will be great, now I don’t have to think about the gopro for its 170 FOV

  • Trevor

    Well, humoring the idea that a 28-90 is for a consumerish full-frame, I have this question – where do we expect a less than professional full-frame to fall in the lineup?

    It makes sense to me that a professional APS-C would exist, at least for the near future. With 3 “pro” full-frame cameras, it seems reasonable that only the D3/D4 line would keep professional features and the evolution of the D700 would become the consumer style FF.

    I think then the the D800 (which I still think should be Dxx) would be more like a D7000 feature set but with a FF sensor. If it could price at the D300/D400 level I think that would be a winner.

  • Mac Rockwell

    Keep up the good work Admin…. keep posting interesting stuff like this……

    Where is D800? Any news?

  • Global

    I’m just waiting for the Nikon 1mm patent — a basketball sized glass sphere with an opening in back for the F-mount.


    • kyoshinikon

      Lol… Been waiting for that too 😛

  • JED

    I am probably the only person here intrigued by the 18mm F/3.5DX concept.
    Sounds interesting but what I really want is a petite 16mm F/4DX.

    • Carlos R

      I dont undestand this lens. Why do we need a 18 f/3.5 when we already have the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6. We already have 18mm at f/3.5. Nikon should complete his line of dx primes by at least one of the following options: 18mm f/2.8 (2-2.8) or 16 or 15mm f/3.5. So they need to wider or use a smaller focal lenght

  • PTG

    The “dx 18/3.5 prime lens” has exactly!!!!!! the same lens data as the 18-55 zoom in Example 8. So it is nothing but a kit zoom fixed in the 18mm position! (just look at the distortion in Fig. 20!)

    What is the purpose?
    Did Nikon’s engineers want to make fun of NR/its readers?
    Did they want to test how well their patents are analyzed in the web?
    Did they want to make fun of Thom Hogan and all those prime enthusiats that want to see slow dx primes like a 16mm/f4?
    Is there some legal necessity – a lawyer/judge who has not understood that you can turn a zoom lens into a prime by fixing it at some position?

  • Nikon could be doing this on purpose to hide their real intentions.

  • Dr Motmot

    I’d like to see the 180mm f2.8 with VR, nice size lens for street photography, also the 300mm f4 with VR.

  • time will tell, start saving or selling your photos

  • design.matters

    10mm would be just great – a real break through – consider such lens as a tilt/shift lens – just another tool to like

  • Back to top