More rumors on the two upcoming Nikon lenses

More info regarding the new Nikon lenses that might be announced with the D800:

  • The new DX lens will be replacing one of the current superzooms (not a pro-level lens).
  • The FX lens will be an update to one of the current AF-D prime lenses and probably will not be wide angle. If this is correct, the new lens should replace one of the following (see all 74 current Nikkor lenses here):

[NR] probability rating: 60%, just not enough information in order to bump the probability.

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

    18-300 DX and 200 Micro? First?

    • Acutia

      There have been rumors that the 200mm macro has been in test.

    • texasjoe

      I’d love a 135 AF-S DC ED VR N OMG!

  • Cesar

    Oh drool…. 135mm…

    • Al dudorino

      Ha ha, I wish!!
      My 135 was not any better then my 70-200 II so I sold it 2 weeks ago
      but if a new one comes out, well now I have the cash 🙂

      • paf

        that’s probably the last lens you’d pry from my cold, dead hands…..

    • +1,000,000

  • plug

    All of these interest me. Slobber…

  • Arthur

    Surely hope there’ll be a 135/1.8!
    200/2.8 would be nice too.

    I think the 85/1.8 could also see an update given the info, but I don’t need it as I already have the 85/1.4G.

    • Or an replacement for the 300/4.0?

    • pc

      I second this. We saw AF-S 50mm f/1.4G followed up with AF-S 50mm f/1.8G. I think (and hope) it’s the AF-S 85mm f/1.8G this time around.

      But based on a more recent rumour, it’s AF-S 105mm f/2G VR.

      • There’s already an AF-S 105mm. Granted, a 2.8 macro… but also doubles as a good portrait lens.

        There’s a gaping, aging hole at 135mm. That definitely makes more sense.

      • lolly

        I’ll 2nd the AF-S 105mm f/2 G … hmm, VR I don’t know. The 105mm DC is in short supply and some retailers are not carrying it. Though Adorama and B&H Photo do have it in stock.

        I don’t think the 85mm 1.8 AF-D will be updated/replaced because the 85mm f1.4G AF-S needs more time to sell.

    • page

      A 85 1.8G would be really nice.

      • The invisible man

        Buy the 85mm f/1.4 and stop down 1/3 aperture !

        • B.O.

          The difference (f/1.4 to f/1.8) is actually 2/3 stops.
          Wouldn’t it be nice if you could get the 85/1.4G for half the price if you promised you’d never use it below 1.8?

          • jacob.kjoeller.ander

            This made me laugh, thanks a lot

        • page

          there you go, Nikon, here is an idea for the 1.8G. lock the 1.4 on the 1.4G so that the maximum aperture can be used is 1.8. by the way, bring the price down to 1/3 as well.

          • iamlucky13

            More like drop the price by 2/3.

            The 1.4D MSRP is $1350.

            The 1.8D MSRP is $490.

            It would be extremely disappointing and frustrating if the “budget” alternative to the $1700 85mm F/1.4G were over twice cost of lens it replaces.

            • The invisible man

              AS-f is not free, AF-D lenses have just a simpe shaft that is driven by the camera’s motor.

    • This was what I was about to post. Nikon is definitely re-releasing their f/1.8 line. Next will be the 85mm, and then I wouldn’t be surprised to see them finish with a 24mm f/1.8. The difference in the AF of the new line and the old line is staggering – I can’t use my 85 1.8 in a reception hall even with AF assist, but my 50 and 35 I don’t even need AF assist.

    • iamlucky13


      Curious that the Admin doesn’t seem to think the 85mm F/1.8D is a candidate.

      Also, the 300mm F/4 fits the details he gave. It will no doubt be getting the VR treatment eventually.

      Then again, I recall past rumors on at least some of the lenses he did list.

  • Bob

    Something like a 16-50mm F2.8 VR DX please…. Or something with a slightly longer range but at F4…..

    It’s Friday afternoon and one is allowed to daydream.

  • MGD

    my guess is the macro. that’s in high demand from professionals. The 180/2.8 is kinda a “tweener” is that it’s a reaaaaally long portrait and yet professionals go straight to 200/2 or 300/2.8.

    I love my 135DC, and as much as i love a VR nano replacement for it, it’d totally suck if the DC part goes away – THAT’S what makes it unique from Canon

    • FM2Fan

      agree – but the AF of the 135 DC is slow – the optics is great

      • John M

        It’s not a sports shooter so who cares?

        • FM2Fan

          at I do – sometimes it is too slow, if you use continous AF – especially at 2.0 and following peoples faces in a group …

    • Nicolas HARTER

      A new 135 F2.0 would probably be super big and heavy, with super contrasty colors… even if VR would be nice, i’m not sure i’d prefer an newer version. The old one is really great

      Anyway, my bet would be for 200 micro or 85 1.8.

  • Crocodilo

    Damn… the last thing DX users need, IMO, is yet another slow superzoom…

    Give us a fast wide prime, Nikon!

    • Thomas

      It seams very strange to announce a DX lens together with an (expensive) FX body…

      • They may separate the announcements, DX lens first and then the rest few days later.

      • Well the rumored Marrakesh event will be from 24th October to 26th, could be that they first announce the DX and then on 26th the D800. But as long as it happens, even with a P&S, it will be good.

      • PTG

        It is not strange at all. The D3s and the DX-macro 85/3.5 were released together as well. And as far as I can remember, the D3s is a bit more expensive than the D800 😉

    • Munz 

      Quote: “Give us a fast wide prime, Nikon!”

      • How about a 35mm f/2 that does not suck like the current AF-D and is not huge or expensive like the 35mm f/1.4. If it is under $500, I would buy it.

        • ausserirdischegesund

          There is one already: The 35mm f/1.8 DX

          • Scott

            But the 35mm f/1.8 DX only covers DX sensors where the 35mm f/2 covers full frame.

            • ausserirdischegesund

              And it is quite reasonable to assume anybody who can afford a $2000 D700 or even more expensive D3 can afford a 35 f/1.4. Weight should also not be a huge problem when your camera is very heavy anyway.

            • Not Banned

              Reasonable? No. No it’s not.

    • ausserirdischegesund


      That the new lens is a superzoom absolutely sucks! How many 18-X lenses do we need? Was not the 18-200 the best superzoom in the market already? On the other hand: The cheap primes 24/2.8, 20/2.8 are almost useless on DX, and there is nothing shorter anyway. We need DX wide angles. More than a superzoom or the 40mm DX macro.

      • Anon

        DX wide primes? Why bother? Better get the excellent Nikkor 10-24mm, or Tokina 11-16mm.

        • ausserirdischegesund

          There are really several reasons I (and many people) want DX wide primes (and I want a *wide* (35mm or 28mm equivalent), not a superwide):

          Compactness and weight

          A 24mm or 20mm would be a perfect match to a small DX body. I think this is a very important reason for the 35 f/1.8 DX’s success.
          Size is less of an issue if you are already carrying a D3s, the size
          of the lens won’t make this a lot larger or heavier.


          When photographing people out on the street you don’t want a lens that screams “professional” or “stalker”, but something nice, small and unintimidating.


          A 24/2.5 or 20/2.8 might be sold at about the same price as the 40mm DX macro, that means: cheaper than DX wide zooms.


          A DX 24mm could be 2.3 or 2.5 without costing a ton of money. Zooms for F mount are not faster than 2.8, and those are very expensive.


          Many of us just prefer primes. One thing less to think about. Always the same focal length you get used to after a month or two. Works fine for me. I’m not the only one.

          The success of MicroFourThirds really shows: People want *also* (not necessarily exclusively) smaller cameras for certain situations. A DX prime would be a step in the right direction here, for those who will never buy a Nikon 1.

          • What exactly is wrong with the 24mm f2.8d? I know it’s not af-s but at that focal length there isn’t far for it to go, I use to have a D7000 and that lens focused lightning fast. It’s soft in the corners on FX and has a fair amount of distortion, but on a DX camera it’s sharp as a tack with little distortion.

            • GeofFx

              My Tokina 12-24 is sharper throughout the frame compared to my Nikon 24 2.8D, and the Tokina is known to be pretty bad at 24. I’m not sure if I have a bad copy of the Nikon, or a great copy of the Tokina. I’ve always just thought the Nikon 24 2.8 wasn’t great.

    • Johan

      Amen! Spare us of another superzoom crap there are alreadya a bunch on the market. A wide angle DX prime is what we need. It is amazing that they have not managed to do one in 10 years and the first thing they release with the new toy system is a wide prime (even though a bit to slow). One would think that DX users would be mor interested in primelenses than people buying the weird CX-line.

      • Ke

        A wide angle DX prime is what we need. It is amazing that they have not managed to do one in 10 years

        There is one wide angled, fast DX prime – the 10.5mm fisheye.

        We just need something in the 16 to 24mm range.

        • Anon

          Go buy the 20mm f/2.8 D. Good optics, small & affordable. Anything missing?

  • Jason

    135mm f/1.4 DC VR!!! wish…

    • Yikes. It’d be $3,000.

      I don’t think 1.8 is out of the question though.

      • texasjoe

        135 AF-S DC ED VR N OMG!

  • D40-owner

    Cheap wide DX prime… Cheap wide DX prime… Cheap wide DX prime… Cheap wide DX prime… Cheap wide DX prime… Cheap wide DX prime… Cheap wide DX prime…

    • kevin.T

      24mm DX f1.8 or 24mm DX f2

      • 24mm isn’t that wide for a DX body

        • ausserirdischegesund

          It does not matter. The 35mm on Film (equivalent to the DX 24) was for a long time the main lens for street photography, reportage, the preferred general walk around lens, etc.

          Give us a 24mm DX please!

          • Iris Chrome

            What’s wrong with the current non-DX 24mm?

            • I think that’s the DX-user problem. There is *absolutely* no problem with the current 24mm… hence being amazing and also very expensive.

              They want one in a plastic casing, 2/3rd stop slower, and no nano coating… so it can be $599.

            • preston

              I agree with Sean, but (in case Iris Chrome meant the f/2.8 D version, which is a closer fit to what DX users are asking for) I will add that half of Nikon’s current DX bodies can’t use it since the lower end models don’t have a built in screw-drive mechanism for the autofocus to work with it.

              I love the 24mm f/2.8 with my D90, but I would buy a sub-$400 f/2 G version in a heartbeat! (I’d like to be able to get shallower DOF – the D version sucks at 2.8, so f/4 is the largest aperture I use it at)

            • ausserirdischegesund

              There are several things problematic with the current 24mm:

              It has no motor. Won’t work on anything below a D90, and it is the smaller cameras that a small, compact prime makes most sense on.

              It’s quality is not *that* good on a digital sensor. This is an old film lens, basically a decades old design. A modern rework specifically for DX would be much better. Compare the quality of the 35mm f/1.8 DX to the quality of the 35mm f/2.0 D. Same story.

              Even more than with the 35mm the image angle of the 24 is wasted. The 24 is a super wideangle, constructed to give a very wide view, and you throw away most of this angle. Of course you have to pay for the superwide optical construction.

              And: Nikon has not even made a special (longer, more effective) hood for the 24mm f/2.8 to use on DX.

              Price: I want something more in line with the 35mm f/1.8 or 40m DX macro. Make it a cheap and cheerful lens, I will buy two 😉

            • Iris Chrome

              @preston, that’s the one I meant 🙂

              You’re right, you can’t use AF on lower end bodies but I think if someone is up to the point where they shoot mainly with primes then it’s time for them to get a D7000 or a even a used D90 if they want to be economical 😉

    • Don Pope

      I’ll join your chant: Cheap wide DX prime!
      A 24 or 20mm f/1.8 would be fantastic.

  • The invisible man

    I could deal with a AF-s 135mm f/2.0 VRII if the price is under $2000

  • I guess theoretically the FX lens could also be a new AF-S 85mm f/1.8 – it is still not a WA lens.

    • Crocodilo

      How about this:

      AF-S 85mm f1.8G

      AF-S 20mm f1.8G

      Both following up on the latest DX 35 and FX 50 f1.8G.

      • dwd

        I’d be first in line for those two lenses. I doubt they’d hit those price points though.

        • Yeah, try $550 for the 85mm… and $399 for an 18 or 20mm.

      • preston

        “AF-S 85mm f1.8G – $300”

        When’s the last time Nikon significantly reduced the price point on an updated version of a lens? Not once that I can remember. .

      • DX Forever

        Exactly what I’m waiting for

    • Hom Thogan

      I see more probabilities of the 85mm f/1.8 AF-D being updated than the 135mm f/2.0 DC for a single reason: price, while a new 85mm will make it the price go around the 500 bucks or a bit less it won’t be as bad as seeing a new 135mm f/2.0 DC AF-S reaching 2,000 bucks.

      The question is: Do we need an 85mm f/1.8 AF-G/S ? sincerely no… but I think Nikon is trying to get more G lenses in order for them to work with the 1 series cameras and the F mount adapter.

      Problem is Canon already have USM version of most of Nikon lenses at a better price, since peformance will be said is better on one side or the other depending the fanboyism of who replies, the perceived values of features makes the comparison a bit shaky on Nikon’s side… the only edge Nikon has is their enthusiast and pro bodies reliability (Canon´s still shocked and touched by the 1Ds MKIII AF fiasco), however the thing that tempts the most to people on other brands is Canon’s f/4L line which is cheap, sturdy and sharp (an equivalent in Nikon doesn’t exist, neither in Sony, Pentax, Olympus, etc.)

      So Nikon should be playing their cards well with the lenses now or they could get a nasty surprise…

      • Ren Mockwell

        Well Nikon has the f/4 VR wide angle but at a silly price and the 70-200m f/4 VR they are going to introduce isn’t going to be able to compete with the Canon version on price.

        Nikon has to excite their consumer base with something revolutionary in the next SLR updates or they are going to loose market due to the crisis and their lenses prices.

    • Landscape Photo

      How many 85mm Nikkors do we have, and do we need any other? Instead Nikon could make a new 135mm, preferably f/4 for compact size.

    • Landscape Photo

      Nikkor 28-135mm VR please, as a compact walkabout for the upcoming D800.

      28-300 VR & new 24-120 are too bulky, old 24-120 is not optically good. 28-200mm is sharp and compact but has no VR.

      The answer is 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 VR; 28mm is wide enough & 135mm is tele enough for most situations.

      28-135mm VR, 28-135mm VR, 28-135mm VR !!!

  • D007

    How many super zooms are there in the DX line? There’s what? The 18-200 and the…18-200…?

    Unless you consider the 18-105 a super zoom?

    • Crocodilo

      How many DX superzooms available from Sigma, Tamron, and the likes? Slow aperture, crazy distortion, doubtfull AF, abundant CA, softness…

      When optical quality and aperture are considered second priority to zooming versatility, any zoom range is too much zoom range.

      • Hence the equal amount of fail to come from their 18-300.


        • TCD

          Watch them come out with a 18-300 2.8 🙂 hahah. That lens would be gigantic!!!

    • ausserirdischegesund

      Isn’t there a 18-135 or something? One could argue this to be one.

  • Puhleeze let it be the 200 micro. Please, pretty please – with honey on it!

    • The REEL Nikhil

      +1. Please also bring out an updated 80-400, 300/4, 85/1.8 and a 70-200/4. I will be a very happy man if they do this and also price it well enough for me to afford. Luckily, I dun live in US where MAP has just been placed. Singapore not that different. Dun worry.

  • Rhyan

    Theoretically it could be anything of the above. All listed, except 200 micro are more than 10years old, motor-less primes. The DC, both 105 and 135 are long-time awaited, but, as someone mentioned there was a rumor about the DC technology being abandoned, and a 105 f.2 lens without DC capabilities to be presented.

    At present here in Bulgaria, both the largest retailers have 180 F2.8 on a promo offer with a price tag around 700 EUR. And the 105 micro VR also on promotion. So my bet is for the 180 2.8 and 200 macro that will show up. There’s no reason for Nikon to offer promotions for a dying product, unless they want to draw the customers attention back to this range of products – bright primes around 200mm.

  • Noktogon

    It’s the 2,0/105DC upcoming for FX, I guess AF-S.

  • Wow. What are they really going to do with the superzoom category? Make a $2k superzoom to take over the already $1k superzoom, for a DX camera? I REALLY don’t see this being a good idea. Will people buy it? Sure. Will people love it? Absolutely. But most will still complain about the F/5.6 at the long end, or even F/6.3. If this isn’t the 18-300, it’s a complete waste of money (Nikon’s money). And even if it is, if that doesnt bottom out at F/5.6, and stay sub-$1100, it’s a beast of a walkaround lens, but still a waste.

    As for the FX, I hope it’s the 85/1.8G as well. But I was really hoping for something more along the lines of the 80-400 replacement. I’m sure there’s an equal demand for both, though. As for the 200mm Micro, I’d never pay $1700 for it when Sigma’s 180/3.5 is right up there in terms of IQ. And now they offer the 150/2.8 OS which would rival anything Nikon puts out. Especially in price. So I really don’t see the need for it.

    They need a 70-200/4 VRII, 80-400/4-5.6 or just F/4, 85mm F/1.8G, 20mm F/1.8 DX, and 16-70mm(ish) F/2.8 AF-S DX with kick-ass corner resolution.


    • thatguy

      You nailed it, absolutely.

      The problem is the current production issues and global economy. I think Nikon is looking to sell quantity not quality in this market, hence the N1.

      • The N1 is quality, as far as I can tell, for what it is. I would say it’s definitely a good, well, not really substitute, but alternative to M4/3. It’s got some fantastic features, with IQ to boot. There are other markets out there rather than super ultra mega uber amazing cameras, like we’re all hoping for. Would I buy the 1? Probably not. Unless the price was about 1/2 of what it is now. But there are many out there who would.

        But, sadly, you’re probably right. And that’s why we might see a not-so-needed superzoom. 🙁

  • Ryan

    Really wouldn’t mind a 85 1.8g though I would love to see a new 105 1.8/2g come out maybe drive down 105dc prices. Also an update to the 20 2.8 would be really nice.

  • Jules

    Come on nikon give us a macro lens that compare with the canon mpe65. Or even some bellows with contacts so we can use all our new lenses with no manual aperture rings like the 105micro

  • Dr Motmot

    Excellent! I would definitely buy a new 85mm f1.8, 180mm f2.8 or 200mm f4.

    • Guys, keep in mind that this rumor has “only” 60% probability. I consider a “solid” rumor to be everything above 80% probability.

      • Us fans are getting antsy. I’m sure you can imagine why. We need something to do to pass the time away until the 26thish. You could pass up rumors that Nikon will be making a 800/1.2G, and we would be all over it at this point. lol


      • pabs

        can you give us some insight as to how you assign a probability rating to the rumors? What makes one 60, 80 or 90% ? Thanks!

      • BRO

        DX lens will be the 18-300 zoom. This has been in production for a while now.

  • Please let it be a replacement for the 200mm micro nikkor, the lens I love and hate, love for its macro capability, focal length and image qaulity, hate for it’s f4 max aperture and slooooow autofocus


  • B2

    DX super zoom!?! Switching to whatever 😉
    WE need f_a_s_t w_i_d_e a_n_g_l_e, primes…or at least 17-55 replacement.

    • Ewlmo

      you missed out a couple of lines



      • B2


    • RR

      Why a 17-55 replacement? The current 17-55 f2.8 is a fine lens, AFS , ED , D what else would you add? Maybe Nano technology? Mmmm I think it performs well still doesnt it?

      • DX Forever


      • B2

        I would add VR 🙂 fine lens, I had it once, I sold it hoping we will get update with VR. Sharpness was also not to 35mm f/1.8 standards at least my samples.

  • A 135 f/2 would be a great studio lens. Why isn’t the 300 f/4 on the list? (Others have mentioned this.)

    • Is there really a need to upgrade the 300/4 again? What would be added? VR? That’d be a great addition, and it could definitely be useful at that focal length, especially on DX. But I don’t know..I really don’t know if it’s time already for another 300/4 upgrade..


      • Where’s the 400mm f/4?

        • I swear I was going to get on here and post that exact question!

          But to answer your question, someplace in the $2k price range. 🙂


        • Anonymous

          Why should there be a 400/f4? A 300/2.8 with 1.4x covers it pretty well. Also, there is the 200-400/4 VR which is not shabby either.

          • That’s true, but the 300mm F/2.8 is $5,000, and the 200-400mm F/4 is $6,000. Nikon’s 400mm F/4 would kill the Canon, Sigma, and Tokina 400mm F/5.6, and wouldn’t cost nearly $5k. Besides, Nikon’s 400mm F/2.8 is a spectacular lens. It’s tack sharp corner to corner, even wide open. The 400/4 would most likely follow suit, and would be in reach of the most serious amateurs, not only the sports and wildlife pros.

            I think there would be a huge market for a $1400-2200 Nikon Nikkor 400mm F/4.0 AF-S VRII. It probably wouldn’t hit that price point, but it’d be nice.


        • PAG

          Where’s Nikon’s answer to the Canon 400mm f/5.6. Birders who shoot BIF with it love that lens. It’s got fast AF, is reasonably light, and the price doesn’t break the bank.

          I agree that the 300mm f/4 also needs to get VR. For it’s main two markets (sports and wildlife), VR comes in very handy for night games, indoor games, wildlife in trees, and wildlife early/late in low light.

      • nobody

        What do you mean with “another 300/4 upgrade” “again”? AFAIK, the current one is 11 years old.

    • JED

      The 300 F4 is AF-S. The post clearly says the replacement is for an AF-D lens.

  • Sebastian

    up to now I was sure there will be a 24 f/2. Wasn’t that one of the examples that was specifically mentioned in a patent?
    that would be great!
    equally welcome would be an ultra-wide prime at f/2.8. A little unrealistic, I would guess.

  • If this is going to be a consumer superzoom, then it definitely sounds like the 18-300. The 18-200 is surprisingly good (not great) for such a long zoom, but lately Nikon is losing many sales for those that want the handy all-in-one lens to others with 18-250 and 18-270 zooms. So, the 18-300 makes sense. If it is as good as the 18-200, it will be a very good and handy lense for when you do not want to take your better lenses.

    • Although, at a price point of $1k+ (if it’s made to the same caliber as the 18-200), one might as well bring their better lenses.

      That being said, I never really had any interest at all in a superzoom. I just thought there was something backwards with having a pro/sumer (D300s) camera, walking about with a lens that produces sub-par images. But, the 18-200VRII surprises me, and I hope the 18-300 will as well. If it does, I may just be interested, surprisingly.


  • I guess I can see the need for a fast WA like a 20/1.8 or 24/1.8, but I guess I really just don’t see the need for a fast UWA like a 16/2, or 14/1.8 or anything like that. First, the lens would probably be enormous. Second, what’s the real benefit to an F/1.8 or F/2 aperture at such a wide angle? Just about everything will be in focus, or just barely out.

    Could someone enlighten me on the issue?


    • Anonymous

      There are some over here who believe that new equipment would make them better photographers. Hence, they bitch, groan and moan about Nikon not giving them new equipment fast enough.

    • ausserirdischegesund

      Mark, I am completely of the same opinion: Anything wider than 18mm on DX does not have to be fast. For 18mm, a 2.8 or even 2.0 might somewhat make sense as a lens e.g. for street scenes at night, or indoor group shots in close quarters. But anything wider than that: Give me 3.5 or even 4.0 and I will be completely happy. There is no way to use shallow DOF in any sensible way, and with today’s sensors camera shake at these focal lengths is not really relevant until it is pitch black.

      The single lens I miss most for DX is a 24mm f/2.0 (or 2.3, 2.5, 2.8) that is small and cheap, and works well on digital sensors (unlike the decades old 20 and 24 AF-D design). The 35mm f/1.8 needs a wider brother.

    • Right. I own the Tokina 11-16/2.8, and, while I absolutely love the lens, it’s arguably the best DX UWA on the market, I NEVER use it at F/2.8. And when I do, I don’t really see all that much of a difference from it used at F/4 or F/5.6. So, while it is better for focusing and being able to see what you’re doing in the viewfinder and on LV, I really don’t see why it’s all that needed to go any faster than F/4, really.

      18-25mm (not a zoom between these, but any prime with these focal lengths), however, I could definitely see the use of an F/1.8 model, and welcome it happily.


  • Anonymous

    A 20/1.8G DX, 300/4 VRII and 200/4 VRII Micro would be great.

    Then don’t forget the 80-400/4-5.6 VRII update.

    • 80-400/4 VRII, 20/1.8 ED DX, 200/3.5 AFS VRII Micro, THEN 300/4 VRII.

      Not to mention:
      17-60(or 85 :D)/2.8 ED DX AF-S
      70-200/4 AF-S VRII ED
      85/1.8G AF-S VRII

  • Dweeb

    DX hasn’t been hawked as “pro” since Nikon was peddling their D2X half frames.

    • ausserirdischegesund

      And that’s a good thing. It means people like me can afford DX stuff.

  • George

    I would like the FX lens to be a prime super wide angle, 14mm (rectilinear). Right now if you need a SWA lens your best option is the excellent 14-24mm, but it happens to be expensive, heavy and huge.

    • Anonymous

      There is a already a 14/2.8 AF-D and it goes for around $1,800. The 14-24/2.8 is slightly cheaper.

  • Stageshadow

    Ok, i just guessing:

    For FX
    105 f2 ( There where rumors for a replacement some time ago)
    But i personally hope for a cheaper 85 f1,8

    For DX
    18-105 vr with updated optics, could also be a 18-135 vr

    • Stageshadow

      I personally wish for a 16 f2,8 dx, too bad nikon isn’t listening…

      • Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8.

        Wish granted.

        • Stageshadow

          Tested it, really nice lens, but i want a prime with af-s for video!

          • AF-s only matters during video if you have a camera that will focus during video (D7k). Does the motor on the D7k not work with non-AF-s lenses during video? If you want a prime, leave the Tokina set at any of the given focal lengths, and you’ll have:

            And everything inbetween/2.8. I can’t imagine what you’d be doing a video of that you would need a HUGE F/stop at such a wide angle to video. Set the aperture to F/5.6-6.3, and the focus to 5′. Everything between 3′ and infinity will be in focus. Surely whatever camera you have that has AF during video will be able to bump the iso to get 1/60s, F/5.6-6.3 video in almost any lighting situation.


            • JED

              Some of us do not want a UWA zoom. A more compact prime is what is wanted. A 16mm 2.8 DX would be very welcome.

              And a left field suggestion for Nikon. A 16 2.8 DX could work as a ~roughly~ 45mm on the Nikon 1 series. See you can cover 2 bases at once!

  • The invisible man

    Does anyone remember if Nikon ever did a DSLR Body+af-s 200mm f/2 combo discount ?

  • Nithin

    disappointed that 70-200f4 is not present in the rumors 🙁

  • the present 180 2.8 is fantastic(save for LOCA), and its compact. my guess though is that they wont replace it as most people cover that range with a 70-200 2.8. i would guess the 200mm macro, or possibly an 85 1.8.

    i myself would love to see a 135 f2 though, that way i can snap up a DC version for cheap to replace the AIS im using =P

  • jacob

    They will replace the AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D, with a price of $879 it’s too cheap and it needs to be replaced with something “new” that they can price in the $1300-1500 range.

  • feleris

    What about a new 16-85 dx lens?

    • Stageshadow

      Allready good enough…

    • actually there is a very good chance that the new DX lens will be 16-85mm

  • ae

    I don’t know why Nikon keeps updating lenses that are at the bottom of the list with wanted updates of lenses by the users.
    Where are the 70-200/4, 105/2, 135/2, 300/4, even 85/1.8, and 35/2?
    At least 200/2.8 still sounds good (if it’s good as the canon version).
    But if we see something like 200/4 micro it’ll be rubbish.

    • goldaccess

      I’d bet all my money on the fact that Nikon marketing does know better than you (and all the other pre-announcment-moaners) which lens users want. They do ask actual customers and do not rely on bullshit-bingo-internet-discussions.

      • Sahaja

        Well at least they probably know which lenses are likely to sell well.

        People say they want all kinds of lenses that might not sell very well.

      • Anonymous

        +1000000!!! You are correct!!

  • Visualiza

    Thinking of an UWA DX lens really makes me wish that Sigma either updated or never discontinued its 14mm 2.8 HSM. I take a lot of group photos indoors and at events, and such a lens would be invaluable for me.

  • RR

    The 20mm f2.8 D could use an AFS motor 😉

  • Alexey

    What about Dx lens without Dx body, hmm? Dear Admin, maybe D400 with sony’s 24 mp + dx lens for it?

    • T.I.M


      • Alexey

        Yes, but in the past, when dx00 earlier dx0. D7000 sensor is too old for new D400 (especially before Olympics). Imho Sony’s 24 mp is just right.

      • Iris Chrome

        Not so sure about that…

        I think D7000 was D90 replacement and D5000 was D40 replacement. D3000 was a new even more simplified design.

        This even mirrors Canon’s body categories.

        • Mark


    • Alexey

      I just think that Nikon usually releases their cameras on the modified sensor from Sony a couple of months. And, in addition, the D300 is already too old. Why not? ))

    • Alexey

      By the way, d400 may be just “the second version” of the d800, which is rumored

  • I definitely see the 135mm being replaced before the 105mm. There’s already an AF-S 105. Yes, it’s a macro… but the 135 is becoming ancient and there hasn’t been activity there in quite some time.

  • Matt

    So: Should I sell my 135mm f/2D DC before or after it is discontinued and replaced? If the DC is dropped in favor of VR, I bet the used price will go up!

  • Todd

    Of course it’s not the updated 80-400mm. I mean it’s only been 11 YEARS!!!! Sold my 80-400mm 4 years ago. Was so tired of it’s completely sucky slooooow auto focus. It is way past your time to release the updated version. Way past due.

    • Kon_head

      Yeah, I came over to Nikon 3 years ago hoping for an updated 80-400 or a new 400/5.6 VR. Still waiting 🙁
      My choice right now may be the Sickma 50-500 OS, or buying a Canon body just to fit their 100-400 IS. I just hate to have to carry 2 camera platforms.

      • NyconNeoColonialist

        What about the Sigma 120-400?
        I have this lens. It’s fine for my use of shooting my kids Baseball, Softball and surfing.
        I don’t have anything to compare other than Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 which is fantastic.

        • Todd

          I also bought and sold the Sigma 120-400mm. It’s good at f8 but is really bad at f5.6.

        • Kon_head

          Sickma 50-500 OS is sharper.

          • Todd

            Cool, thanks for the info.

            • 120-300 os

              I am gooing for the Sigma 120-300 os can´t think Nikon is bringing now an 100-500 or 80-400 vr 2 lens

      • Todd

        I love Nikon and am going to Alaska mid next year. If the updated 80-400mm has not been released by then I’ll buy an Canon 7D and the Canon 100-400mm. I don’t want to but will. I sell my Nikon stuff on ebay in a heart problems. As stated, I really want to stay with Nikon but I need the following criteria in a lens: Fast focusing, hand hold friendly, x-400mm lens. The Canon 100-400mm is just that. Hope Nikon brings it to the party soon. If only the current 80-400mm was fast focusing I’d be a happy boy. Still…we wait and wait.

        • Kon_head

          At the moment the Canon 100-400 is the best solution for your Alaska trip. I shot AK with that lens and love it. The Nikon 80-400 is ancient compare to the Canon 100-400. If only Canon can make a decent body, I’ll back to Canon for sure… all their nice newly designed shinnie super are sure tempting.

          Nikon has nice bodies, but lens selection sure sucks…….

          • Kon_head

            I mean ‘super teles’ 🙂

          • Todd

            Thanks a lot. I’ll go to Canon prior to my trip if Nikon does not release the updated 80-400mm by then…period.

  • AF-S 85mm 1.8 i´ll pass. Already bought a 85mm 1.4 AF-D superb glass!

    AF-S 180mm f/2.8 VR II N and 300mm f/4 VR II N will be a good surprise.

  • Iris Chrome

    I’m not really sure what to make of the superzoom DX replacement. I never been a big fan of superzooms to begin with but from what I heard the 18-200mm is already a good enough lens which itself was a replacement for the 18-105mm. Could it be a 28-300mm or even an 18-300mm? Maybe, but then it would compete with their own 28-300mm FX.

    As for the FX update, I think it would be something that compliments the new FX body and probably showcases its new capabilities. Out of the choices above, I think the 135mm and the 200mm are the strongest candidates. I don’t think we’ll see an 85mm f/1.8G here. As much as this lens is in need of an update it is, I don’t see it fit with a new FX body. An 85mm f/1.4 would be more on the mark but that lens was updated recently. The 180mm is a bit of an unconventional choice nowadays. Again even if there is an update of this lens I doubt it would be coupled with a new FX body announcement.

    A 200mm micro might be too specialized but then again it’s a good lens to show how good the new FX sensor is. The 135mm is the most probable of the choices since it’s a portrait lens which goes well with an FX body specially if Nikon plans to target it at studio shooters (from the low FPS, it sounds like they do). Also there is video. I’m not familiar much with video but again I think the 135mm would be a better choice than the 180mm or 200mm if you want to shoot video.

    • As for the 18-300 fighting with the 28-300, it simply won’t. For the fact that the 28-300 is for the FX users, and the 18-300 is for the DX users. The 18-27mm marks are sorely missed by DX users when using the 28-300.

      As for video, the 135 would be nice, but only if it focused down to around 4-5 feet, and had superb MF abilities. I find that the 200mm Micro would be a kick-ass video lens if you want out of focus backgrounds, and superb bokeh at that. They have great MF, and will focus as close, or as far away as you need them to. Micro lenses have always been some of my favorite for all sorts of videos, as long as the subject isn’t moving about all that much. The MF is super accurate, but also slow to focus quickly because it is so accurate. That is, it takes a long time to get from close to far, generally 1.5-2+ full turns.


  • hombreee

    85mm !!!

    • Anon

      135mm !!!

  • Landscape Photo

    Nikkor 28-135mm VR please, as a compact walkabout for the upcoming D800.

    28-300 VR & new 24-120 are too bulky, old 24-120 is not optically good. 28-200mm is sharp and compact but has no VR.

    The answer is 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 VR; 28mm is wide enough & 135mm is tele enough for most situations.

    Yes, a compact 28-135mm VR, 28-135mm VR, 28-135mm VR !!!

    Does anyone listen to landscape photographers’ needs? No bulky f/2.8 zooms or f/1.4 primes, but compact lenses that will give corner sharpnes at f/8.

  • NyconNeoColonialist

    Sooooo is it a…..


    • bigeater

      it is nick-core. just like the name of the company is neh-kon.

      • Iris Chrome

        I always pronounced it knee-cone

    • Iris Chrome

      not 100% positive but I always say nick-core

  • Levi H

    A 135mm f/2.0 G would be awesome. It would go great in my bag along with the 35 and 85 1.4, but here’s to still hoping for two models of the D800 still!

    • Landscape Photo

      I don’t think there will be too models of D800 like x & s or h, because it will then fall into the D4’s selling point.

      90% of photographers would prefer a 24mp & D3s+ ISo @ 6fps for $3000 instead of 36mp & D700-like ISO @ 4fps for $4000. Even as a landscape photograper I’d be among the %90, since it will be hard to fully benefit from 36mp at all times (due to several reasons).

      I bet this 36mp sensor was disctated by Sony, but not Nikon’s 1st choice. Btw, a 18-24mp D4 must be at development phase.

      Maybe we’ll see such an optimum dream-camera 1-2 years after the introduction of D4 – to be called D900…

      • broxibear

        “Btw, a 18-24mp D4 must be at development phase.”
        It’s way past development stage Landscape Photo…the only thing that’ll be developing now are the boxes, catalogues and advertising campaign.
        I’m pretty confident it’s 18mp, I still think the D800 will have better video but not the stills performance of the D4 (high iso, speed)…It’s a good way to seperate and differentiate the two FX models.

      • R R

        I agree with most that you said and oh man the D900 you mentioned, made me drool! 😉

  • Sahaja

    > “The new DX lens will be replacing one of the current superzooms (not a pro-level lens).”

    How many “pro-level” DX lenses does Nikon make anyway?

  • broxibear

    If it’s only going to be an update to one of the current AF-D prime lenses, and probably not a wide angle, I think it’s the AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G.
    60% probability rating leaves a lot of room…maybe enough room for a AF-S 24mm f/2.8 G.

  • Tim

    What is Nikon’s philosophy on putting VR into their 24-70 FX lens? Will that ever happen? Anytime soon? Didn’t I read somewhere that the 24-70 and 14-24 were released in the same time frame as the D-700? What’s the chances of Nikon releasing updated versions of those lenses with the D-800?

    • nobody

      IIRC, these two lenses are 7 years younger than the 300mm f4 and the 80-400mm.

  • Back to top