Rumor: Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G DX lens to be refreshed

The current AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR lens

There are some rumors that the next DX lens may actually be a refresh of the current AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR ($650). This matches previous reports that the new DX Nikkor will be a consumer lens and it will be a replacement of an already existing zoom lens.

My only problem with this rumor is that the 16-85mm lens is pretty new - it was announced in 2008 which is why I give this rumor a 40% probability. FYI: the 18-200mm lens was refreshed 4 years after its first introduction.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • The invisible man

    The French magazine just confirmed few hours ago that several very importants Nikon announcements were scheduled for the end of October but it has to be delay because of the problems in Thailand.

    So Peter was right, just lack of luck.
    At least we know that the D800 exist, we just have to wait a little longer….

    • Mark J.

      I really doubt the D800 is being delayed by Thailand. Nikon doesn’t make any of their pro level gear in that country. My guess is it’s the DX lenses and maybe the new flash that are getting delayed.

      • spider

        Ya, D800 is made in Japan, but parts could be come from other plants (eg Thailand). as mention in previous posts, announcement was delayed due to lack of some of the parts which produced in Thailand.

        • Mark J.

          I must of missed where it specifically said the D800 was going to be delayed. All i saw on NR was that ‘some’ product announcements planned for later this month have been delayed. And since the rumor is that multiple products were getting announced, nobody knows for sure what the case is now.

          • John Doe

            The announcement referenced here on NR was incorrectly translated. The correct translation is the PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED products will be delayed (read Nikon 1) but NEW ANNOUNCEMENTS will proceed as scheduled. If that is the case we are still getting a D800 next week and they may announce a 16-85 refresh, with availability next year. Why, oh why, would they refresh one of their most competent DX lenses is beyond me.

            • nobody

              “The correct translation is the PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED products will be delayed (read Nikon 1) …”


              “… but NEW ANNOUNCEMENTS will proceed as scheduled.”


            • Pat Mann

              Perhaps we get an f/4 version like the FX?

  • Matt

    16-80mm f/4

    • actually one of the tips did mention fixed aperture, I just doubt it

    • lolly

      If 16-85mm is going to be an f/4. It’ll be the DX version of the 24-120mm f/4 AF-S VR. Hmm, the 24-120mm is a kit lens, isn’t it. Will the 16-85mm f/4 be a kit lens for a new body ?

      • J C

        24-120mm is not a kit lens afaik. 16-85mm f4 would be great.

      • Stefan

        I bought my nikon d90+16-85mm nikon lens as a kit in 2009. So I don’t see why this lens shouldn’t come as a kit lens too provided that there will be an update of this lens.
        It would be cool though if they come out with a 16-85mm f/4 and a 70-200 f/4. The affordable fixed aperture zooms. 🙂

    • B2

      Makes sense as original 16-85 seems to be to new to refresh.

      • AnoNemo

        Seems new but, maybe nikon figured out that sharing some parts and production processes can cut the cost of the lens but it requires some modifications on the lens. Now it is possible that they refresh to cut production costs which will yield better profits.

        • Not Banned

          Shush! Your rational speculation that Nikon might release a new version of a lens simply to reduce their costs flys smack in the face of the groupthink which is utterly convinced that Nikon’s only motivation is to be the best!

      • My bet: the next kit DX lens will be an 18-13mm VR.

    • T Shah

      I would get rid of my 17-55 nikkor if they brought out a 16-85 f4 VR 🙂

      • Carsten

        I’d like a 16-50/2.8 – same price like the new Sony. The 17-55 is rather expensive in comparison, heavy,bulky and optically barely better than the 3rd party alternatives

  • The invisible man

    Today from Chasseur d’Images:

    Note de la rédaction :

    En raison de la nouvelle catastrophe qui s’est abattue sur la Thaïlande et qui se solde par des centaines de morts et de nouvelles conséquences graves pour l’industrie photo, nous avons retiré ce fil de nos infos.

    Une rumeur sur un futur produit traduit les espoirs et les rêves des utilisateurs d’une marque. Elle est positive.
    Dans le contexte actuel, la rumeur prend évidemment une toute autre tournure et l’entretenir serait du plus parfait mauvais goût.

    Nous confirmons, de façon absolument certaine, que Nikon préparait un lancement très important pour la fin du mois, mais que celui est reporté à une date ultérieure, sur laquelle toute supputation serait obscène.

    Merci pour votre compréhension.

    La rédaction

    • texasjoe

      Very sad…

      • Eduardnic

        Dude! Those words make no sense! Use English, merde!

        • Jean-Claude

          These words make sense, you only have to understand French 😉 Bad luck for you?

        • nobody

          What a nerve! Why must a French magazine use French language?

          • English guy

            May be we should start a website called

            • Jean-Claude

              By citing the real source, there won’t be that much wrong translations instead just trusting what you will get via Google translator. So native speaking persons can make better translations than a machine will do.
              But anyway feel free to learn more than one language in your life. Why do so many English speaking guys insist in speaking English all over the world?

            • Ken Wellrock

              Because English is a universal language that the majority of people understand?

              It’s not my first language either, but if I visit an English website, I use English. It’s simple courtesy.

  • texasjoe

    This will be great for wedding coverage. If it’s 2.8 or f/4 it should be great!

    • Jack

      Shooting a wedding on dx? Fail

      • MarkJH

        Investing three to four times more in equipment than necessary for your business? Fail. Thinking potential customers will care about technical differences between a D700 and a D7000? Fail.

        • Not So Fast


        • PB PM

          Not knowing how much better the D700’s AF performs in low light than the D7000 is a fail too. After shooting a wedding this spring with a D700, I wouldn’t trust anything less. Yes I have a D7000 as well, that’s how I know it’s AF isn’t as good.

          • Patrick hall

            Really? I have a d700, 2 d300s and a d7000 and I’ve thought the d7000 has the fastest autofocus of them all. I use them all for weddings since some do better for certain things (dx for telephoto,macro, and video, d700 for high iso) but I have to say the d700 seems sluggish in lower light than the rest. Dunno how that is possible but its been very clearly the case this wedding season since I got the d7000.

            I agree though, clients cant tell the difference and don’t care.

            • Mike

              The difference is that the D700 will nail focus in very dim light 9/10 times. The D7000 will hit focus in dim light…. 2-3/10 times. As nice as the D7000 is, I still consider it an outside camera. (My problem is I use a D3s as a primary. ISO 6400 on the D3s= ISO 800 on the D7000).

            • Stone

              I acquired a D7000 to add to my D3S and D3 and the D7000 focuses as well as the D3 and D3s in wedding and other events. Those complaining about the D7000 either have a bad unit or do not know how to make the most of it.

            • Patrick hall

              It might nail it given enough time but it is def slower. D7000 snaps into focus faster than d700 or d300s. Haven’t shot on the d3s since I’ve gotten the d7000 so I can’t compare it.

          • My D7Ks AF perform just as good as the D700 I’m using. You just have to fine-tune the AF with each lens, but that’s the case with all PD AF. The D7000 performs just as good in low-light AF.

            • PB PM

              I can only speak from my on experience. The D700 with 24-70mm f2.8G nails focus more often in low light than the D7000. In good light, both nail focus equally, so I know AF fine tune is not needed.

        • PHB

          I have just bought two used Nikon D1x off EBay for wedding use, total cost $500.

          Does anyone really think your typical wedding guest will know the difference between the Nikon D1x and the new Canon Flagship?

          Since the 5.3MP of the D1x is a little low, I will also take my iPhone 4s which is 8MP and should be plenty.

          • Sports

            With two old Nikons and an iPhone, you can’t go wrong.
            2 x 5 Mp + 8 Mp = 18 Mp
            You’re good.
            Who needs the D4?

        • Eduardnic


      • Not So Fast

        I’ve made thousands of dollars shooting weddings with a DX.
        “Gear is good, Vision is better.” David duChemin

        • Jim

          Ken Rockwell applauds both of you and your fledgling photography careers

          • Not So Fast

            Was that an insult or compliment?

            I was too busy counting my monies…

          • jack

            it’s called business. ROI is a basic term you may want to Google.

          • WTH .. what does this have to do with Ken 😐 :facepalm:

      • Jk

        FX is better, no argument there. Customers probably can see a difference but dont know why. FX allows you to do things you can normally do without a ton of trade offs in some cases.

        But to say shooting a wedding on DX is a fail is very close minded and arrogant.

        You do not know how much a photograper is charging, where they are at in their career and who their clients are. Lets not continue with this sort of prejiduce and respect our fellow photographers.

        • Vandyu

          Thank you for a logical argument among all of the boasting and bravado that often takes control of this forum.

      • Ken Wellrock

        Among the most pompous statements I’ve ever heard.

        Sure, DX may not be the optimal setup, but it fits certain photographers’ needs and budgets.

        To automatically generalize all DX wedding shooters as failures, makes you an even bigger failure as a person.

    • texasjoe

      I have a D700 with 24-70 & 70-300. I’v always wanted a 24-120 2.8 with optics just as good as the 24-70. I know it would be huge and I don’t care. I would like the extra range. The 16-85 covers this range but it’s a DX. It will be great for weddings if you are a DX shooter…

      • Metten

        Get the 24-120 F4 VR. About as sharp as the 24-70 and the VR compensates for the 1 stop smaller aperture.

        And it’s not even as large as a 24-70.

    • Moth Flopwell

      I was on Oahu…in March. I was at Waikiki Beach…and there was a Parade….I noticed this guy using two cameras…Nikon D3s, and Nikon D3x….and on both of those FX Cameras this guy had on them two DX Lenses. I did a LOL to myself.

      • grs

        He probably couldn’t afford a good lens after buying the D3x.

        • st r

          Maybe he thought that a very expensive camera must work with any compatible lens.

          On the contrary, I am more than happy with my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR mounted on my faithful little D40.

      • Bbb

        Maybe he is really talented?

        Although i can see a dx lens on a d3 it doesnt make a whole lot of sense on a d3x

      • There are a couple of gold ringed DX lenses out there, and are of very high quality. You can put both the D3S and D3X in cropped DX mode and shoot very high frame rates that buffer out to CF cards in very short order. Maybe the photographer conciously chose the DX lenses just for this reason. Not to mention, you can shoot substatially more images before the buffer fills, and those smaller images spool out to CF much faster as well. With the high resolution of the D3X, in broad daylight at ISO 200, he could have very easily captured 10.5MP images at 7fps! The D3S would yield 5.1MP at 11fps! Shoot in JPG, and your buffering abbilities goes through the roof. Several professional photographers do just that, spray and pray! Most likely though, it was some guy with too much money and a camera store that unloaded their DX lenses while they were selling him the D3’s! 🙂

      • NoFunBen

        i can see that, maybe the photos will only be printed small 4×6 or just web use.
        there was a time when i had a d3 and 17-35 35-70 80-200 2.8 but the only super i had was a 18-200.
        it was out side in bright light of 10 year olds running around playing at a summer camp, and i printed over 1000 4×6 prints that came out great.
        the 18-200 worked great, i could have use the 2.8 lenses but it was not needed.

  • 16-85 2.8-4

    • Alfonso

      That will be great. Not that I will replace my 16-85, though.

    • Donz

      Yes, PLEASE!!

      • feleris

        YES, I want a 16-85 f/2.8-4.0 for DX!!!
        I would buy it for under 800euros!

  • Gordon

    Any fresh rumours on a PC-E 17mm lens?

    • Eduardnic

      My tilt & shift 16-85mm lenses worked only one time, when I tried to tilt the other way it comes apart in pieces… What did I do wrong!?

    • Benjo

      I’d sure love one…I think they’ll put one out some day, but obviously it’s a niche product.

    • Not Banned

      If you want lens motion in a DSLR, face it, Nikon has never been where it’s at. Canon’s tilt-shift lenses trump Nikon’s in every single regard.

  • bigeater

    is it possible that the redesign is to bring the lens resolution up to snuff for the 24mp sensor that’s coming in the next dx camera? i know little about how these things work, is there another explanation?

    • PHB

      Maybe, but my bet would be on a 30MP D400.

      That would give it precisely the same sensor pitch as the Nikon 1. ISO 6400 would be sufficient for most. ISO 12,800 would be stupendous (even if achieved by binning).

      • enesunkie

        As far as DX goes, I hope Nikon gets “stuck” at 14 and 16MP for a little bit longer.

      • Benjo

        I’m afraid we should probably assume the D400 will use another Sony sensor, very likely the 24mp model from the A77/NEX7 plus Nikon tweaking. 24mp is probably about the useful limit for DX, so perhaps Nikon has invested R&D on their own DX sensor of similar resolution, assuming their future D7100 etc can be handed down the same tech.

        • twoomy

          “24mp is probably about the useful limit for DX”

          Funny, I heard that about 10mp, 12mp, and then 16mp over the past 8 years. Every leap in resolution is a shock to the system. Standard kit lenses can resolve 12mp these days, but back in ’94, everybody thought 12mp was insane and unusable. Just wait a few years and 24mp will be no big deal to anybody.

          • nah

            who was using digital ‘back in 94’ were you even alive then?

          • Carsten

            Well the physics (diffraction) will put an end to it – when your 2.8 aperture is already diffraction limited it won’t make any difference to add more pixels.

            Perhaps we will see true oversampling (like in audio), hopefully with some pre-processing in camera, otherwise the RAWs will become huge … or we won’t care because of the 1TB SD-cards we unload on our 2PB hard drives

            • Not Banned

              There are dozens of reasons to increase pixel density past the diffraction limit of a 2.8 aperture.

              Let’s try a few.

              1 – Diffraction limits hit the resolving power of individual pixels. But pictures are the sum of pixels. One can still increase the overall actual sensor resolution (measured in line pairs per mm) even if the individual pixels are softer.

              2 – You’re not quoting any numbers, so I don’t know how good your math is, but diffraction “limit” isn’t a hard cliff. Its a rule-of-thumb based on the circle of confusion and perceptual models. Are you measuring against the old film bar, an AA’d sensor bar, or a naked calc against microlens size?

              3 – Bring on the diffraction “limit” – let my LENS be the AA filter. Why should my best glass and technique be limited by the sensor AA filter?

              4 – Bring on the diffraction “limit” for Bayer-filtered sensors! Let’s go FOUR times the diffraction limit and give every photo pixel four UNIQUE lightwells!

            • Not Banned

              Oh, and we oversample in audio to make filter design easier (cheaper!). Put all the ringing way out of the audible band. Increasing sampling rate takes less silicon (and less latency) than better filters. Not sure how the analogy works for photo, but I haven’t thought about it either. Curious as to your thoughts.

  • Bob

    it’s unbelievable.
    only 3 years, i don’t see any reason that it must be replace at this time.
    new vr? bigger aperture?

  • Nikon already has the 18-70, 18-55, 18-55VR, 18-135, 18-105VR, 18-200VR, and 16-85VR . It does not make sense to me that they would need yet another ‘mid-range’ consumer DX lens.

    Mind you it doesn’t have to be all professional lenses, but maybe something fun like the ‘fisheye zoom’ that Canon has would be nice.

    • Jason

      The 18-70, 18-55 nonvr, and 18-135 are discontinued.

      • iamlucky13

        I’m pretty sure you’re correct, as I haven’t seen any of those for sale anywhere in at least the past year, but strangely they’re still listed on Nikon USA’s website, and they’re MSRPs have been changing over time.

        In the case of the 18-70 it was kind of a shame. It was a very good value. The 16-85 looks like a very worthy replacement, but costs a moderate amount more and is a little bigger.

        A 16-85 F/4 would be a great replacement option if my 18-70 ever kicks the bucket, although for me as a hobbyist, it would need excellent performance to spend the $800+ that would cost when I can score a used 18-70 for less than $200 these days.

  • Donz

    Hooray, we really need a top notch f2.8 quality DX lens to fit in between the 11-16mm and the 70-200mm that going to perform adequately on the new high mp DX bodies

    • Bigus Dickus

      wait what? what is wrong with 17-55?!

      • Cuius

        As noted previously, the new lens will be the 17-55/2.8 with VRII

        • JETELINHO

          if (IF) only … & they shall do smthg with its price too – in the country where I live, the current 17-55 is at approx. USD 1.950 … which is not far from the dreamy 85 f/1,4 (even though each of them is for a much different purpose of course …). thje current 16-85 is not at all bad, I would just welcome a built quality similar to 16-35 (with the tube staying inside the lens body all the time – believe me, sometimes this would be really useful … even at a bit higher price …).

          regards, Jet

  • Is it match with D3000? I’m looking a new lens for it.

    • Tommy

      Yes, it is. I own one paired with a D90 and it’s great as a walk-and-shoot zoom or even in non-pro wedding-ish type of situations. It’s bulid well and it’s cheap.

  • MikeO

    Don’t understand why they need to waste time and resources “refreshing” an existing lens that’s still very good. Should focus on other more urgent new lenses that we really need..

    • Ditto. It’d be nice to have improvements to this lens, but it’s not a necessity right now. My 16-85 is one of my go-to lenses. It spends the most time attached to my camera.

      • Steve


        The only thing that would interest me is a 15-75

  • RondoX

    My poor parents…. I was just browsing through their wedding photos and came to the realization that their wedding wasn’t shot on a D700… Fail.

    Us photogs spend alot of money on the best gear, A LOT! Thats a lot of other things we can’t buy or do now because of it. And a way we make ourselves feel better about our purchases is try to make others feel anything less is inadequate…. Fail.

    • chimphappyhour

      My wedding wasn’t shot with a D700 either. Now I’m divorced. Coincidence? I think not. :p

      (Uh, that’s a humor post everyone. Well, actually only partially. I am divorced but it’s ok. I don’t have to justify purchases anymore! Woo hoo!)

      • jack

        My wedding was shot on Canon 20d’s and the 5d had already been released. Doesn’t matter that the images were amazing… the high iso sucked compared to present technology. I bloody should have asked for my money back.

    • John Richardson

      My parents’ wedding was shot on some old stupid 4×5 Graflex, in b&W no less and the dang photos were only 8×10. Total fail. If only there was a D700 around back then, but then I think we were still at war with the Japanese do I guess that wasn’t gonna happen..

  • chimphappyhour

    Interesting. The 16-85VR is already a really good lens. I would think there are bigger slouches in their line-up that need refreshing.

  • This definitely seems like a lens that will be bundled with the new DX camera. That’s the only reason I can see that one would need to refresh it. Besides that and the variable aperture. I hope it stays variable, but at F/2.8-4, or they really stick it to us with a “pro-DX” lens. The Nikon 16-85mm F/2.8 AF-s VRII (N?). That would be kick-ass, and I have a feeling it would have a price to boot. But it would definitely be amazing if optics and distortion could somehow be kept under control.

    I stand by my F/2.8-4 or F/4 options, and it’s only because it can be bundled with the D400 that just may, surprisingly, be knocking at our door.

    That brings me to another question. Where is this being made? If it’s in Thailand like other DX things, why are they releasing it now, and withholding the D400? -_-

  • PeterO

    An update of the 18-135 to VRII would make a lot more sense.

  • NikonTheAvenger

    First time i’ve seen a Nikon D3s in stock at Bhphoto for one week now. Are people holding off in buying and waiting for Nikon announcement.

  • Joe

    A Rumor is posted, and readers complain. Or they offer opinions totally unsubstantiated by those pesky facts. Rinse, repeat.


  • What’s so great about this lens? For two-thirds of the price, you can get the 18-105 which already has VR.

    • Oops, scratch that. This one already has VR.

    • Trevor

      I think that’s exactly the issue. The 18-105 is, in my opinion, as good optically as the 16-85. The 2mm difference on the wide end and metal mount just doesn’t make up the difference in price and shorter long end, and the step up to the 17-55 is big.

      My guess is Nikon realized there was a hole in their lineup. D3100 & D5100 users would rather get the 18-200 for a little more, and D7000 & D300s users would keep the 18-105 or go to the 17-55 or primes.

      I think bundling a 16-85 f/4 with the D400 would be perfect, and if the price stayed about the same as the current 16-85 it would be a great upgrade path. I’m nervous the price will jump though as the 24-120 f/4 carries a big sticker.

      Bottom line: nothing is great about the current lens; hopefully that will change.

      • Vandyu

        Nikon can make adjustments to their DX lenses to keep current and make the appearance, at least, of offering new products. One thing they need to consider is how much amateur photographers can or will spend for a lens. Some of their lenses are becoming out of reach for photographers who (a) aren’t rich, and (b) just enjoy photography as a hobby.

        • Trevor

          I absolutely agree, and, like I said, I’m nervous that a 16-85 f/4 would go up in price higher than people will pay.

          Having shot Olympus before Nikon, I loved their 3 tier lens lineup (in theory). The middle ground was a good step between consumer and pro (and still mostly weather sealed) and decently fast. The 28-108 f/2.8-3.5 was a great weather sealed lens at $550.

          The 16-85 could be exactly a lens like that. A good upgrade from the kit that is a little faster, a little longer (and wider), a little better optically, but far less than the $1,400 17-55.

          If the price stays the same but it speeds up to f/4 or f/2.8-4 it could be a real winner.

  • Steve

    Exactly, this lens is too new to receive a refresh now IMO. I wouldn’t mind, though, since I am planning on getting this and a 70-200mm.

  • Brian

    What about perhaps a 17-55mm DX VR?

    That lens hasn’t been refreshed in like 10 years.

  • john

    How about if it’s a video optimized 16-85? Constant aperture would make sense.

  • Unacceptable

    I demand a 17-35 2.8 refresh. Yesterday.

    • D-RiSe

      what exactly is wrong with the current 17-35??

      • STRB

        Not on par with 24-70/2.8.

      • Unacceptable

        Generally soft, especially the corners, needs to be stopped down to f/4 – f/5.6 for good results

        It’s not unusable, but after seeing newer lenses like the 14-24 I expect a big improvement 🙂

        • Like the 17-35

          When my 24-70 was stolen i replaced it with the 17-35

          I like the 17-35 much more for what i do and i even get sharper images

  • RevKrev123

    What if they are throwing in an aperture ring

  • Joe

    A replacement for the current 16-85 won’t be f2.8. Sheesh.

    I’d like to see something like 16-70 f3.5-f4.5 VR. Better speed than the current lens on the long end and it can still be a relatively small package. The 28-105mm AF lens was one of my favorites when I was still shooting a N80.

    And Nikon… a 24mm f2 or f2.8 DX prime. Please, please please.

    • Ramones

      A prime lens 24 f2 vr II Dx can be the perfect weapon 4 street photos and nigh shot

  • Nikon .. Update the 17-55mm F2.8 with Nano and VR 😉

    • Pat Mann

      And 16-55.

  • TaoTeJared

    Seems like an odd focus for an already good lens. There are a whole slew of other lenses one would think they would spend their time on rather than a relativity new design. There is the old 24-85 that has a f/2.8-4 that was always good. Maybe they will do something like that with this one.

    If they released a D400 with it, I wouldn’t mind that.

  • jiamflash

    admin, I thought you said a refresh of a SUPERzoom lens, if 5X quality as one…

  • xxx

    metal attachment
    some optimization

    old model goes down in cost
    new model cost more

    • The 16-85 already has a metal attachment. It’s a fairly hefty lens. A plastic bayonet wouldn’t have cut it.

  • I need pro DX lens with wide angle, perhaps new 17-55 f/2.8 but not 18-XXX f/3.5-5.6

  • getanalogue

    As far as I remember, there was a patent or rumor about an upcoming 16-60mm f:2.8 DX VR, would be perfect replacement for more-than-10-years old 17-55 DX, and would be needed for 24MP D400.

    • That would make things very interesting. Also could be seen as a per-cursor to a refreshed 24-70 f/2.8 (with VR this time) for FX – to go along w/ the new D800, D4, etc.

      Certainly would be pricey for a DX lens but I could see that going very well with a (24MP) D400.

  • this_is_not_my_d800

    a 16-50mm f/2.8 VR DX that’s as good as the FX 24-70 would lead a lot of folks to reconsider DX. It is the lens that matters.

  • christian

    i think (and also hope so) 16-70 f3.5 VRII – this would be great.
    Never f2.8 – too big and too expensive for a consumer zoom lens.

    wish list – (maybe a nikon guy reads this)
    17-55 f2.8 VRII
    18-120 f4 VRII
    or the best: 35-150 f2.8 VRII


      well – u never want a 2.8 & u have it in the wish list at the same time if I am correct? I would buy one f/2,8 if it was a new well equiped & well built lens. The abeove mentioned 16-60mm f:2.8 DX VR (with N?) would be awesome …
      My vote also goes to 85mm either f/2 or f/1,8 & 20/24/28mm of one of these apertures … – would be fine (even FX, don´t care much & might even lead to me re-thinking whether or not to go for FX body …)

      • christian

        i want a 16-70 f2,8 and i also would buy it.
        But for my understanding is a consumer lens cheaper ( < 1000 USD )
        A 16-70 f3.5 oder f4 is more realistic

  • BBhaswaran

    There is a probability also to upgrade the 18-200 to 18-250 or something like it, as it faces a gradually losing competition from Sigma 18-250 and Tamron 18-270 with longer tele reach. Image Quality issues at the widest and farthest should be addressed as well for this lens. I still use the 18-135, which I think gives better sharpness at all over the range

  • Timo

    This would be great news if the 16-85 would be a bit faster. But I’m afraid that it would also make the lens more expensive than it already is. In terms of optical quality, I’m already very happy with the 16-85. But if the successor would come at a reasonable price and would be a f/3.5-4.5, I would consider replacing it. (I dont believe in a 2.8-4. The f/4 might be pssible, but I’d prefer the slightly faster aperture at the wide angle setting and sacrifice a third stop at the tele end).

    • Timo

      Btw. one thing they could improve on the 16-85 is the lens hood. It’s not really robust. Even the hood of the 18-105 has thicker plastic and is less likely to break.

  • The 16-85 is probably regarded as the best DX consumer zoom available, although with a too hefty price tag for it’s slowish aperture.

    Nikon should invest in the DX gaps (fast-wide-cheap prime, like they did with the 35mm f1.8G), not reinvent the wheel.

    Super-zooms are also out. leave those to third-party vacationers.

    Plus, with the current state of the economy and the widespread use of DLSRs being threatened by smaller systems, making affordable lens is the way to get a good return on their investment. DX system is still the amateur jumpboard for the FX pro community, but it’s where brand loyalty starts, and DX IQ is adequate for almost everything except maybe the top 5% photogs.

    Bring on the AF-S DX 20mm f1.8G!!! (or at least anything from 16 to 24mm, f1.8 to f2.8, and keep it around $250-$300 – that will please the crowd)

  • I have heard – already 5 months ago – a rumour that the Nikkor 17-55 F2.8 was on the way out, and won’t be replaced by an identical model. This sounded like a really strange claim since I see it as an important part of their line-up, but it was from an employee of a reputable photographics outlet in The Netherlands so I took it somewhat seriously.
    This rumours looks to add credibility to that claim. Still unlikely though.

    • I’m not sure why DX users (like myself) don’t use the 16-35 f4 VR more. It’s a very useful 24-55mm equivalent, sharp as a tack, and can be used of full frame as well. It’s worlds sharper than my 10-24mm DX or 18-70 DX. I haven’t tried any other DX lenses. I try to avoid them.

      • Timo

        Maybe, for a DX user, it’s heavy and expensive? Despite the fact, that it doesn’t offer much over the 16-85 VR. The 16-35 only slightly faster in the range from 25-35mm, wheras below 20mm the 16-85 is slightly faster.
        In terms of resolution, the 16-85 actually shows better results even wide open on a DX body – nevertheless, both glasses are on an already very good level.
        However, the 16-35 has a bit less distortion and vignetting than the 16-85. But it’s ard to justify the addictional cost of a 16-35 over a 16-85.

        As for your other two glasses: The 18-70 was a good lens for its price, but never really a top performer. The 16-85 is much better in terms of resolution and versatilty (except that it’s slightly slower at the tele end). The 10-24 should be already pretty sharp in the center at any aperture. It’s only the borders that are a bit behind the center resolution wide open.

      • The 16-35 is a very limited lens on DX. Not really-really wide, or really-really fast, but also doesn’t have enough length for even basic portraits. And it’s pretty big and expensive too.
        A 17-55 F2.8 is a much more useful specification. At 55mm F2.8 you get some background blur and enough length to get into portrait range. And at 17mm it’s wide enough for general use. Just too bad that it is also pretty huge, heavy, expensive, and lacks VR.

        The 17-55 F2.8 is known to have big sample variance – often optical issues (not quite tack sharp and bad field curvature). I decided to live with a Tamron 17-50 VR for now. If I can’t have optical bliss I’d rather have a smaller, lighter, stabilised and cheaper lens. Not really great optics but from F4 onwards it is generally very good.

        I would absolutely love a F2.8 DX lens that starts at 16mm and offers VR. 16-55 mm F2.8 VR, for example. A match for Canon’s excellent 17-55 F2.8 IS. A DX equivalent to Nikon’s 24-70 F2.8 with added VR. Then I might even forgive the size and price.

  • Rob

    I always wished my 17-55 had VR, but it seems like if Nikon wanted to put VR in their 2.8 midrange zooms they would have done it a long time ago. Didn’t many people hope that the 24-70 2.8 might have VR before it came out?

  • Why bother? There isn’t anything wrong with it now, and it is not a big seller. I suppose they could tweak the VR and call it a new model.

  • Rob

    I’d welcome a FASTER 16-85.
    I dream of the perfect DX travel lens: 16-85 2.8 -4; What, too heavy?

  • Drunkenmilller

    If they can widen the aperture without losing sharpness, I’m all for it. We don’t need another 24-120 debacle where image quality is badly compromised and price goes up. If they need to reduce the range to 16-70 in order to get a constant f/4, then so be it. Or 16-50 in order to get f2.8 and decent close focusing magnification (at least .3 magnification).

  • Drunkenmiller

    What would be really sweet is a AF-S version of the old 28-105 macro.

  • Yeah.. this is one of my favorite Nikon lenses 🙂

  • The Man from Mandrem

    I don’t understand why Admin doesn’t believe this rumor is credible. Can he explain?

    If you believe Nikon is trying to differentiate in function and pricing their product lines: CX=Consumer, DX=Prosumer, FX=Pro they need a DX zoom lens differentiated from the 18-200 (e.g. fixed aperture, non-pro). Other than 18-200 none of the other 16-x or 18-x are sales winners (excluding kitted lenses that seem to go straight to the trash bin or the used market).

    I think as others have commented they will eliminate the 18-105, 16-85 AND 17-55 and price this lens as a not-cheapest kit option so it is by NO stretch of the imagination a “refresh” of a 3 year old lens, just a scale down of the 24-120/4 or something similar. It would also reduce the demand for 3rd party lenses like the Tamron F=2.8 since you have a fast aperture lens with a wide ranger and a Nikon logo.

    Why doesn’t the rumor seem credible?

  • Dite

    The existing 16-85mm lens is a very good consumer lens.
    Whereas the 10-24mm lens is notoriously soft in the corners at the wide end.
    I’d much rather see a 10-24mm update.

  • Paulo Feitosa

    I find it easier to believe in a new 18-300mm lens instead, due to the patent Nikon filled for one:

  • Back to top