Nikon’s patent for a 16-30mm f/4.5-5.6 FX lens

Patents 2012-8268, 2012-8271 and 2012-8273 filed in Japan are for a 16-30mm f/4.5-5.6 full frame lens:

  • Patent published on January 12th, 2012
  • Patent filed on June 23rd,  2010
  • Focal length: 16.48 - 29.10mm
  • Aperture: 4.41 - 5.88
  • Half angle of view 53.27 - 36.32°
  • Zoom ratio: 1.77x
  • 14 elemetns in 9 groups
  • 3 ED glass elements
  • 2 aspherical elements
  • Internal focusing
This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses, Nikon Patents. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • WAAAAAAAYYYYYY too slow for 16mm. they couldn’t pull off a 3.5-4.5?

    • ha

      14-24 covers speed and work leading iq

      • Jiri

        I hope this lens could be little smaller and lighter :-). For landscape photographers.

    • chlamchowder

      For those who aren’t trying to shoot creative sports photos with an ultrawide, this lens looks like a good alternative that will be lighter, and more importantly, much cheaper while delivering comparable performance given how it’ll be used (stopped down for more depth of field). Sigma’s sort-of equivalent for APS-C cameras, the 10-20/4-5.6, sold pretty well…maybe this will too.

      The 14-24 is definitely an incredible lens, but it’s heavy, difficult to handle (hard to protect the exposed front element), and filters don’t work. The 16-30 would give Nikon a more comprehensive wideangle lineup. Users who want 16mm in a full frame zoom, but don’t want to go over $1000, might be happy.

      • kyoshinikon

        As a sports shooter I can see that this is not the case. It is larger than the 14-24mm and has the same amount of internal elements…

        • chlamchowder

          I thought I stated that I wasn’t talking about sports shooters….

          Why would this be larger than the 14-24? Even if it has the same number of elements, those elements can be made smaller, lighter, and cheaper because it doesn’t need to have a 2.8 aperture.

      • PHOTOwebbz

        the DX 18-70 is 3.5-4.5 and costs ~$425 from nikon… they could have pulled it off

    • I’m gonna have to agree, rather slow at 30mm, f/5.6?!
      At least 4.5 at high and maybe 3.2 at low?

  • frAnk

    Why this lens? We already have the 16-35mm VR

    • Roberto


    • + 1, there is no way Nikon is building this, unless it comes in under $500 and their target market is those who just bought the new Nikon D400 FX camera!
      This lens seems like a waste of time considering the 16-35 f/4.0 VR lens already exists. And let us not forget the 17-35mm f/2.8 which is still produced and sold!

    • Jiri

      I hope this lens will be nice for travelling, much smaller, lighter and chaper then 16-35 and 14-24.
      16-35/4 is too big beast.

  • frAnk

    This must be the plastic consumer grade for about $500. But, why FX? There is no cheap FX body for consumers.

    • It almost certainly will be neither. If there is a prosumer FX model, both the D4 and D800 are JUST NOW coming out. So, it won’t be either of those sensors. The ones on preorder will barely have their due time in the field by 2013. If there’s a prosumer FX coming, it is either the D400 (this year) with a new sensor, the D400 successor with the D800/D4 sensor (2.5-3 years down the road), or a brand new line with a brand new sensor (this year or next).


    • NoFunBen

      sony has ay least 3 FX sensors, the consumer nikon FX could have a sensor like no nikon before it.
      D9000 FX ?

    • @Brian, you may be right about a consumer based FX camera body. But in order for Nikon, or any manufacturer, to do so, they will have to substatially raise the cost over that of simliar APS-C based sensors, like the D300S (or its DX replacement). Nikon may be doing this in response to Sony’s future FX offerings; unknown. Either way, FX sensors are VERY expensive to manufactur, due to their size and lower yields per wafer. The question is this, “How much do you think enthusiasts will be willing to pay for a basic entry level FX DSLR?” I know a friend of mine wants to upgrade from his D90 to FX, but anything over $2500 is just beyond his pain tolerance for high dollar ticket items. What do other readers think an entry level FX camera should go for?

      • photdog

        @ Dr. SCSI
        You’re damn right Dr. I think the best offer Nikon can give us for a FX price wise is the D700. At this juncture frequently the question pops up, why Sony can do that. And in this concern, I guess, there must be something in the business relationship between Sony and Nikon. I think that I wasn’t the only one thinking why Nikon never brought the 24MP sensor into the game to set an end to the huge sales success of the 5DII.
        And to my surprise, the Price of the D3x jumped to something around the MSRP (at least over here) AFTER the D4 was introduced. Basically the opposite of one would have expected.
        I think we would all agree that between the D7000 and the D700/D800 is a gap, which got to be filled. Though I would not exclude that Nikon is doing something like an FX entry camera (and then I wonder what that could be… concerning price and IQ) I strongly belief that Nikon ill not abandon the pro/semi pro DX line. On one hand top technology can be provided in and interesting price bracket (MSRP 1500-1800) and I’m sure there is demand since many people have and still buy DX glass. And for all, who are in tele DX is the “best TC” there is!
        And as for me, I’ve never been really convinced by switching an FX down to DX. And many agencies prescribed a limit in cropping a FX in PS.
        Thus I’m pretty convinced that there will be a D300s DX-sucessor. Besides there is still the 7D out there which will be happy to embrace all those, who think that a D7000 isn’t pro enough for them.
        Further up you brought up a very interesting idea: a 16-30 TS. That certainly would be a great revolutionary move. But beside the thought, that a 4.5-5.6/16-30 wouldn’t really make sense in Nikon’s line up, what of the construction drawing made you think it could be a TS?

        • @photdog, I didn’t see anything in the drawing that made me think TS. It was just a guess, based on the fact that three other PRO wide angle lenses have already been made by Nikon. Who knows, maybe Nikon will develop cheaper FX lenses and manufacturer a more affordable FX body for the masses. Which goes back to the idea of a D400 with an FX sensor. The body could be a hybrid construction like the D7000, some aluminum, plastic, and magnesium to keep costs down. Bring it on the market at the $1899 to $2100 range and you have a very popular camera. The question is this, “Is Nikon willing to develop consumer FX glass to go alongside their PRO FX glass, for their entire lineup?” Will we see the Holy Trinity of zoom lenses minuturized? Can you say 14-24 f/4, 24-70 f/4, 70-200 f/4? If Nikon could master in camera bokeh creation via software, then I would say this might be an optional path for them. Otherwise, in my eyes, they expending R&D money that would be better spent elsewhere. The crazy ISO capabilities we have now makes up for slower glass, but this doesn’t help with subject isolation; that still requires faster glass, like f/2.8, f/2.0, f/1.4!!

  • J C

    Why would anyone buy this???

    • pooh

      Size, weight, price

    • gerald Bellis

      because its not going to be over $1000.00

      • @ gerald Bellis, for just under $1K you can get the very capable 16-35 f/4 VR lens. OK, maybe only a refurbished one.

        Maybe the size, weight, and price are factors for this newly patented lens are more important to landscape photographers who would be stopping down anyway. If you get out into nature, size and weight can be extremely important when lugging your gear arround.

        • Jiri

          OK, that´s it. I need it for my D700 for landscapes and I hope the image quality stopped down will be a little better in the corners than my old 18-35mm. I do not need and want 14-24, I do not want 16-35 (to big and haevy, IQ in the ocrners +-), 17-38 is nice, but big and heavy..and very expensive.

        • gerald bellis

          This lens is going to be 375-500 max. Big difference bro.

  • kyoshinikon

    And I was critical of the current 16-35mm?

    Honestly most of the patented stuff nikon has never sees the light of day but if this does… WTH!

    It will be just as heavy as the 14-24mm and longer too. The current 16-35mm f4 is larger than the 14-24mm 2.8 and 17-35mm 2.8 not much lighter and alot larger and heavier than what either Sony or canon offers at the 16-35mm range (and both are 2.8’s!) The Vr is somewhat useless too as wide lenses pick up less shake than teles and motion blur would be a more common problem…

    Yep Nikon you have befuddled me. How about an update to your 17-35mm hmm? Luckily the creation date tells me this is probably just a tester…

    • Cameraman

      You do realize that this is JUST a patent right? Patents have value. Companies patent EVERYTHING. This isn’t a Nikon press release for a new lens, it’s a PATENT.

    • nikonsigma

      This lens will not be ‘just as heavy as the 14-24mm’. It has an aperture range of f/4.5-5.6. Not f/2.8. And the lens construction diagram does not show a large bulbous front element. It will be light, just as the 18-35mm is, which is also an FX wide zoom with a variable aperture.
      The VR in the 16-35mm is very useful. I shoot a lot in low-light, and I rarely carry a tripod, and the VR works well. I have got perfectly sharp shots at 1/2s. Plus VR is great for video work.

    • @kyoshinikon, think about this…

      Maybe it is a new Perspective Control (i.e. TS) zoom lens that Nikon is working on. Now that would make sense!!!

  • Sam

    Patents like this make me think there might be a consumer grade FX camera in the works.

  • Nikon does have a consumer grade $600 FX lens already, older 18-35mm. This might be a slightly wider a shorter replacement, 60% price of 16-35VR and still smaller/lighter, so why not ?

    • NoFunBen


  • Jerry

    I’d love that it should be about half the size and weight of the 16-35 VR and hopefully have corrected the barrel distortion.

  • Hmm. I don’t really see who this will be appealing to. I have a feeling they’re planning on a prosumer FX camera in the works as well. I mean, the cost of this could easily be in the range of the 11-16 Tokina. The speed on this is embarrassing. Granted, it will probably be a great lens. But, it will also probably be a pointless lens to produce unless there is a prosumer FX camera in the works. This makes it a bit more convincing that the D400 could be a prosumer FX. Personally, I hope not.

    I hope this is one of those patents that get sucked into the abyss.

    • BartyL

      “Pointless lens…” for close-ups and subject isolation because of the speed. Imagine for a moment that at f8 it is sharp from corner to corner, contrasty, has negligble chromatic abberation and low levels of simple distortion – then you’re looking at an affordable landscape lens worth having in your kit.

      • I suppose. I mean, I guess it’s good if you’re shooting nothing but landscapes with it, sure. But that’s not the market. They’re clearly not shooting for the pro landscape shooters. Even if this is as good as the 14-24, the pros will still pick the 14-24 every time. If, for no other reason, simply because it is the pro model.

        On the other hand, this will be ROUGHLY in the same ballpark as the 20/2.8D. If you don’t need the zoom, that’s significantly smaller..


        • @Mark, “the pros will still pick the 14-24 every time” – With the avent of the 16-35 f/4 VR, the 14-24 is less appealing, due to its lack of native filter support. I have both of these lenses, and the only reason I would use the 14-24 lens is due to the extra AOV and another stop of light. I recently received the Lee Filter Kit SW-150 for my 14-24mm lens and several filters, after two years of waiting no less. Depending on how well this kit works (i.e. prevents side flare or back flare), that will determine if I keep or sell my 14-24. If I really need to go wide, I also have the 24mm PC f/3.5 lens for landscape and architectural work. Now if Nikon makes a zoom PC lens around this patent, that would definitely raise some eyebrows at Canon!

  • Twoomy

    What a bunch of crank-pots! We have the big-ole 14-24mm, 17-35 f/2.8, 16-35 f/4 already, so what’s wrong with Nikon releasing a potentially smaller little FX wide-angle lens? I’d consider this if the price and quality were right.

    Hikers and landscapers usually shoot at f/5.6-11, and weight/size is also an important consideration. So while this might not be for everybody, count me in the corner that might buy it!

    • LightKitShooter

      Agree – there would be a market for this! I truly hope a prosumer FX body is released, FX D400 or D7100/D9000.

  • Brian

    This could be a good lens paired with a d600, which might have a similar body to d7000 with it’s AF, battery, etc, but with d700 viewfinder and d3s sensor for say $2299. Just above the d400 in price and fills that gap between d400 at $2000 and d800 at $4000


      HAD THERE COME SMTHG with the D3s senzor … if only … :-)) – I would buy it being it somewhere near the price you´ve mentioned. If not I´ll probably stay with my DX (for now) as D4 is out of my vallet-size (+ too big & heavy) & since the d800 specs are correct (it seems more & more like they r) then it0 won´t work for me either. TO the lens mentioned: I believe there might be some after this (not me actually but there will be buyer for it at reasonable price, size & weight I believe). Regards, Jet

  • Davo

    What if it’s small, light, cheap, as sharp and contrasty from 5.6-11 as the pro lens edge to edge.
    No VR so no additional bulk. Not fast so it should be considerably smaller than the f2,8 zooms.
    For a pure landscape lens, why not?

  • Sigh bot…

    Um…Is it just me, or do we ALL just want slightly more affordable FX primes? Might be me.

  • Let the prosumer FX Nikon rumors REALLY begin!


  • jerl

    It may be just a patent, but doing all of the design work and paperwork for a patent is a considerable cost- it’s not just a matter of sticking some random numbers in a computer and sending what comes out to the patent office.

    Still, I don’t really see what Nikon sees in this lens- of course the specs don’t sound very good, and the size of the front element and the number of elements doesn’t make it look too cheap either, but given the costs involved, they must have some goal in mind. Of course, maybe it really is just nothing.

  • John

    Well, Nikon makes/made the not very good 18-35/3.4-4.5D, so why not make a 16-30/4.5-5.6 AFS?
    It at least has a chance to be a very good lens with the 2 aspherics, ED glass, and no VR.
    Perhaps this is a kit lens to a future FX camera and may be optimized for video. Fortunately I already have the 17-35AFS and 20/2.8D, though if light enough it could be tempting for a daylight UWA FX walk-around.

    I wish Nikon would spend more time upgrading the 20/2.8D to a 20/2.8AFS (keep the size the same, but make those corners a bit better wide open and up the overall sharpness please).

  • do not forget to carry your tripod with this one!!! 🙂

  • bentoni

    This could be a full-frame fisheye zoom. Like a FF version of Tokina’s 10-17mm which is the single most useful and desirable lens for underwater shooters. As yet there is no lens like it for FF users (like me.) I would love it. I hope that’s what it is.

    • EnPassant

      Sorry to disappoint you, but an angle of 106.54° is not a fishey but a straight 16.48 mm wideangle just as the patent claims.

  • jabilson007

    Same as DX 10-24mm, but FX? $900? Pass.

  • fiatlux

    If it was good and affordable I’d be interested. I very rarely go below 24/28mm (true or equiv), and when I do, a slow lens would be fine. The slow speed of my Tamron 11-18 never bothered me when I shot it on DX. Dark viewfinder is the only real annoyance.

    For lansdcapes/cityscapes, I’d rather have a slow UWA zoom with very little distorsion than the current 16-35 VR.

    I’d still like VR, as it enables to stop down to f/11 for good corner-to-corner IQ without having to rely on a tripod.

  • Landscape Photo

    If size & price is the main consideration, why can’t they deliver simply a tiny 16mm f/4 prime, like the 20mm f/2.8?

  • FM2Fan

    classical kit-lens – the close-range-correction efforts are significant. this seems to be an allrounder in the “affordable” still light-weight class of lens.

    2.8 or 3.5 is interesting, but four times more expensive and two times heavier …

    • @FM2Fan, with 14 lens elements, I doubt this lens will be lightweight. When was the last time you saw a cheap FX lens? I don’t know what Nikon is up to with this lens, but the fact that they don’t have a tilt shift contender to the 17mm Canon TS lens, this just might be their answer! Imagine, Nikon 16-30mm PC. Why go all the way to 30mm you might ask, because they can without too much trouble. I could be WAY off base on this one, but I have yet to find any other logical explanation for this patent. Besides, 16-30 in a PC would be VERY usefull, and most landscape photographers are worried about wide aperatures. If Nikon were to just release a 16mm PC to capture some of Canon’s 17mm TS steam, that wouldn’t be very significant. Plus, if you are a landscape shooter, you would then have to cary two PC lenses, the 16mm and the 24mm. But, at 16-30….ahhhhhh, a light just clicked on. 🙂

      • Ooops, “most landscape photographers are worried about wide aperatures” — should read, “most landscape photographers aren’t worried about wide aperatures”

      • soap

        This is (at least) the second time you’ve speculated that this is perhaps a PC (tilt shift) lens.

        The image circle isn’t big enough. It isn’t. End of story.

  • Chris P

    It could be that this lens is the first admission that none of their existing FX wide angle zoom lenses will give good enough definition across the frame to live with a 36Mp sensor. At 30mm you will have two usable stops, f5.6 with, presumably, at least a trace of vignetting; and f8, before diffraction kicks in at f11. Welcome to the ‘brave new world’ of high megapixel sensors.

    • @Chris P, what happens if you put the existing FX wide angle zoom lenses on a camera like the D7000? Granted, that will be a crop of the center of the glass, but it might give you an idea of one might expect the 36MP D800 to look like. Or maybe using the FT-1 on the Nikon 1 series with their FX wide angle zoom lens lineup would be a better representation. If you look at the results that some were getting with the Nikon 1 + FT-1 + TC2 + 400mm f/2.8 VR, at least that lens proves it has the resolving power. But, as you suggest, you definitely can not expect the wide angle zooms to do the same, especially when you study their MTF charts vs those MTF charts from the SuperTeles.

    • AD

      If the existing lenses are good for film, they are good for 100mp sensor

  • kaze kaze

    If we wind back the clock 10 years-ish time:
    YR1999, AF-S 17-35 f2.8; YR2000, AF-D 18-35 f3.5-4.5.

    Then wind it back 10 years onward:
    YR2010, AF-S 16-35 f4 VR; YR2012, AF-S(?) 16-30 f4.5-5.6 VR(?).

    the comment was it is designed towards “compact size” and “good value”… which a consumer looks for.

    • @kaze kaze, maybe…but I think Nikon builds lenses to make money, not so much to provide good value and compactness. Unless of course they can do all three! 🙂
      For a bit more than $1000, at least one very good Nikon wide angle lens can be had. If one were to search the used/refurbished market, it can be had for under $1000. This patent looks complicated and pricy. I am thinking it would have to come in under $1000 to be of “good value”, but it will still be priced more than $500, say something in the park of $699. If I were to drop $699 for a landscape lens, I would definitely consider getting a used 16-35mm f/4 VR for $300 more, and thereby get two lenses in one. I suspect there is more to this patent than just the surface specifications we see.

  • What’s the point? 4.5???? slowww

    • Anonymous Maximus


      I used to shoot with a f/8 MF lens on ISO 50 film. So what?

  • Landscape Photo

    A typical kit lens for D800 would be a 28-105mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. Key features for such a lens will be as below:

    – Small & lightweight
    – Optimized for f/8
    – Low distortion
    – Weather sealed

    • The only FX KIT lenses I could imagine coming with a D800 would be the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR or the AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR. I just can’t see Nikon bringing in another FX VR which falls in the 28-105 range, especially one coming in at f/4.5-5.6 after they already had a D version which was faster at f/3.5-4.5. What I do find amazing is that numerous hobby/enthusiast DSLR owners who think that FX is going to give them some magical capability, without understanding what FX is capable of doing for them. Additionally, they complain about the price upgrade for FX, and the lack of slower, affordable lenses. Nikon has done very well with the D7000, and should continue making PRO glass for the DX format. I am no PRO, but I fully understand why I bought my FX gear and what it is capable of; not once did I complain about the price. 🙂 The readers here should ask themselves this, “If you are a DX shooter, and you are lusting after an FX camera and affordable lenses, do you really know why?” If you don’t know the answer, then please stick with DX for a while longer.

      • Landscape Photo

        The main reason I’m after slow lenses is the size issue, not price. For sure Nikon can make much smaller lenses than its current line, without sacrificing image quality.

        Either 28-300mm or 24-120mm are too bulky to be carried on the neck all the day. They will probably outbalance the body and point downwards too. A walkaround lens should be about 7cm long and not weigh more than 400g.

        Btw, 28-105mm optics is a proven way to meet quality and compactness. It can initially be designed as 24-135mm but capped to 28-105mm for sharpness at both focal ends. I’m happy to pay even $1500 for such a lens.

        • @Landscape Photo, the small lens that you seek probably won’t ever be built and yet fit into those specifications. The fact that Nikon is moving away from screw driven autofocus means any new lens being built will be AF-S with the focusing motor built in, thereby adding bulk and weight. Even Nikon’s old AF D 28-105 had a length of 81.5mm and weighed 455 grams, albeit a stop faster than what you desire. Even if it would be possible to build such a lens afterall, how many would be willing to buy it. I don’t know about your health, but I am overweight by about 50 lbs and thus I would serve myself better by losing weight vs. buying lighter gear! 🙂 I suspect that goes for numerous other photographers as well. Depending on your photography needs, DX might actually be the better solution, especially once the D400 is launched and inherits some of that FX goodness from its larger brothers. Here is such a lens in DX that would almost give you the equivalent FOV you desire; AF-S 16-85/3.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR – Weight 485 grams, Length 85mm. Without a doubt, that equivalent lens in FX will be much larger and heavier.

          • Landscape Photo

            Thanks. I already came from DX, not primariliy for high iso, but dynamic range and the better image in general. D700 images fare as if 16mp, when compared to D300, plus they have better acutance & a 3D-like impression.

            Yet, I don’t like bulky lenses. Even MF or LF lenses are not big. Why should 35mm necessarily be, with smaller image circle? Mostly because of the “need for speed”. Faster, apertures, faster AF, better VR, etc.

            I’m currently using a 28-200mm G as my walkaround lens and a couple of primes too. All are screw driven. There’s not much missing with the non-AF-S design. Maybe a bit noisy & slow, but it’s always spot-on.

            The 28-200mm G is an interesting lens. It is very compact & inherently designed to be sharp & contrasty, but is not manufactured with utmost care; sample variation is high. I eventually found an almost flawless sample, good both at wide & tele ends, after having 2 other so-so ones. Now, I’m babying it even in harsh environment 🙂


            • @LP, I do hear what you are saying. Good, fast glass, is big, bulky, and heavy. As far as MF and LF goes, it’s not the same thing. Number 1, you don’t see generic zoom lenses for MF and LF. Number 2, their prime lenses are typically 2-3 stops slower. Number 3, for MF, you will need to nearly double your focal length to that of 35mm to maintain the same FOV. So for the long end of your 28-200mm, you would need nearly 400mm in MF! Now for landscape and portraiture work, where the shallow DoF of MF plays an advantage for portraiture and fast glass isn’t required for landscape, those lenses typically have the size/weight advantages. But the overall system is larger and heavier. As always, photography is a game of tradeoffs, you can’t have your cake and eat it too! 🙂

              For Landscape work on the D700, I would recommend the 24mm f/3.5 PC-E tilt shift from Nikon; VERY good lens, plus the tilt movements let you control the plane of focus for your scene and the shift movements let you stitch for even wider panoramics.
              For Potraiture on the D700, it’s a toss up between the 85mm f/1.4 and the 135mm f/2 DC; both balance well on the D700, just a matter of preference on your working distance.
              For a general purpose walk around lens, 35mm f/1.4.
              For sports, the 70-200mm f/2.8, or when shooting further away, the 300mm f/4 is a good compromise for reach, quality, and weight. Finally 400mm f/2.8 if you want painterly bokeh and subject isolation at a greater distances. Now obviously, none of those lenses above fall into the lightweight category you would prefer, but their quality is very good.

              I think the reality here is that physics is getting in the way of designing what you would consider to be the ultimate tool for the type of work you want to do. Maybe one day, through advancements in in-camera processing, you may get what you want. For now, you better work on your pectoral muscles. 🙂

  • D-RiSe

    looks like a nice replacement for my 18-35.. a bit wider and hopefully less distortion.

  • photdog

    We see a company piling up patents in their drawers (is that to increase the economic value of the company?) but hardly any lenses hitting the market. Yeah, I don’t need to be reminded that they had have 2 disasters striking last year…
    But following up the development in the past years, it seems to me, that there is a trend to serve the consumer bracket of the D3000 to the D5100 and the high end bracket D3, D3s, D3x, D700 and now the D4. There is hardly anything for the upper middle class assuming they rather would wish themselves a kind of “downgrade” of the couple of thousands of $ lenses as e.g. a 4.5-5.6/120-450 instead of the 4.0/200-400, a revised 4.0/300 as well as a 4.0 or 5.6/400 and of course something in the wide class which still can be considered wide on DX. A 4.5/8-16 would be something… Also wide primes with 2.8 seem to be quite a bit orphaned: here a 4.0/14, a 3.5/16, a 2.8/20 and a 2.8/24 would be something…

    Now, a 4.5-5.6/16-30 makes me scratch the head a bit. When Sigma came up with a 3.5-4.5/15-30 it was a real screen-duster since this was novel back then as there was no 2.8/14-24 or 4.0/16-35. However, by now the 15-30 is taken off the Sigma line up. This arises the question, if Nikon thinks of it as a much promising market approach though the specs are worse and the competition in this field has considerably increased. I personally would consider a 4.0/16-35 with less distortion or a revised 2.8/17-35 clearly as a better choice, especially as apparently a D800 with 36 MP is on the horizon.

  • Ant

    If it’s tack sharp it could be a good option for wandering landscapers, who aren’t likely to be shooting below f/5.6 anyway.

  • maybe a pce lens? it would be quite useful for interior’s photographer!

    • fiatlux

      A PCE 16-30 zoom??? That would be a first! And not a cheap one!

    • +1 @ paolo razzoli, see my remarks elsewhere in this post. I thought the same thing, a PC lens makes much more sense to me, based on the specs and the complexity.

  • Patent applications are intentionally misleading. The only thing one can say for sure is for a wide angle zooom not having a constant aperture with some new optical or mechanical feature. The patentable invention may turn up in a faster lens or one with a slightly different focal length.

    If one wants to take the patent application as a literal prediction of an actual product, this lens would be priced below the 16-35 f/4. Extending that further one might say Nikon is planning a consumer priced FX body that needs to have a range of reasonably priced lenses available for it. We already have the 50 f/1.8 AF-S and the new 85 F/1.8 AF-S along with the existing 70-300VR in that range.

  • Brian

    Tokina 17-35mm f/4 Pro FX

  • Blimey! This is a bit of a popular thread for a lens probably non of us will buy! Are all you guys hanging about on NR waiting for a D800 to drop by? I know I am!

  • jen

    FAIL!!! wake me up when its over

  • Please, 24-70VR for handheld videographer~!!! 🙂

  • metalorange

    I don´t like the 16-35mm/f4 because of its size and because it has VR that I do not want or need in such a lens. If they make a lens that is smaller, optically as good as the 14-24 and inexpensive I am definately interested in such a lens. I don´t care if it is a slow lens as long as it is optically great with very low field curvature and distortion.

    • Landscape Photo


  • Matsu

    I think a design like this as well as the one described in the 35mm f/2.8 patent would lend themselves really well to a compact FX DSLR body. It can be done. Maybe not as compact as an old film FE, but smaller still than a D700, maybe closer to D7000 in size, or somewhere mid-way between? An f/2.8 prime and or a 4.5-5.6 zoom might not sound terribly exciting, but in terms of total light gathering, there aren’t many faster options in DX/APSC format. Most of APSC lenses covering the 10-20mm range are f/4, indeed, as are the m4/3 items of equivalent field of view. Against those, a 4.5-5.6 design actually gathers more overall light for any equivalent field of view.

    I’d be interested in it

  • Zeppo

    Just say no. I cannot see how this lens would improve the line-up. I would like to see a mirror lens, say 500 mm f/8 or a bit brighter.

  • Back to top