Nikon patent for 18mm f/1.8, 20mm f/1.8 FX lenses

Nikon 18mm f/1.8 lens patent

Nikon 18mm f/1.8 lens patent

Nikon filed a patentย 2012-27450 in Japan for a 18mm f/1.8 and 20mm f/1.8 full frame lenses:

  • Focal length: 18.4mm
  • Aperture: 1.84
  • Angle of view: 100.3deg
  • Lens design: 14 elements in 11 groups
  • 3 aspherical elements
  • 3 ED elements

Nikon 20mm f/1.8 lens patent

Nikon 20mm f/1.8 lens patent

  • Focal length: 20.4mm
  • Aperture: 1.84
  • Angle of view: 94.7deg
  • Lens design: 12 elements in 9 groups
  • 3 aspherical elements
  • 4 ED elements

It is typical for Nikon to patent several slightly different versions of each lens.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses, Nikon Patents. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Anyone tried Sigma’s 20mm f1.8? Gotta admit, sounds interesting if you’re into wide angle shallow DOF.

    • El Aura

      You want to have mine?

      • Ralph

        That good!!! Love my Sigma 150 Macro

      • santiagoth93

        Are you selling?

    • I looooove my Sigma 20mm/1.8 I’ve been meaning to do a review of it. Maybe now’s a good time!

      The notion of Nikon producing a version with AFS and a gasket at the mount, frankly, makes me damp.

      I killed my D700 last year when water got in through the mount when I was using the 20/1.8.

      It’s an excellently sharp lens, even wide open, but suffers pretty nasty coma on tiny point lights until about F4.

      • NoFunBen

        I use the sigma 20 1.8 all the time, i will have to buy the nikon when it comes out.
        another expensive lens i will have to buy.

    • tredbilyt

      I love my 20mm f1.8 but I also hate it. It seems to get people out of focus all the time. Very irritating. And soft wide-open. It also underexposes a full stop. It however is pretty cool for video at night. I got mine on ebay and it was used. It’s the AF screw type of lens.

    • tedted

      The dof isn’t that shallow at 20mm. Maybe a little more on FX but I doubt it. Look up some pictures.

      • Depends on your distance. Close up, you can get some pretty sweet OOF backgrounds, with some pretty decent bokeh:


      • Dog

        It has an entrance pupil of 11.1 mm. That’s not large. Will get as much isolation as a 50mm at f/4.5.

        • Ooh, I may have to test that one out. Certainly I don’t think that holds up at the same subject size in the frame.

          • Dog

            Focus separation = entrance pupil * distance ratio.

            So, yes, one either puts the subject closer (increasing the distance ratio) or one increases the entrance pupil (300mm @ f/3 has a 100mm entrance pupil – let’s see your 50mm f/0.5!)

        • CajunCC

          Hardly relevant. It’ll get a lot more isolation than any other 20mm lens.

          • dog

            You’re reading implications which do not exist.

  • CRB

    Still waiting for that 24mm DX to appear….

    • Patents for 24/2/2.8 DX appeared last year, so there’s still hope ๐Ÿ™‚

      • CRB

        Yes Petr, thanks..thats what i was thinking about…hope is the f2….

      • photographer 1234567

        I think he meant 16 DX = 24 equiv. That is the one really important lens that is missing from Nikons DX line up.

        Nikon has a 24 f2.8 lens = 36 on DX bodies. Sigma has a 24 f1.8 as well.

        • photographer 1234567

          And the 24 f1.4 N = 36 f1.4 N on DX.

          It is a 16 = 24 DX that is missing! The longer Nikon goes without one, the more people will buy a Sony E mount camera with their 16 f2.8 = 24 equiv. (admittedly not a good lens, distorts a lot) or a Panasonic / Olympus 4/3 with their 12 f2.0 = 24 equiv. (A very nice lens, bit limited in high ISO by their smaller sensor.)

          That is why Nikon needs to release a 16 = 24 equiv. DX lens now! Please make it f2.o for an affordable price and excellent IQ!

  • Young Boy

    Shiiiit! Again no DX wide angel prime!!!! What’s that! FX users have already so much to choose from, but for DX only creepy 35mm or super-expensive zooms. Is it so difficult to have ONE decent AF DX wide angle prime (18 to 24 mm equiv)? It must not be 1.8, 2.0 or even 2.8 would be fine… ๐Ÿ™
    Heeey, Tamron, Tokina, Sigma? Anyone got the message?

    • karl

      what’s wrong with the 11-16mm tokina ? It can be considered a prime after all ๐Ÿ˜‰

      • Anon

        There is no possible way in any situation that you could consider a zoom lens to be a prime lens.

        • Jesus_sti

          +1 …… NEVER !

          • NEVER ever ever. Unless you do.

            I second the 11-16 being an excellently sharp lens. A little bit of CA, but it cleans up nice with software correction.

            • XoxmX

              Yeah, and every second with front and back focus issue, that can not be corrected with af tunning. If lens is ok, af miss 1 from 4. Bulky, CA.

            • I haven’t had that issue with any lens, except my old D90 with my 50/1.4d. They didn’t like each other. All my other lenses have worked fine. YMMV.

              Well, many needed adjustment on my D7000, but once tuned, they all work fine.

        • STRB

          What if the zoom mechanism was broken and the zoom is stuck in one focal distanca? ๐Ÿ˜‰

        • If *any* zoom has the word “prime” thrown around with it, it’s the 14-24.

          I always describe it as “the world’s best 14, 16, 18, and 21mm primes in one package”… because it is.

    • St.

      Get the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8! – the range is very small – it’s just about to tweak the composition a little – and it’s crazy sharp lens!!!!
      The price is also very good!

    • Anon

      HAH. funniest thing I’ve read today. Stop whining. DX cameras can use ANY FX lens. If Nikon made this, you could use it on your camera. In the time it takes them to produce it, you could save up enough money to afford it. Stop being such a cry baby.

      • St.

        The reason some DX users “cry” I think is because they want FX lens quality in 2x smaller size and 3x cheaper price.

        • mike

          Which is fully understandable – you expect people who use bodies for less than 1000$ to buy 1500$ FX primes which will be rarely used ?

      • karl

        you missed the point.
        A wide FX lens tends to be not that wide on DX thanks to the 1.5 crop factor.
        So a truly WIDE lens would have to be somewhere around 14mm for DX.

      • Young Boy

        Are all FX users total morons, or only most of them? Amazing. Sometimes I feel like i don’t want FX just not to become like them! Ignorant, snobbish, without respect to others, other opinions, people with budgets, or decisions of others!

    • gpereir4

      I fail to see why you cannot use one of these new lenses on your camera. An FX lens is fully compatible on a DX body, and the focal lengths are optically exactly the same. The only difference between a 20 or 18mm f1.8 FX lens vs DX lenses of the same length is that FX lenses are specially designed to be compatible with FX sensors. This is a good thing, especially if you decide to one day make the switch to full frame. Also, FX branded lenses are usually of superior build quality.

      • Jesus_sti

        And FF are way better in wide angle … true 20 mm not a 30 mm

      • ausserirdischegesund

        These lenses are more than 100 or 95 degrees in angle. That is what you pay for.

        If you use them on DX you throw away most of that angle. It is really not a good idea to pay for a extreme wide angle, and get a moderate one.

    • tengris

      > “Again no DX wide angel prime!!!! Whatโ€™s that! FX users have already so much to choose from, but for DX only creepy 35mm or super-expensive zooms.”

      The AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G is a prime and maybe it’s creepy, but it’s in no way a wide angle. It’s a standard lens for small sensors. So, to be precise, there is _NO_ wideangle prime in the DX lineup, if you don’t count fisheyes and toy lenses.

      FX primes aren’t really an option on DX cameras. You cut away exactly that image area that cost you 70% of the bulk and weight and price.

      • Magnus


        There’s a great 35/2 for FX that is small, sharp and in a nice price range. DX really need something similar. And I don’t understand the comment about the Tokina 11-16/2,8, it’s in no way comparable to a 24mm lens. A better comparison is the numerous f/2,8 standard zoom lenses that also offers 24mm, but you still lose one step of light and get at least 50% more DOF.

        I, as an FX user, really welcome these lenses if one or both of them arrive to the market. I guess they will be quite pricey though, like the 35/1,4 an 24/1,4, due to the wider angle and the still large aperture.

        • Magnus

          Just for clarification, the latter paragraph is a comment on the topic of the thread,i.e. the 18 and 20mm f/1,8 primes.

      • jake

        Again, how are wide angle fx lens not an option on crop? A 14mm fx lens is 14mm, a 14mm dx lens is 14mm.

    • jake

      I’m not quite sure what your getting at? A 24mm dx lens and 24mm fx lens will both be 24mm.

      • Young Boy

        Are you kidding?! (Or simly stupido?)

        24 FF lens is 36 mm FF equiv. on DX!!! You even can’t call that wide-angle anymore!!! It’s simply 36 mm lens for looooots of money, not talking about the fact that this angle is covered fine by quality DX zooms like 18-50 f2.5 or 16-85!

    • a4

      I’m sorry to say this, but Nikon doesn’t seems to give a shit about their DX line anymore…

  • marcin

    Great news! Can’t wait – especially the 18mm|1.8 one. By the way – it is time for a new 17-35mm|2.8 Nikon!

    • InfraRed

      I bought mine in 2002; I took thousands of pics with it and honestly, there isn’t much do improve: it is a great lens “as is”. Since Nikon has limited engineering resoruces, I think there are more boiling urgent priorities (i.e. a new 80-400mm or a new 50mm f/1.2)

      • Kon_head

        Add myvote to the 80-400mm. Many patents filed, but still no cigars!

    • The 17-35mm is a fine lens. Get one if you want it. If you want the latest, it was replaced with TWO superiour lenses. Really, try to keep up!

  • I want one… But can’t decide which one…

    • Shawnino


  • PHB

    May be tough to find a market for a lens that is only a stop and a half faster than the 14-24 zoom.

    But its also a sign that the Nikon range is so well supported and current now that they are working on filling in the smaller remaining niches.

    They definitely need that 80-400 AFS more.

    I want one to use with my V1.

    • vinman

      Disagree – I’ve had the 14-24 purchased along with my D700 since July 2008 and is LOVE a 20/1.8 ! The zoom is a fantastic bit of glass, but it’s heavy and difficult to control distortion shooting close – even at 24. The 1.8 aperture will permit some subject isolation, as well. If its not priced up in the stratosphere, it might make my list…

    • twooomy

      Disagree for three reasons. A 20 or 18mm 1.8 prime:

      1. is smaller
      2. is cheaper
      3. will take filters

      No arguing about the quality of the 14-24, but I’d go for these primes in a heartbeat!

    • Dolph Lundgren

      So … what; there is a market for 35/1.8 DX, 35/2 and 35/1.4G but not for 14-24/2.8 and 20/1.8 …? WTF?

  • T.I.M

    I don’t get it, f/2.8 is fast enough for wide angle lenses, why pay more and have more optical flaws with apertures so large ?

    I prefer put my extra money in a 85mm f/1.4 rather than a 18mm f/1.8.

    Wide angle need more d.o.f than extra light (specialy with the high ISO we now get from the new DSLR)

    • rkas

      Because wide angle with short dof is fun?

      • MisterF


      • +1,000,000

      • FM2Fan

        lots of fun actually – but admitted: costly fun

    • DOF is fine and dandy. Some, like myself, would love more subject isolation. ๐Ÿ˜€


    • Sideswiped

      The isolation and fov wide angle primes provide is something that would be very hard to achieve with longer lens(you could stich multiple images). Just look at the 24mm 1.4 and photos taken with it wide open. There are a large number of people that will gladly pay for it.

    • GeofFx

      I agree with you TIM. I don’t get the 1.8 either. To me, the reduced size,weight, and price of a 2.8 is much more important than having the option to reduce DOF on the rare occasion that I’d desire to do so with a wide angle lens.

      What makes it even more confusing for me is that people were more than happy with 2.8 back in the film days when iso/asa of 50-400 was common and 1600 was extreme. With today’s cameras, and the cameras of the future, the iso’s are crazy good, so ‘fast’ shouldn’t be as important now.

      It seems that with the transition to digital, there is a bigger segregation between prosumer and pro equipment.

      • It’s more than just the ability to reduce DOF, its the ability to reduce your ISO so that your subjects actually have skin detail and eyelashes.

        • GeofFx

          I don’t get this either. If you really NEED that sort of critical detail in a very dark environment (otherwise iso isn’t a factor), then the 1.4 is available already.

          I realize there is a difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 in terms of price/size/weight etc. From my perspective though, I just wish for a 2.8 so that there is a bigger difference.

  • seb

    I thing for FX format We need 10 mm f2.8 (non fish eye)

  • amien

    THIS is GREAT, hope it will cost bellow 900$

    • fred

      24mm f/1.4 AF-S Nikkor costs over $2000. Keep dreaming.

      • St.

        and it is a wonderful lens!!!!

        • Yes, but 24/1.8G for 500-600$ may be more wonderful for me! ))

      • gpereir4

        The 85mm f1.4 is around 1,700$. The 85mm f1.8 that was released in January has a list price of 499$. How is under 900$ dreaming? I would not be surprised if the 24mm f1.8 was around 600$.

        • St.

          yep, I wonder – after the 50mm 1.8G (more than twice cheaper than the 1.4G) and the 85mm 1.8G (more than 3 times cheaper than 1.4G) and I expect similar price difference with the 24mm – why Nikon is doing that?
          I mean 50mm 1.8 has identical quality to it’s bigger brother, same size too. I’m looking forward to see tests between the 85mm 1.4 and 1.8 to see if it will be the same, but probably yes.
          So if you don’t have any of these lenses why would you pick up the 1.4 version??? For the 2/3 stop difference?
          I already have the 24mm and the 50mm 1.4 versions and I’m looking to see is it worth to buy the 85mm 1.4 or 1.8 will be equal quality for 3x smaller price.

          • …absolutely identical, except for a stop of light and better res in the corners.

            • St.

              I bought my 50mm 1.4 and then when the 1.8 version came out I was wondering why almost identical lens can be more than twice cheaper (and it is also a FX lens). Then I bought my 24mm 1.4, simply because there is no 1.8 equivalent (new), but now – I’m before buying the 85mm and I’ll wait to see how 1.8 version performs. Although I’m sure it will be identical. (it just has 67mm size and doesn’t have a Nano crystal coating). But the price difference is huge!
              Does anybody knows available test results between the two 85mm?

            • …I’m curious about the new 85/1.8g as well. I own the 1.8d and the LoCA is a bit annoying. Not unusable, but it could be better. If the new one is better, I might upgrade. Unless I get the 1.4g first. ; D

          • T.I.M

            The AF-s 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 are NOT THE SAME LENS.
            There is much more glass in the f/1.4 and 8 elements (7 for the f/1.8).
            Also Nikon probably make 10 times more 50mm f/1.8 than the f/1.4.
            All that explain why the f/1.4 is much more expensive.

            • …hope you didn’t take my sarcasm seriously. I agree. I got the 1.4g and after testing the new 1.8, there’s nothing really to gain. In fact, I think mine is a little sharper than the new 1.8.

          • tredbily

            The reason Nikon is charging significantly less for f1.8 lenses is because the lens aren’t even worth that much. Look at the Samyang, Bower, Rokinon, etc. lenses. They’re around $300 for the same lenses Nikon charges several thousands of dollars for, and they’re better, except manual focus. Nikon’s previous 50mm lenses were way cheaper too. Nikon makes up the prices because they have a monopoly on the technology.

            • preston

              First of all, those Samyang, Bower, Rokinon’s are not better. Look at the tests on They are respectable, sure, but not actually better. And the manual focus part is a deal breaker, not a side note. Nearly impossible to nail focus on your model’s eye with the 85 1.4 in manual focus.

            • photographer 1234567

              People that make blanket statements are Trolls!

              The new high end Nikkors are worth every penny if you know how to use them, and are not worth much if you do not!

              The photographer takes the picture, not the lens!

              The difference in price reflect FEATURES. Lots more money for f1.4 and Nano or Zeiss coating. The f1.8 lenses are less money to make and do not have the high end coatings, that is why they cost less.

              The AF-S technology is a big part of the Nikkor price. If you are happy with MF, buy a MF lens, but don’t wine about it!

  • fred

    This is GREAT news. Nikon used to make really exotic lenses, even though they were absurdly expensive and would never see high demand, because they were the only company that could. This contributed greatly to building Nikon’s engineering culture, and also its reputation among artists and other ‘serious’ photographers. These are both things we need more of today.

    The long-awaited emergence of professional-type cameras outside the “giant SLR” realm is finally coming to pass in the digital realm. Photography is getting a chance to re-emerge as a serious pursuit for enthusiasts who don’t think Cartier-Bresson would have done better with image stabilization and face detection. I hope this is the beginning of Nikon doing their part in this re-emergence of serious photography. They may not have produced (yet) the compact we all wanted, but the 18mm f/1.8 and other exotic new Nikkors will do wonders in the hands of some talented photographers.

    • tredbily

      It’s certainly taking them long enough. Technologies like face detection has been in point and shoots for a long time, along with image stabilization. As bright as they are, all these prime lenses produce tons of blur in my photos at night. Can’t they include stabilization in the body too?

  • Zenzo

    Since Nikon’s full-frame 28mm lens is long gone (and insanely expensive used), if they came out with a quality, fast 20mm lens I would probably stick with APS-C for good.

  • Good news!
    But when will come 24/1.8G and 28/1.8G?

  • john

    Finally a tiny bit of action for a new 20mm lens, hope they will sell it

  • Wide Angle, fast FX primes sounds awesome! Yeah the 14-24 is awesome but would be great to have smaller, lighter (hopefully) options.

    • El_Pickerel

      Agreed, I’d get one of these lenses before I got the 14-24mm f/2.8, if it falls in the same size as the 24mm f/1.4.

  • Ahhhh. Drool. Too bad I could never afford one after buying the D800 and a few new lenses. -_-


  • Dweeb

    More retarded >$2000 dollar too-fast lenses? Just re-work your 24 and 28 with IS like Canon.

    • MysterF

      24 IS?…IS?…Hello Mr.Parkinson…

    • preston

      Look at the price difference between current f/1.4 lenses (around $2,000) and f/1.8 lenses (less than $1,000) and you’ll see that any non-telephoto f/1.8 lens won’t cost even close to $2,000.

  • Gab

    These lenses if released will be very expensive + very heavy. We DX users would like to have a small wide a lens for our small sensor and with a price in accordance with that..

    • If you’re going to go with a 18/1.8, just go with the Tokina 11-16/2.8, or 17-50/2.8. I can empathize with the want for a lens like this as a small and affordable, DX version, being a D300s owner. But, I can also say that this isn’t the type of lens to be carried around on the front of a D3000 all day. I mean, if you want something of the sort, get the 20mm F/2.8 Nikon. You can get it used for like $350. I think that’s plenty reasonable, even for DX, and you’ll never have to worry about falloff or vignetting. It’s also teensy tiny.


      • Gab

        The 20mm F/2.8 is an old FX lens and the resolution on DX is just not acceptable, it’s bad even stopped down.

      • EnPassant

        The old Nikon AF 20/2.8 will not autofocus on a D3000. It is also about the same weight as the 18-55 kit-zoom that both has VR and is sharper.

      • tredbily

        Yeah, I have the 28mm f2.8 and the image quality stinks on DX and it’s too dark. Nothing remotely like the 50mm f1.8 or f1.4. Very dark and coma aberration where blobs of light smear like a comet, and just soft and weird looking. It seems like pictures are out of focus too. And at f2.8 I get a lot of blurry images at night. And not just that, it’s not all that bright for video at night either.

        • photographer 1234567

          To “tredbily”, you said:

          – “the 28mm f2.8…it’s too dark”
          Answer: You are underexposing, the lens itself is not too dark. Unless you mean f2.8 is too slow for you. If your pictures are dark while metered through the camera, open up; that’s what exposure compensation is for!

          – “soft and weird looking. It seems like pictures are out of focus too.”
          Answer: Your lens is most likely miss-focusing. Calibrate the body to it, or send the body and lens to Nikon to calibrate it for you. (You need a body that has the feature to calibrate for individual lenses. On non AF-S lenses, only the body can be calibrated.)

          – “at f2.8 I get a lot of blurry images at night.”
          Answer: See above + try stoping the lenses down a bit. Old style lenses are not at their best fully wide open.

          In conclusion: Stop blaming the lens and learn about photography! People keep looking to improve their equipment, to improve their images, and this approach alone does NOT work!

          Of course you need well functioning equipment, and some lenses are softer and / or distort more, etc. than others, but comments like yours show that first you need to learn about photography, then you can re-analyze your equipment needs!

  • PhillipG

    If they scaled it down, an 18mm or 20mm f/1.8 could make sense on the CX mount- they’d be roughly equivalent to a 50mm FOV on FX.

    People can find surprising uses for lens, but I’m skeptical that there’s that much of a market for these lenses on FX- you could use them for events and portraits, but I doubt they’d be a primary, or even secondary, lens for more than a miniscule number of photographers.

    If they do make them, hopefully, they do have a very close focus so you can get some DoF separation.

    Otherwise, maybe astrophotographers would be interested?

    I’d rather see Nikon come out with 16mm f/2 and 24mm f/2 on DX, and 24mm f/2 and 35mm f/2 on FX.

    • Al

      DX needs prime lenses?
      Does Hyundai cars need a kid gloved chauffeur?
      Does mackerel fish pair well with beluga caviar?
      Does maxican taco pair well with vintage champagne?
      Does hillybilly really fits into Beverly Hills?

      • Ken Hill

        The rednecks’ full frame DSLR is the DX….or Nikon1 with a F mount lenses.

      • PhillipG

        Nikon has apparently sold around 460000 35mm f/1.8 DX lenses in the past 3 years, so apparently hundreds of thousands of photographers want to use primes on DX.

        Moreover, some people love photopgraphy, but don’t have $3000 to drop on an FX camera.

        • Al

          To follow your logic, they will be ok to drop $2,000 on a prime lens?

          • AM

            The DX 35mm f/1.8 is just $200. Nikon can easily come up with affordable fast DX WA prime lenses.

            • NoFunBen

              dx does need the equivalent of a 35mm or a 24mm.
              but a f2.0 22mm (33mm equiv) would be at least 500$ and that may put it out of the market. Nikon should make it anyway it would sell enough to make it worth it, and would help to make dx more of a completed system.

          • PhillipG

            I don’t think it makes sense for most DX users to spend $2000 on a single DX lens, but I doubt that a 16mm or 24mm f/2 DX lens would cost $2000.

            The existing 24mm f/1.4 lens costs about $2000. I would guess that a 24mm f/2 dx would be, at most, half the price of the f/1.4, but probably less.

            • Gab

              It wouldn’t cost 2000$ wow. ๐Ÿ˜€ The dx sensor size is less than half that of the FX counterpart, so the actual mass of glass can be halved as well.
              The NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4 G is 2000$, lets modify that to f/2 thats the amount of glass needed halved, factor in the image circle size, we are at 500$. Use less elements to handle chromatic aberation and distortion. (we dx users can deal with that in post.) We are not pros here, so lets make a minor compromise at sharpness as well, but make sure it looks good on a d7000. Now we are at about 300$ ๐Ÿ˜€
              And also make sure the whole lens body is made of plastic, with only the mount is being metal and you arrive at 250$.

            • Jim

              @ Gab
              I think that is nonsense!
              Why would one buy a $250 prime if it hasn’t a clear edge over a zoom – which at this price point isn’t to achieve, even not at DX.
              If one would go that level, he’d be better of to buy the 10-24 DX plus the 28-300FX and have covered it all. And for the scenarios requiring fast lenses get a 35/1.8 or 50/1.8 and have it all with just 3 lenses

        • Ralph

          But 35 on DX is essentially a normal lens. It’s like the 50f1.8 on FF, also only $200 odd.

    • Sahaja

      Astrophotographers may as well use manual focus Nikon or Zeiss primes since they can keep their lenses permanently set at infinity.

  • Jill

    It looks like Nikon is going to release some nice glass to match the D800E.

    We, landscape shooters, are very happy with these two lenses. The D800E can show off it’s full resolution power now.

    Way to go Nikon, I forgave you for the Nikon1 blunder.

    • NoFunBen

      the 20mm can be nice for bars and parties where there is little space with people packed together and many people want to be in each shot. you cant step back to put more space between you and your subjects.

      • D800_finally_here

        24/1.4G does exactly that !

        • Correct. 24mm is about as wide as you can go before things *really* start to look weird.

  • Hope it beautiful as 14-24 not ugly as 16-35. :)~

    • George

      Those two are pretty equal on performance in terms of sharpness.

      • …but not contrast or illumination. Give here, take there.

      • preston

        16-35 has monstrous distortion. Useless lens for architectural shooters (that don’t want to correct every single shot in post). 14-24 has wonderfully low distortion.

  • Mat

    Ive got the 24mm 1.8 and it the tits! Although I think Nikon has been prowling me because Ive been looking at the 18mm f2.8 lately…..

  • I think these 2 lenses are certainly coming out soon.

    On DX they give you a lovely field of view of 27 and 30 respectively and on the 1 system + FT1 they give you close to 50mm.

    I really hope though the next big announcement is the D400 + 80-400mm, my money is all saved, I just need them to announce it.

    • Jabilson007

      Yes, please!

  • This is really interesting, but patent applications do not mean a matching product will appear. The patent covers an invention that is novel and useful. That means there is some innovation in the optical formula which is new technology. This innovation may appear in fast ultra wide primes, or it may appear elsewhere.

    I for one would like to see a revised 35mm f/2 or even a 24mm f/2 for FX. If they can keep the size and price reasonable, f/1.8 would be fine.

    • Trevor

      Agreed, having a 24 or 35mm f/2 for FX would be a welcome addition. Canon’s recent rework of their 24mm might kick Nikon into gear. The 24mm patents were out long ago compared to these. Personally, I would hope for a 24mm f/2 or even 2.8 to keep the price reasonable. I wouldn’t balk at all at an f/1.8 ๐Ÿ™‚

  • FM2Fan

    both are very welcome – think of it for video! as well as just another lens below the 24/1.4

  • Come to think of it, if these follow the price path of the new xx/1.8 lenses like the 50 and 85, I’m really excited to see these come out. Nikon will have one hell of a line of F/1.8 primes on their hands, all in the best of quality.

    And honestly, I think they’re doing this because of their D800. Not that Nikon hasn’t always strived to have the best lenses, but they especially need them now that they have such a high-resolution camera. These are going to be spectacular should they be released at a reasonable price.


    • tedted

      They may be coming out with it because people have been pestering them for it.

      • People have been pestering them for a 80-400 replacement, DX wide primes, 200 micro replacement, and some others for quite a while as well. But they come out with these. I still think it’s for the reasons above.


  • R!

    18 F 1.8 It sounds interesting!!!!!!!!

  • jorg

    What do you think, how will the 85mm 1.4D perform on the D800 or should I get the new 1.8

    • jake

      I think the 85mm f1.4D will perform great on anything!

    • jorg

      another “jorg” ! hello.

  • tredbily

    Let’s hope it’s not $2200.

  • R R

    woah ! unexpected and fantastic! hope they become reality… wow…

  • Bill Lise

    Perhaps this is a minor point, but one that is often missed, but the “patent” that was filed is not a “patent” yet. It is an _patent application_, file June 3, 2011 by Nikon, and, in accordance with the procedure in Japan, published (not issued as a patent) as an application 18 months later.
    If and when it is examined by the Japan Patent Office (at the request of the applicant, which is sometimes not made), it will become a patent after (and if) it passes the examination process. All minutia, I am sure, to most people, but my profesional activities as a Japanese patent translator here in Japan prompted me to mention this often-missed nuance of patent _application publications_ in Japan.

    • How many products come out with “Patent Pending”? ๐Ÿ˜‰

      Probably not many in the photography world, but it sure would be nice to have these come out soon.


    • InfraRed

      Good point Bill!
      I wonder what percentage of patent applications in this industry (optics/lense design) aren’t granted in Japan or challenged for prior art… I welcome your exertise on that!
      Has Canon ever Challenged Nikon on a design or implementation? What about Zeiss or Schneider?

  • metalorange

    These two lenses will be far too expensive and I do not see the need for 1,8 in a wide-angle lens. No thank you Nikon.
    All I want is a modern 20mm/2,8 or 24mm/2,8 lens without Vr that can focus very close like the 28mm/2,8 Ais.

  • Linghu

    Want to see some Nikon Tele lens, 400mm f4. 500mm f5.6. dont have many range of the tele lens sad, other long tele nikon lens are too expensive

  • Yoan

    How about a WA DX prime? I’d love something like a 10 or 12mm f/2.8 (or maybe even f/4 to reduce the cost and size).

  • Jake

    What I want is an somewhat affordable super wide angle lens fromn nikon.

    Give the a 14mm f4 with minimal distortions and vignetting at decent price.

  • Chris P

    I wouldn’t get too excited just yet. The time between Nikon publishing patents for various replacements for the 80-400 zoom and now, still with no replacement even rumoured, is approaching the gestation period of an elephant.

    • Kon_head

      Canon rumors posted a may be ‘autumn 2012’ new 100-400 IS. May be that will put some pressure on Nikon to get rid of their aptly inadequate 80-400 meat grinder.

  • Symbol

    I hope one day Nikon or somebody else will produce something similar to canon ts 17mm. I need wide angle PC lens, but pc-e 24/3.5 is not good for architecture and interiors, cause it has narrow angle of view. And of course I don’t want switch to canon. Maybe this 18mm lens will be with PC-E mechanism?

    • photo-Jack

      Was thinking about to get myself a 24 PC-E, but heard it won’t work well on a D700 coz the “flash-box” interfere with that lens. Don’t know about the D800 but as far as the presentations let us know there is no difference between these in this concern.
      Can you give some hints about you experience with the 24 PC-E, please?

      • Symbol

        Unfortunally I have no experience with this lens, I don’t own it. But I’ve seen many sample shots from pc-e 34/3.5 and from discontinued pc 28/3.5 and decided they are too narrow for my purposes (I’m an architect and interior designer, and I need to shot interiors very often). Also I’ve made some test shots with my friend’s canon 5dmkII + ts 24. As for me its quite narrow too. I think ideal range for architecture lens is about ~18-20mm
        Usually I use D7000 + tokina 11-16/2.8 (at wide angle mainly) for interiors, and I should say this lens is almost perfect, but sometimes I’d like to have something similar with shift (rise) movement. Canon’s ts-e 17 on 5dmkII seems to be exceptionally good for interiors, because this lens has good geometry (no distortion). I really WANT to switch to FX camera at last, but today nikon has no proper architectural lenses, so I can’t find any reason to do it. Tokina 16-28 and Nikon 14-24 gives almost same results (straight geomerty, good angle coverage) as my dx tokina 11-16 + d7000.
        I think nikon should produce something like pc-e 18 or 19 mm cause canons 17 mm gives a little bit everted geometry in some cases.

      • Symbol

        At 2nd line: not 34/3.5 but 24/3.5. Sorry.

    • preston

      Symbol, I take it you have a DX body, cause otherwise the comment about too narrow a view doesn’t really make sense. 17mm on FX is extreme wide angle to the point that it makes most buildings look very bad. Only would use a 17mm PC lens for skyscrapers or something that wouldn’t be possible with the 24mm. Otherwise use the 24mm and stitch a couple frames for the wider view.

      • Symbol

        Yes you right, 17 mm on FX gives too everted geomerty in architecture shors in some cases. But in interors 17 mm is indispensable if you don’t want to make tiresome stitching of several images.
        I’m an architect and interior designer and I own D7000+tokina 11-16. I must say in 90% cases I use tokina at wide angle in interiors. (11mm on DX = eq 16.5 mm for FX). 16 mm end is too narrow when I need to present whole space of a room.

  • DFive

    Placing my order for the AF-S 20mm f1.8G ED N here now !!!


  • Finally!

    Thanks Nikon!

  • Crocodilo

    The very fact that so many people respond with the Tokina 11-16 to the quest for DX wide angles is an indicator of the breach in Nikon’s line-up.

    Besides, if Nikon can do a 10-24 DX f3.5-4.5 for around 700-800 dollars/euros, a fast prime in the ranges 16-20mm, f1.8-2.8 with similar build to the 35 1.8G or 50 1.8G (that go for 200 USD) shouldn’t be too hard to pull below 400 USD, tops.

    The DX user community is full of avid and dedicated amateurs that woulb buy these up in a heartbeat. In fact some say these people buy more than their share of lens, as in body to lens ratio. Look at the 40mm Micro for another good example of an affordable, decent DX lens, that many so-called pros frowned upon…

  • Dr Motmot

    18mm f1.8! Yes please!

  • Trevor

    Given the construction and the amount of glass in that 18 f/1.8 (14 elements in 10 groups), I’m guessing that would NOT be a cheap lens. More similar to the 14mm f/2.8 at $1,900. That’s a shame, because at that price the 14-24 f/2.8 is really close.

  • Roger

    These are not gonna be cheap lenses, look at the design.

  • Thanks Nikon! Good Job’s!

  • radneuerfinder

    waiting for a affordable 1.8/18 mm DX lens ….

  • Alan

    If theses 2 lens are released someday, I don’t think the price gonna be anything similar to the usual 1.8, lower build quality lens… Just look at Canon 14mm f2.8 at 2400$… it’s 2.8, and such lens cost that high… So I guess a 18mm f1.8 will probably cost around 2400$ as well. Same for the 21mm, compare the complexity of that lens with the 20mm f2.8 (that still cost around 600$) so I guess the lowest price we can see is 1.6k and probable more around 2k… Don’t be fooled be the 1.8 !!!

  • Back to top