Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens leaks in Europe

Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens

The Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED DX VR lens leaked on Nikon Europe website today. This lens has been on my list of upcoming announcements for few months now. The related patent can be found here. I have no exact announcement date, but I believe it should be in the next few weeks. I also think that there will be a new DX body to go along with that lens.

Main features:

  • DX format 16.7x zoom lens with versatile 18-300mm focal range (FX/35mm equivalent:27 to 450mm)
  • Vibration Reduction II (VR II) stabilization system enables more flexible hand-held shooting and lets you use shutter speeds that are up to 4 stops slower.
  • Maximum aperture of f/5.6 at the telephoto end of the range.
  • Zoom-lock switch keeps the lens secure when not in use.
  • 9-blade rounded diaphragm opening makes out-of-focus elements blend together smoothly.
  • Three ED glass and three aspherical lens elements ensure high resolution and superior contrast.
  • SWM (Silent Wave Motor) for fast, whisper-quiet autofocus.
  • Compact and lightweight design for a lens with this range.


  • Focal length 18-300 mm
  • Maximum aperture f/3.5-5.6
  • Minimum aperture f/22-32
  • Lens construction 19 elements in 14 groups (including 3 aspherical lens elements and 3 ED lens elements)
  • Angle of view 76 °-5 °20 '
  • Focusing Nikon Internal Focusing (IF) System with autofocus controlled by Silent Wave Motor and separate focus ring for manual focus
  • Minimum focus distance 300 mm focal length: 0.45 m (1.48 ft) from focal plane
  • Maximum reproduction ratio 1/3.2x
  • No. of diaphragm blades 9 (rounded diaphragm opening)
  • Filter-attachment size 77 mm (P=0.75 mm)
  • Dimensions Approx. 83 mm diameter x 120 mm (distance from camera lens mount flange)
  • Weight Approx. 830 g (29.3 oz)

MTF charts:

Lens design:

In 2012 Nikon is expected to announce also new 28mm f/1.8G FX and 16-85mm DX lenses.

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

    I’m afraid to ask the price

    • so exciting, i cannot wait to put my hands on one.

      this is going to be soooooooo awesome!

      i can just like point and shoot zoom in and out, and never need to change lenses ever again!
      now if only they would make cameras with even bigger zoom, smaller, with fixed lenses and about same quality coming from this blurmachine. it would be stellar!

      • karl

        lol, blurmachine 😀

        let me tell you a secret – no matter how bad a lens you use, if you downsample the resulting picture enough, it will get sharp.

        Now if this new lens is just a bit worse than the current 18-200, it will be good enough for most people in the market for a superzoom.
        ..come to think about it – when put on a FT1 adapter, it would give 49-810mm in 35mm equivalent 😀

        • jack

          worthless lens. done and done.

          • T.I.M

            an other dust pump….

      • T.I.M

        @Harold Ellis
        There is no miracle, it will not replace a $15,000.00 lens kit.

        I was at the beach yesterday taking girls portraits with my Af-s 200mm f/2 (ISO 100+polarizer), there is no way you can get the same results with a 18-300mm f/5.6

        • kyoshinikon

          Agreed 100% You cant pry my 14-24mm and 300mm f/2.8 from my hands

          • I suspect a chiropractor and a prescription of back-pain killer could 🙂

        • Remedy

          You’d have to be very stupid to expect this lens to perform as well as the 200mm f/2. You can’t shoot wide angle with Your 200mm, You can’t shoot 300mm (actually 450mm) with Your 200mm so in this case Your 200mm is useless. Then again, apples and oranges. This lens is for different purposes.

          …and by the way the 18-105mm AF-S is sharper than many primes and has also better bokeh than many primes too. Keep that in mind for You future “there is no way this zoom…. etc”.

          • T.I.M

            Better bokeh with f/5.6 aperture ?

            • soap

              Despite your sarcasm bokeh is defined as the quality of the defocused point’s appearance, not the ease at which it is generated or the quantity thereof.

          • JeffP

            The 18-105 VR is an OK lenses but I doubt there are any Nikkor primes that are less sharp.

        • zoetmb

          Really? A $6000 lens has far better quality than a $1200 lens? Thank you for the enlightenment. We never would have figured that out on our own.

    • arizonaSteve

      I can’t imagine it will be much more than the 18-200mm VR II.
      Admin, is this meant to be a replacement for the 18-200mm?

      • don’t think so – the 18-200mm lens will stay

  • If it’s half-way sharp, this could be the only lens needed for the amateur market. I stop faster, and it would be the only lens needed for some pros as well. Especially newer ones who may not even know what lenses they will want. They can add a fast 50mm next, then a 70-200 as the money comes in, etc.

    Either way, a great backup lens, or go to lens for travelers who want to go light and not carry a ton of expensive glass.

    • Ren Kockwell

      I approve this message. This is the ONLY lens I carry. I use it to take pictures of my brats and the palm trees in front of my house because I am a pro and make my living when you click on my adorama and ebay links. Do it.
      Ren Kockwell

      • JS


        Since you are supposedly a serious pro, and all of the pros still use film (and never use tripods), how do you get this lens to work on your film camera?

        • Ren Kockwell

          I shoot film. But it’s with my 4×5 view camera that is carved out of a solid hunk of spruce.

          You wont believe the photos of a restaurant on Route 66 that I was able to take on my monthly trip

          • PeterO

            Ren, why do your kid’s faces always look orange?

            • Calibrator

              Because his kids are oranges. Their names are Satsuma and Yaffa.

            • Baked bananas

              methinks his wife is an oompaloompa

          • Sahaja


            Spruce is not too good for view cameras, you want one made of a stable wood like cherry.

            • Boing Wronkwell

              @Sahaja … I was just going to say that too.

              But lets not forget that it must be Polished Cherry with brass fittings. none of this crappy plastic stuff either…

            • Hermann Kloeti

              Cherry is perfect for the body – for the lens I recommend teak-coated oak though – sturdy!

    • this lens already exists, it is called 18-55 and if anybody needs more then 28-82mm zoom lens, he is into astrophotography or don’t know what he is doing probably anyway.

      • m35g35


        • Idahojim

          2nd M35g35. Anyone who needs more than 18-55mm doesn’t know what they are doing???? Explain please?

      • I agree… huh?

        I often wonder if people actually believe what they say, or if they have come to think this is slashdot, and just come to troll…

      • Not my name

        I’m fairly confident that Harold Ellis is really Ken Rockwell. They write the same type of Blowhardy nonsense.

    • Jason

      Buy this lens soon, before Nikon UK raises the price. And delays shipment in usa by several months.

  • Sly Larive

    Actually quite nice range. These things sell pretty well although if the price hike from he 18-200 is too important, it may end up being too expensive for its primary target market.

    Kinda hard for folks spending 500$ of a body to buy a 1200$ (just speculating) lens. This may make sense for photographers looking for something *compact* for travel purposes but that’s nowhere near as good a market.

    Still, interesting range and specs. Amazed at how fast Nikon was able to recover form the Tsunami…

  • 120-300 os for Nikon

    Nice hopefully the dslr is THE D400 with iso 25600 clean would be great for a lot of people.

    • 120-300 os for Nikon

      Nikon fix the loose rubber of your bodies and lenses but super glue helps a lot and the lock for the lens is stolen from Sigma ´s site.Or they stop fighting about things.

    • DX man

      Yes please let it finally be the d400 they release next. The only remaining lenses on my wishlist then are a 24mm DX f1.8 and a 16mm DX f2

    • Mike R

      I was hoping for a 24mp FX D400. Sony is supposed to be working a 24mp FX sensor. If they are introducing a dx lens with it I suppose it will be a dx sensor.

      • kyoshinikon

        They have a 24mpx fx sensor already in addition to a 24mpx Dx sensor

        • Mike R

          From what I read it was supposed to be a new 24mp sensor (second generation full frame) to come out soon in one of 2 Sony cameras. One a 24mp fast frame rate full frame and a second with the same 36mp sensor in the D800. I’d hoped it would have even better low noise high iso performance than the D800. It’s probably too much to hope for. A $2000 24mp nikon fx camera with a frame rate between the D4 and D800.

  • MG

    I want the 28 1.8 and a good 35 2.0 for FX

    that’s all nikon needs to do to keep me from jumping to canon.

    • Me

      I somehow doubt Nikon is concerned so much with you.

    • Anonymous

      If two lens makes you want to jump, go ahead and jump. Just make sure that the door does not hit you when you jump.

      • Michael

        I think he’ll fall down the sea. 😀 Just hope he’s a good swimmer.

    • Half your problem is solved already:

      And the other half is almost solved:

      So explain why these two lenses can’t do what you need them to do and you are willing to sell your gear and buy Canon.

    • PS: If that 35 f/2 isn’t ‘good’, then just get this:

      • peterw

        35F2 AF-D could be improved quite a bit optically.
        If you look at the improvementse Nikon has made on
        50 f1,4 AF-D -> AF-S
        50 f1,8 AF-D -> AF-S
        85 f1,8 AF-D -> AF-S
        it is not so strange to long for a 35 F2 AF-S in this leage (price /weigth). Carrying around a 35F1,4/85F1,4 set is rather different, and for most photographers unnescesarry.
        I expect/hope for improvement on corner-sharpness and bokeh.

        I wouldn’t opt switching to canon just for this lens, though… the Canon looks better on paper in the edge’s, that’s true. But your 85 F1,8 has been much better allready in AF-D times… (You can compare these lenses for instance at

        • The price argument is irrelevant in this case. It doesn’t make sense to ditch all of your Nikon gear and buy Canon so you can spend less money on a slightly better 35 f/2. If you need high quality at 35mm get the f/1.4, if you can’t afford it then buying a full setup from Canon isn’t going to be an option for you.

          • peterw

            Hi Mike
            did you notice we agree on the conclusion: foolish to change 🙂
            (although, changing second hand wouldn’t need to be very expensive, both nikon and canon retain their value equally. Off course this is not a professional perspective… nor one that would please the average Nikon-rumors guest 🙂 )

            A 35 F2 will allways be a first choice lens when it comes to weight and size – also if monney doesn’t matter. As a matter of fact, I found out it is possible to live with suboptimal corner sharpness :).
            If weight and size do not matter so much, it is definitely better to use the F1,4, or one of the good zooms and live with F2.8.

    • I’m waiting on 28mm f1.8, 35mm f2 and 300mm f4 VR.

    • they already have a 28 1.4 and 35 f2
      also a 35 1.8

      • RondoX

        Honesty, there is no need for 35 f2 anymore, when the DX 35 1.8 shoots perfectly in FX on the D800 in 1.2x crop mode.

        • Sly Larive

          Interesting comment!

          If I can ever find me a D800 I’ll be sure to test it out. Switching from DX and never bought the 50mm because I’ve got similar focal length covered anyway. If I could simply keep my 35 and use it with good results at 1.2 crop…

          Hmmm you’ve piqued my curiosity… Thanks!

        • EnPassant

          True, but 35 mm with 1.2 crop is a 42 mm FX equivalent! That’s closer to normal angle than a moderate wide!

    • Sahaja

      If one really needed their 17mm tilt-shift lens it might be worth thinking about jumping to Canon. But 28mm f1.8 and 35mm f2?

    • EnPassant

      Canon’s 28/1.8 makes soft corners and their 35/2 is about as old as Nikons 35/2 and hardly much better. Now if you had been speaking of some L-lenses like 35/1.4, 85/1.2 135/2, 70-200/4, TS-E lenses and long telephoto lenses, some of which Nikon don’t even have a similar lens or a less good one, then I would have understood you. But standard wideangle primes? Come on. Then you should at least have mentioned the new, coming (and expensive!) IS 24, 28 and 35 mm lenses!

  • Mage

    I think, it will be around 1k€…

  • Anonymous

    I hope it is sharper than the 18-200, but I think it will at best be equal. Anyway, it is a great travel lens for the target market. Nikon is rocking this year.

  • NikoFanboy

    HI Admin,

    thanks for you efforts again. is this going to be D400 release?

    • no reliable intel yet

    • NikoFanboy

      Hi Admin,

      Thanks once again for your efforts..Hopefully you may get to know soon…

  • bigeater

    I had the first 18-200 and I thought I needed to step up to more “professional” lenses. I don’t know that it was the sharpest lens on the planet, but it lens had a really great ability to render shape and capture emotion, it was a lot less clinical than the 2.8 zooms I replaced it with.

  • Don Pope

    I love my 18-200 and I guess this is even more versatile.
    However, I hardly ever go to the full 200mm of my lens so I don’t think I will need this.

  • PAG

    Nikon certainly seems to be paying attention to multiple markets at once, but when the heck are they going to throw a bone to the amateur bird / wildlife / sports market? We need a 300mm f/4 with VR, an 80-400mm update, and a 400mm f/5.6. I’m starting to get the feeling that they’re worried about cutting into their 300mm f/2.8, 500mm, and 600mm sales.

    • Michael

      It’s all about marketing, when newbs talk about cameras, it’s megapixels. When they talk about lens, it’s zoom. They don’t know anything about aperture and stuff and could care less.

    • Merv

      The amateur bird / wildlife / sports market is probably too small, and likely too many “amateurs” have enough cash to buy the current 300mm f/2.8, 500mm, and 600mm lenses.

      Best example are all those not-so-cheap but fully booked Arctic/Antarctic cruises where you see so many passengers with all these giant telephoto primes.

      • Chris Pearson

        “too many “amateurs” have enough cash to buy the current 300mm f/2.8”

        Ah that’s why the Sigma 150/50-500 and Canon 100-400 are such utter failures then?

        The reality is there isn’t a Nikon option in this middle ground so you either sell a kidney, mortgage the house or settle for Sigma. As great as the 300f4 is, no VR = bad in the eyes of many. The fact many don’t need it as they will be running 500+ on the shutter is irrelevant.

      • Wim van Dam

        “… to buy the current 300mm f/2.8, 500mm, and 600mm lenses.”
        Nope. Those are much too heavy to use in the field.

        “Best example are all those not-so-cheap but fully booked Arctic/Antarctic cruises where you see so many passengers with all these giant telephoto primes.”
        Nope. That is a non-representative sample of the much larger group of amateur sports/wildlife/bird photographers. My guess is that among amateur bird photographers Canon has >80% of the market, simply because of the lenses.

  • Hen Cockwell

    If this came in at around $500 , I wouldn’t mind picking one up for travel use.

    • No chance, my guess is $950.

    • Merv

      $500? If Nikon was making a healthy margin at this price, Nikon would then not even be able to keep up with the demand for this lens. Probably would mean less production of other lenses and a disincentive to release new lenses.

    • Ken Rockellz

      $500 ??? serious? not a chance…of course you would “pick one up” ! LOL

      • Sahaja

        Maybe they’ll announce it at $599 – and, once they’ve got plenty of pre-orders, jack the price up to $999 – and blame it on a “system error” 🙂

        • AXV

          You are a canon troll, nikon would never do that!

          Ohh.. they already did it? Oh gosh…
          I don’t want to live in this world anymore *achieves fetal position*

    • zoetmb

      Stay off the drugs. The 18-200 is $850. This lens will come in at about $1100. Why would it ever be priced $350 less than the 18-200?

  • Michael

    I have the 55-200mm, and I’ve never needed anything more than 200mm. To me, a 16-135 would be a good idea.

  • Mazzy

    On the paper this lens is better that the current 18-200, complex, 3 ED e 3 Asph, so it’ll be about 1K in europe for sure.
    Way too much, A pro don’t even think about it, for the hobbist is too expensive, I really I don’t know who led the way at nikon..
    How About a fixed 10-12 f/2.8 DX ? WHEN ?
    a Fixed f/4 mid range zoom ?
    a 70-200 f/4 ?
    Instead another 18-XXX 3.5-5.6 Uh ohh.

    • I don’t think $1k is too much, the 18-200 sold like crazy at $850, it was out of stock everywhere. I bet an 18-300 would outsell any of the lenses you mentioned, and by a long shot.

      • lolly

        For many people a megazoom is all they need. The $900-$1200 price range that’s expected for the 18-300mm is set by Nikon marketing. Nikon marketing is clever: if it’s the only lens you’ll buy then Nikon marketing knows that $1k may not seem excessive to you.

        Of course, some people prefer quality over convenience and get 3 or more primes for the $1k. There’ll be a few who’ll splurge and buy everything Nikon has to offer, too.

        For me, bang for the buck is important. If you’ll use the 18-300mm a lot then you’ll get a good bang for the buck.

    • @Mazzy +1
      Another 18-xxx lens wasn’t needed. They had the 18-105 and that is where they should have picked up with a DX zoom telephoto/supertele. An AF-S 105-280mm f/4.0 G VRII ED lens would have been a much better design. Then Nikon could have sold two lenses, an upgraded version of the older 18-105 in kit form, as well as a 105-280mm f/4. The later would probably cost 20-40% more than their current endeavor of 18-300, but I am certain many more would have prefered the better optics of a 105-280 f/4. I more or less dumped DX because of the slower glass and extended DoF. I like the greater working distance you can get with FX, while maintaing good bokeh even at f/2.8. It will be interesting if Nikon releases the D400 with the 18-300 lens in kit form. I have owned the 18-200 VR I, and I now own the 28-300 FX equivalent; both lenses have their place in a travelers bag, but I couldn’t imagine a 28-450mm FX lens being optically better than the current 28-300. On a Yellowstone Park trip, I took the 28-300 and was greatly disapointed in the telephoto end during the early dawn. Due to f/5.6, the twilight at dawn, 300mm, ISO 3200 on D700, the big game results were horrible for my liking; but my wife loved the photos after much noise reduction and sharpening was applied. These kinds of lens are good, but not always good enough. I too would like to see the 300mm f/4 FX lens upgraded with VRII, it would then become my lightweight travler telephoto for wildlife shooting, thereby complementing the 16-35 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 perfectly! Better yet, Nikon could make the 105-280mm f/4 that I discussed earlier, to compliment the 16-35 f/4 and a 24-120 f/4; then I could leave the 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 and the 300 f/4 at home. Ahhhh…to dream a little dream.

    • JeffP

      I would love to see a 10-24mm f/4 with the build quality of the 12-24mm f/4. Looks like Nikon may come out with the 16-85mm f4.

  • jon

    Love my 18-200VR DX. But many times wish I had a bit longer reach (for air shows & travel). 18-300VR DX would solve that problem for me. Could just go out with this lens instead of 18-200 & 70-300. Will be interested to read reviews on this lens.

  • Don

    My dream lens is coming true !!!! My dream DX body may not be far then…

    Admin, Thanks for sharing this leak !

  • Zim

    My 18-200vr is a pretty good lens. But my wife started using it so now I’m stuck with my heavy 2.8 lens! It now cost almost $900 so you a 18-300 is going to be as much if not more.

  • Matt

    Ooh, a 28-450mm FX lens can’t be far behind! We are one step closer to the 14-600mm zoom of our dreams!

    • @Matt, “We are one step closer to the 14-600mm zoom of our dreams!” – Nightmares are also categorized as dreams, bad dreams!

  • ukj

    Wish it was a 16-85mm f4 leak 🙁

    • benibuzdugan


  • Blablablablabla

    The new D400 is the D7000 , get over it

    • We will see. We will see…

    • No way, there is too much of a gap in the lineup between D7000 and D800. Nikon will release an update to the D300S, a 24mp DX D400.

      • DX man


      • broxibear

        Hi Mike,
        I think you’re right there will be a D400, but I don’t think this is it…I think it’s a refresh of the D7000.

        • Dr SCSI

          @broxibear, +1, best comment made yet. I don’t see Nikon continuing a line of D300 style cameras in the form of a D400. The cost of manufacturing the D400 body, if anything like the build quality of the D300/s, will be very high. In my opinion, the materials and workmanship expended in the D300 series cameras no longer warrant a consumer DX sensor, today. The D7000 was Nikon’s answer to bringing out fantastic features in an affordable body. Bringing out a pro-sumer oriented D400 with a lower resolution FX sensor (12-24MP) makes greater sense to me. Price point for Body-Only would be something like $1800, or $2800 with the 28-300mm 3.5-5.6 VR II as a kit lens. Just out of curiosity, of all the DX proponents out there,
          1.) “How disapointed would you be if the D400 came with an entry level FX sensor instead of the DX that everyone thinks it will come with?”
          2.) “What if that FX sensor was 24MP, and in DX cropped mode, all your DX glass would have 10.6MP equivalent?”
          3.) “What if you got 5fps in FX and 8fps in DX?”
          4.) “What if you added the optional battery grip and got 8fps in FX and 10fps in DX?”
          5.) “What if you got many (but not all) of the video features from the D800?”
          6.) “How much more would you be willing to pay for a FX version vs. a DX only version of the D400?”

          • broxibear

            Hi Dr SCSI,
            I think you may have misread what I said or I wasn’t too clear, I do think there will be a DX D400 but not until later in the year.
            As far as cost of manufacturing goes, I don’t see why it would be much more expensive than the D30os to make.
            I think there is a market for the D400, although I still believe Nikon make far too many different models…they could get rid if a few and nobody would even notice.

          • preston

            1) extremely disappointed
            2, 3, 4, & 5) this wouldn’t change my answer to #1 in the slightest (if I WANT a DX sensor, why would I care what the specs were for an FX version?)
            6) none – I don’t want a damn FX camera

            You obviously don’t understand how some people see DX as a benefit. There are tons of people that want a real replacement for the D300 due to better weather sealing and better ergonomics and don’t want to be forced to get huge, expensive FX lenses to replace their current lenses.

            • D400

              DX is by far the best option for budget spot photogs
              And budget bird photogs
              And super macro photogs

              I fit in to all of the above categories
              Not to mention that FX costs $3000

            • D400

              *sport I mean

          • The 24mpx Full Frame D400 is what I am waiting for, so:
            1. Great!
            2. Perfect!
            3. Excelent!
            4. Awesome!
            5. Unbelivable!
            6. 500E/$.

        • JeffP

          Why would Nikon update a newer camera before replacing a much older one?

        • @broxibear
          I think the D7000 may very well get a refresh this year, but I still think we will see a D400. There is room in the lineup for both.

          @Dr SCSI
          A lot of people want a DX body that handles like a pro body, has weather sealing, and features not found on the consumer end of the lineup.

          In reply to your questions:
          1.) “How disapointed would you be if the D400 came with an entry level FX sensor instead of the DX that everyone thinks it will come with?”

          I think a lot of people shooting DX would be very disappointed. The move to FX is not cheap, and anyone shooting DX glass would need to spend a ton of money to buy FX lenses.

          2.) “What if that FX sensor was 24MP, and in DX cropped mode, all your DX glass would have 10.6MP equivalent?”

          I think it is unlikely that we would see a 24MP FX body. The D4 is only 16, but it’s a high speed, high performance cam targeted at the pro market. The D800 is 36MP, small body cam targeted at a different market and both cams can exist at the high end. Throwing a 24MP FX body into the mix would really mess things up for Nikon. It is likely such a cam would take sales away from both the D4 and D800. If it was a 24MP DX cam, a lot of people may buy it as a backup to a D4 or D800, thus it would increase sales not replace them. Also, the DX cam would not compete directly with the FX bodies at the top of the lineup.

          3.) “What if you got 5fps in FX and 8fps in DX?”

          Decent spec, but won’t happen.

          4.) “What if you added the optional battery grip and got 8fps in FX and 10fps in DX?”

          Unlikely, Nikon has already said that the 4fps is a hardware limit due to the sheer volume of data going through the D800 pipeline. 8fps at 24mp is even more than that.

          5.) “What if you got many (but not all) of the video features from the D800?”

          That would be expected.

          6.) “How much more would you be willing to pay for a FX version vs. a DX only version of the D400?”

          Like I said before, the cost is much higher to DX users moving up than just the body alone. Also, an 8fps 24mp FX cam for $2k would kill the D800 and D4 sales. Those cams would still sell, but not in the numbers expected now. A 24mp DX cam would not hurt those sales and would provide an upgrade path for all of the DX shooters.

      • Toecutter

        Even bigger gap since the price hike

        • Cookes

          Well – what is the need for the D400 to be DX? Just because this lens is going to be announced? I am kind of thinking…

          Announce a D300S successor (Probably not a D400; but a D7000 replacement – may be a D8000) with this lens. It will be the top-shelf DX body… It may be around 16 MP for about 1800 USD.

          Then – the price gap between this highest DX body and the current D800 (if it is current; I am still waiting for mine!) is too much. And, come to think of the D3X… Nikon probably didn’t make enough with this body because of its ridiculously high price.. May be a D400 with that D3X sensor (so – FX) and sell the popular 28-300 FX lens as a kit with it (which makes more sense than selling the hot D800 as a kit)…

          The possibilities are endless. Nikon is capable doing anything… Including screwing up successful camera launches by leaving too much of a high demand, jacking up the price in one part of the world, etc.

          • Why would anyone pay $1,800 for a D7000?

            • Art

              They would because it is awesome! Of course, it would be much much more awesomer about 5 years ago. 🙂 A few years ago, most of us would have been super happy to part with $1800 for the D7000. In fact, the further back you go, the more it is worth! (That is until your batteries run out.)

            • @Ron Adair, I am fairly certain he meant $1800 for a D8000 with the 28-300 DX lens; “with this lens”, that is the way I understood it. Besides, they are still charging $1500 for the D7000 with the 18-105 kit lens.

            • @Ron Adair, sorry…”28-300 DX lens” should read, “18-300 DX lens”

          • Toecutter

            I do agree.The D400 will be FF at about the $1800 mark,maybe a tad higher to compete with the rumoured low end FF from Canon.The endless p/s and N1 for the low end an d fun cameras,an upgraded 3100 and 5100 for the more serious amateurs and the upgraded 7000 to the pro quality DX

            • Dr SCSI

              @Toecutter, +1 exactly…D400 FF $1800 Body Only! Makes sense, but not everything Nikon does, makes sense.

            • Mike R

              I hadn’t heard a low end Canon FX rumor. I think the last Sony FX was about $2000 body only. If they come out with 2 in the near future maybe one will be even less driving FX prices down. D800 with the Sony 36mp sensor sure seems like a price drop. I’d rather have a 24mp FX and crop 1/3 to get to 16mp DX. All my long lenses are full frame. The only drawback would be having to buy a wide FX lens. For wide I wouldn’t need fast focus and could buy a good used older lens.

      • EnPassant

        Are you sure? Maybe the D400 will be FX instead? And have similar body as the D7000 successor and a new 24 MP sensor (Not the old and outdated from D3x).
        It would fill the gap nicely between D800 and “D7100”.

      • dx d400

        (except for the 24mp)

      • Bubba Satori

        Yep. They’ll use the 24MP Sony sensor from the A-77 and NEX-7.
        Wonder if it will be a D400 or D7100 or both?

    • Spock

      your name says it all………..

  • Glenn

    Almost 2 pounds! It will be interesting to see how IQ stacks up vs. the Tamron 18-270 VC PZD which is a featherweight by comparison. Since the Tamron rings in at a bit over $600 (before their usual rebates) I expect the Nikkor will be $900+ as speculated above.

    • @Glenn, I would like to know how many of the lens elements in both the Nikon and Tamaron are made of glass or plastic. I think that is where weight, cost, and quality will be noticed in the images they create.

  • great range but how about the sharpness?? that is the question!! one lens to carry

    • @photoartbymark, +1…The MTF charts look good at first glance, but they only tell the story from both extremes of the lens, where it has been optimized for the MTF chart. I would like to know about other measurements made throughout the zoom range, starting at 24mm and stopping at 270mm. You can’t make a perfectly sharp zoom throughout the entire range, and the greater that range is, so are the compromises greater.

  • D800_is_finally_here

    This lens is heavy ! 29oz is almost 1.8 lbs. also 77mm filter size, this lens is pretty much a DX version of the FX 28-300mm.

    The 28-300 feels quite front heavy on my D700 already – more so than the 24-70/2.8 actually. This 18-300 would feel even more unbalanced on a D7000.

    The MTF looks surprisingly good however. Two big ED glass right behind the front element is also a first for a consumer zoom. It would be at least US$999 if not more. I am guessing US$1049 or so?

  • Screw this thing, where is the 70-200 F4 VRll?

    • Dr Motmot

      I agree, what is the holdup with releasing a 70-200/4 or 300/4 VR?

      Also looking forward to the 135mm f1.8 that admin posted a patent for recently.

      • Roberto


        And also 16-85 f/4

    • D400 = FX

      Absolutely, screw them, where is it?

      • D400

        Please! the d400 will be dx, and shoot at least 12 fps, to make all the fps junkies happy, the ones who were so dissapointed with the d800

    • enesunkie

      Where’s the 100-400?

  • Morg

    I want to buy something before summer my D200 is long in the tooth so I want to see a new D8000 and D400 and I will add the D700 and D800 and then decide what I want to spend.Hurry up Nikon!

  • FX DX

    My D800 is on UPS truck for delivery today, so I forgive Nikon for another lame lens.

  • Dong

    i want nikon make a 50mm/85mm f1.8 or f1.4 VR ii lens

    • Arthur


    • Victor Hassleblood

      I want Nikon to make a 1.2 16mm FX VR III lens.

      • @Victor H., I think you meant, “I want Nikon to make a 12mm f/.95 FX VR III lens.”

  • Matt_XVI

    Am I the only one who picked up on the supposed max reproduction ration?

    “Maximum reproduction ratio 1/3.2x”

    Maybe I’m understanding this wrong but my 105mm f/2.8 Micro only does 1/1. To me it seems that they’re saying this will do 3 times the magnification. I’m assuming it should acctually be written as 1/0.32x. Or perhaps I’m missing something.

    • FDF

      No, its’ not 3.2x/1 but 1/3.2 = 0.3125/1. 3.2x would make one hell of a macro lens. This is 10 times worse.

      • Matt_XVI

        Ah! Thanks for the clarification! I understood it as 3x the macro capabilities of my 1/1, which I thought really didn’t add up for this lens!

    • logandiana

      It looks like it will focus pretty close, but not more than 1/1. You are thinking 3.2/1
      1/1 fullsize
      1/2 halfsize
      1/3.2 thirdsize
      Not bad macro performance!

      • Matt_XVI

        My thanks to you as well. And yes I believe that 0.3x magnification will make this one of the better zooms for macro.

  • Rahul

    Admin, you are saying that one body could be announced with this lens. What do you think that body could be? D7100 or D3200?

    • Anonymous

      DX D400 for sure 😉

      • Mike M

        We can only hope it’s a D400… 16mpix please, thanks.

        • FX DX

          16MP is so last year. Looking at the success of 36MP D800, I don’t expect D400 to be any less than 24MP.

          • Vertigo

            24MP would be about 6 fps max (the D800 being at 4fps for 36MP).
            I too hope it will be 16 MP and 8-10 fps.

          • Mike M

            You do realize 16 megapixels on DX is about equivalent in area per photosite to 36mp on FX? Also the “main” audience for a semi pro DX body is mainly people shooting action and/or distance that need low light capability and high FPS. I’m sure there are exceptions but there’s going to be a lot of disappointed sports and wildlife shooters if they don’t release a semi pro DX body, at least in my humble opinion.

            • EnPassant

              Because of “only” 6 fps (D800 with grip + D4 battery)instead of 8-9 fps?

              Don’t you think many of those who before were shooting DX (especially when DX was the only choice!) with semi-pro bodies had no need for high fps, but since then have upgraded to FX or will do so with the new D800? This only leaves the smaller “main audience” interested in a DX-only semi-pro body as everybody else will just buy the D800 having a very good DX-crop option for tele lenses.

            • @Mike M,
              “Also the “main” audience for a semi pro DX body is mainly people shooting action and/or distance that need low light capability and high FPS.”

              If the “main” audience needs high FPS, Low Light, and action, DX is not where it is at. A high-res DX sensor for distance/action shooting = more MP = lower FPS + higer noise on a per pixel basis as ISO is pushed to get faster shutter speeds.

    • Ben

      Yes the new dx camera news is really the big story. But i guess there are no leaked photos of the camera so it will not get a post.

    • Arthur

      D900 of course. When will it be released? This summer I hope!

    • Sahaja

      Wouldn’t announcing this lens alongside a lower level DX camera – and something like the 16-85 f./4.0 alongside the D400 make more sense?

      But then again, the way Nikon releases things doesn’t always seem sensible.

    • I think the D7000 replacement will be announced in the summer, the D3100 replacement will probably be first.

  • dwax

    The first bullet is wrong FX and DX shuold be swapped
    DX format 16.7x zoom lens with versatile 18-300mm focal range (FX/35mm equivalent:27 to 450mm)

  • Chris

    I’m personally much more interested in the 16-85mm f/4.

  • Todd

    Well that’s great. Where’s the revised 80-400mm??!!’s been 11 years since it was introduced and NEEDS a fast AF and of course VR II. Nikon, are you there? Bueller, Bueller?

  • Foolishcfo

    Wow! Another DX lens for Nikon’s low-end DX cameras. How about coupling a D400 with it? No use buying DX lens if all Nikon is going to put out are low-end DX cameras.

    • Sly Larive

      I bit harsh I would say. One could argue that the D7000 is the best DX camera available. It may not have some of the features demanding pros might require but I wouldn’t say its low-end.

      • Sly Larive

        oops, meant APS-C / Crop camera….

      • Foolishcfo

        It’s the best Nikon DX camera available because Nikon has let the D300/D300s stagnate. I’m betting the D400 (or whatever they call it) knocks the socks off the D7000.

  • RondoX

    If a body is most likely going to be introduced with this lens, my money is on the D400.

    That lens is HUGE. It weighs 2lbs, and is the size of the FX 28-300. Who in their right mind would put this massive hunk of glass on a tiny 5200 or 7100?

    I smell a D400….

    Built in vertical grip please!!

    But, we know this isn’t gonna happen… At $449, Nikon needs to sell MB D12s

    • logandiana

      +1000 on the built in vertical grip

      • DX man


      • Dr SCSI

        Yes, but – $200 on that grip, why the enormous price hike?

    • Mike M

      The introduction of the original DX superzoom, the 18-200, did coincide with the D200’s release…

      • RondoX

        That is exactly right!

        And here in Japan, the super zooms have always been sold in kits with the semi pro cameras. Kinda like your 3100/51oo 18-55 kit sold everywhere else in the world.

        The D2oo was kitted with the 18-200 VR I
        The D300 was kitted with the 18-200 VR I
        The D300s was kitted with the 18-200 VR II
        The D800 is now kitted with the 28-300 VR

        I definitely smell a D400…

        Nikon Japan won’t put out this super zoom with out a new semi pro body to sell with it.

        Without a doubt, something is coming!

    • Toecutter

      It would be great on the 7100

  • FanBoy

    I wish it was a FX lens.

  • How hard can it be to come up with a simple new 300 f/4 VR, compared to a rather complex 18-300? I know, it’s all about quantity, but then again – why are they making a 600 f/4? Because I highly doubt that’s selling in higher quantities than a decent 300 f/4 VR would…

    • Michael

      +1000 I would love to see an updated version of the 300/4 AF-S including VR. But apparently Nikon does not want my money.

  • Srini

    I do not think we need a lens covering the entire length (18-300mm). It will be pretty heavy to carry. There is a one-five per cent chance that we would need a zoom greater than 120 – 135 mm.

  • nokkor

    sweet this lens is gonna kill cannot amatur segment.. cant wait to get one

    anyone know if this is any good on the d 800

    • Sahaja

      You plan to use the D800 as a DX camera?

      • RondoX

        Why not?

        If I purchased this lens, I would.

        As of right now, the D800 is the best DX camera.

        But of course, there are MUCH better ways to spend $1,200 if you own a D800.

  • Jim

    What happened to the first version of this lens. Admins specs VR II but the II denominates the lens version, not the VR.

    • Mike M

      Actually “second gen” VR or VR-II was introduced with the ORIGINAL 18-200, making the 18-200 II obnoxious in that some people were already marketing the original with II in the name because it was the first lens to feature the “improved” VR system.

  • derWalter

    18-300 on FX would be my optimum travel lens.

  • While Nikon is fooling around with do-it-all convenience_consumer zooms, the wide audience of amateurs who actually spends money on glass (not top level, but lots of mid-level money, multiple lenses per buyer) continues to starve for a wide fast affordable prime…

    The biggest problem in DX vs FX is exactly the difficulty in getting wide… Nikon isn’t helping with this lot of 18-xxx f3.5-5.6 zooms, regardless of how sharp they may all be.

    Gosh, even Sigma has an affordable 20mm f1.8. Not you tell me Nikon can’t do it?

    • You may think about the 10-24mm f/3.5-f/4.5 DX, which is relatively ok, focuses pretty fast and takes 77mm filters.

      It is not cheap, but it covers everything from 10 to 24 mm.

      Mostly I use it at about 16mm, so I am thinking about the rumored 16-85mm f/4.

  • D200 Guy

    I am SOOOO, hoping its announced with the D400!!!!
    My D200 has lost all its rubber grips, has several cracks, and is at the upper end of the Shutter Cycle (though it still bangs out beautiful images). I need to upgrade to a newer model, holding my breath for the D400!!!

  • Chris P

    Yet another wide range ‘superzoom’ to add to those already introduced. This has convinced me that an updated 80-400 is not going to appear for the reason given by a previous poster, if made to a good standard it will impact their more expensive lenses. Later this year Nikon still won’t be getting my money, Sigma will get it for the 50-500.

    • Ralph

      I agree Chris an 80 – 400 makes more sense they just came out last year with the
      55-300 4.5/ 5’6 I bought it for the extra range over my 55-200 as I do some high school soccer games and wildlife. The 55-300 in an amateur lense its not real sharp at the 300 range you have to shoot at F-8 to F-11 for decent sharpness. I like the 18-300 extra F stop faster at 3.5 but wonder how sharp it will be with that focal range

    • EnPassant

      To compete with Sigma 50-500 Nikon would have to make a xx(x)-500 zoom lens themselves. 400 mm is obviously shorter than 500 mm.

      In the perspective of the threefold increse in pixels from 12 to 36 MP using the 28-300 on the D800 and cropping to 10-12 MP will be like having about the equivalent of a 500 mm lens.
      With the Sony 24 MP sensor expected in Nikons next DX body (D3200!) a 300 mm will without crop already be like a 450 mm on a FX-camera and with crop to 10-12 Mp we are talking about a 600 mm or longer FX equivalent lens!

      In that view it is understandable Nikon is not in hurry making an 80-400 replacement. By raising the MP count in the camera sensors Nikon figuratively speaking also made their existing tele lenses longer!

      If it is mostly a question about reech for birds and wildlife something like a 200-600 DX lens would be more interesting!

  • CRB

    This is as bad news as it can be…NIKON, WHERE are the dx primes? 28, 35mm EQ?

  • Steve Starr

    I wasn’t happy with the sharpness or lack of it with their 18-200. I doubt if they can make this any better as they are pushing the zoom envelope range. A 300mm at 5.6 is going to be pretty slow at auto focus speeds, unless they are coming out with a far more sensitive auto focus body which might be in the cards.

  • MB

    As for DX primes 16mm f/1.8 or faster would be at the top of my list.
    If we are talking about DX zoom lens I would love if Nikon makes something like Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, 17-55 is too expensive and so of date.
    This 18-300 will be too heavy, too expensive (as much as Canon 17-55mm for sure), IQ would make your DX DSLR look worse then any m4/3, and we already have more consumer zoom lenses in DX range than needed.

  • Opinion…

    I would buy zero-infinity f 2.8 lens

  • Publius Maximus

    Here is the truth nobody talks about:

    This lens is only being made to be sold to people who *believe* they need a 300 mm focus length.
    It’s the same thing as the 18-200, only modernized as Tamron brought the 18-270 on the market, which apparently sold well enough to get Nikon worried.

    Oh, the marketing will be great: We now have a “16x lens” (instead of the 11x 18-200) – something to “fight” bridge cameras with their crazy zoom factors…

    In the end most users won’t need 300 mm – similar to most users never needing a 200 mm max focal length.
    Okay, they will point it at the moon, once, and then at the bedroom windows of their (female) neighbours but that’s about it, if we are honest.

    Yes, the 18-200 VRII is decently made, but still a compromise. The 18-300 will be an even bigger compromise, though, as it is way heavier and needs even bigger filters (at least the one filter that always gets sold to bloody amateurs: The “really good” UV-filter with “8x coating”).

    Please people:
    Tell those beginners that they don’t need such heavy artillery and will be satisfied with a 16-85 or similar lens!
    Tell them how seldomly you really extend beyond 85 mm (DX) and that they will discover that themselves later.

    • Dr SCSI

      @PM, I guess your logic is sound, so long the beginners aren’t trying to capture their kids sports games, or small birds in the yard, or big game animals @200 meters when they are at the national parks, or air planes in the sky at an air show, or their favorite NASCAR race driver on the track. 16-85 on DX is a good range, but sometimes you need a bit more…and sometimes a bit less. I liked you comment about the 8x coated UV filter, I actually have one that I only put on my lenses when I lend them out to friends.

  • Ken Rockwellz

    Please!!!! announce the D400 and let me get a good nights sleep already.

    This lens would be no match for a 3100, 5100 replacement

    • James Dean


      This lens is not designed for DX cameras. It’s designed for the DX format aimed mostly at the D800. The D800 “is” the D400. It’s a dual action double barrel baby carrying kangaroo. There’s no D400 coming. Forget-ah-bout it !

  • Back to top