More on the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G full frame lens

In addition to the patent of the Nikkor AF-S 28mm f/1.8G, here is some additional information on this upcoming full frame lens:

  • 11 elements in 9 groups (different than the patented lens diagram)
  • 2 aspherical elements
  • Nano coatings
  • 67mm filter size
  • No VR

The new 28mm f/1.8 lens will be announced soon, maybe even next week with the Nikon D3200 but I am not sure yet.

Nikon is expected to introduce also the Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR 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.
  • Ole

    I want one!

    • T.I.M

      Let’s order 50 of it and sell them on Ebay for $5000 each !
      Way to go !

  • The Invisible D800e

    No infos about the new AF-s 50mm f/1.4 with NC coating and aspherical elements ?

    • Not Surprised

      I hope you mean 50/1.2

      • +1

        • KnightPhoto

          Yep, to my way of thinking all signs have pointed, since release the the 50 f1.4 AF-S, to a 50 f1.2 AF-S nano coated lens (someday).

          • MJr

            I would rather have a improved, well built, F1.4, that is still affordable. But i guess it’s about time Nikon gave us something special again.

      • FX DX

        Why not 50mm f/.95? Add nano crystal mythical coating and everyone will be happy.

        • PHB

          The canon one sucked.

          If you want to go really extreme then better to go mirrorless.

        • just do a bokeh panorama (brenizer method)

          • Bret M

            Hey Mike, thanks a lot for that info. I’d never heard of that technique before but wow, that’s super useful I can’t wait to try it on a few subjects..

            Now I feel even better about my 105 2.8 haha

            • MikeV

              your welcome!

    • SoftonDemand

      I don’t mean to hate but I think that the 50mm 1.4G is pretty shitty… The IQ isn’t really that good and the AF is not really impressive. Probably because I’ve been using Zeiss lenses. But I do hope for an upgrade with N and some aspherical elements.

  • malez

    i can see my dream team lens right there

    85 1.8g
    28 1.8g
    a voigtlander 20mm 3.5 slii

    the perfect cost effective set of lens for me.

    • MikeV

      I agree, very cost effective and great in low light… I could probably do a whole wedding with just that combo.. Now I’m excited for this lens.. I love using my 35 f2 but I wish I could go a little wider sometimes, I think the 28 will be perfect

  • David G.

    Looking great ! 😀 Can’t wait to see the MSRP !

    • I have the feeling it will be high, Nano, Asph – those words mean $$$.

      • Bare

        What is expensive lens? I doubt this will cost more than $900.

        • 1. Like Peter said, nano coatings and two aspherical elements… and overall there’s a *lot* of full-frame glass in there.

          2. Even at $1099, it’s almost half the price of the 24 1.4.

          So why do you think it will be $899? Just because of how the 85 1.8 is positioned? The 85 1.8 doesn’t have EITHER nano or aspherical elements.

          • malez

            well for half price of 24 1.4g
            i’ll definitely go with 28 1.8g

            this considering experience in 85 1.8g
            -lighter -faster
            and 24 is too wide to be useful for me
            35 f2d is my current go to lens on my d700

            i’d like to know your dream set, not for the sharpest possible picture, not for the best money can buy, but rather a set that’s
            practical for a travel kit.

            i’ve recently got the 2.8 phobia i believe those super 2.8 fast zooms are just much too heavy for my travels i believe they’re more suited to laborers, those who shoot for others, those whose shooting just can’t miss the moment. so for now its fix lens only for me. and many times a consumer zoom works very well, very light too.

            • Joaquim Prado

              I agree! Usually when I travel I take my FM3A wih a 24, 50 and 85. Now I just ordered a Zeiss 35 1.4 and a Nikkor 50 1.2 to replace my very old 1.4 and would be interesting to have such a less like this 28mm 1.8 but sadly I am not able to use with my Film camera. But nikon still have the manual 28mm f/2 for me to use on filme but I would buy this one to use in my digital set and the MF on my FM, I beleive they also have a 24mm f/2 version also and I like 24 better than 28.

            • *shrugs*

              I hate traveling with big zooms, but I don’t mind a few primes. I can comfortably carry a 24, 50, and 85 in a small Crumpler messenger bag. The 1.4s are all small enough for me… and I rarely, rarely, rarely feel like I’m missing out having anything over 85mm… but oh man, being a low-light evening and dusk shooter, the 1.4 has really given me the edge in my travel work.

          • Bare

            Both 85 1.4 G and 24 1.4 G have a similar price, second has a two aspherical elements and first none. So question is have expensive is nano coating. So yes, I predict price based on 85 1.8 G price.

        • Joaquim Prado

          Agree! it have to be worth to be at a different category from the 24mm. I bet it is not going to be made in Japan and will coust around 1k or a bit more. At B&H a 24mm 1.4 coust 1,8k and if this lens goes around 1.4 or 1.5 I personally would pit the 24mm.

          • neversink

            You guys make me scratch my heads…
            If you are only carrying a 24, 50 and 85 then why do you even have a heavy DSLR. You don’t need a DSLR, just get the Leica M9, the Fuji x 1 pro, or one of those great p&S babies….

            • Joaquim Prado

              Well I use a FM3A and such a lenses on a DSLR delivery great image quality, extremely beautiful Bokeh and amazing sharpness wide open whch is great for low light! I don’t think leica worth their price and way out of my budget for the moment but would get a M7. if I haven’t been on the waiting list for a D800 I would buy a x-pro 1 with 35mm 1.4 to hang out with a light camera, but the FM3A works like a charm and take precise pictures in A mode. It’s a very confortable camera, small and light.

            • Dormant

              You make me scratch my heads.

              Maybe we use a Nikon DSLR because we like the features and flexibility it brings. It has lenses from fisheye to super-telephoto. Leica don’t and even if they did, the cost would be horrendous.

              Personally, I think a DSLR with a small prime lens feels perfect in my hands.

            • MJr

              That is the weirdest thing i’ve ever heard, neversink.

          • Sahaja

            I have an FM3A too. Lovely camera. Wish there was something full frame digital with an F mount of similar size, even if it only had basic features like a Leica .

            The only AF lens I use on the FM3A is the 180 D, which works well as a manual focus lens.

      • +1

      • Aspherical yes, Nano Coating no; the price will be >999$. 😛

        • Why don’t you think there will be nano coatings? Lenses this wide benefit from it the most, and they’re already out of the budget range. This is not going to be a budget 24 1.4… it’s a different lens for a different segment. Still pro glass.

        • They are saying this is 67mm glass, not 77mm glass. I would put this lens at being <$999.

      • Cold Hands Luke

        I’m not so sure – the 60 micro also has nano and 2 aspherical elements, and it’s less than $600 at B&H. I think this 28/1.8 will be comfortably under $1000, maybe $800 (eventual street price at least).

        • SNRatio

          Sure, nano and aspherical doesn’t make expensive glass by themselves.

          But – it’s much easier to build a slow normal macro than a fast wideangle with good FX coverage. I would guess around $1000, hoping for less – I really hope Nikon will press the price on this one!

  • GRIND matthews

    a 20mm f/2 or 1.8 interests me alot more 28mm I don’t even consider wide. Currently I use 20-24mm the most.

    • Pavlos

      I love my 20mm/2.8

  • Øęÿûßæñçżłœ

    I use to own the Canon 28 1.8. I quite liked it. Looking forward to seeing how this one is.

  • Trevor

    I’m gonna go ahead and guess this lens will be $899 at release. That’s fine and good for lots of people, but as a DX shooter I really still want an affordable 24mm f/2.8 to have a 35mm equiv. 🙁 Still, good for Nikon to keep releasing some new needed stuff. 🙂

    • CRB

      yep…seems Nikon dont care too much for Dx users…DX users are just amateurs that dont need primes….in their head…..too bad. I just imagine what lens will be used with the upcoming D3200…24mp with kit lenses….

      • BornOptimist

        I don’t see the point in releasing dedicated DX lenses, since all DX cameras can use FX lenses without compromizes.
        Yeah, I’m familiar with the arguments (size, price etc…), but in my opinion, if you NEED a spesific lens, face the fact, and fork out the money to buy it. Don’t blame Nikon for focusing on lenses that can be used on ALL cameras without compromizes.

        • Cndlpwr

          If telephoto is your desire, then you are mostly correct. If WA is what you need for DX, then you are very wrong. Think of what a 12 or 16mm at f/2-2.8 could do for the DX shooters bag!

          Now with the possibility of 24mp DX sensors, we could REALLY use top notch true wide DX primes.

          No FX lens can replace them.

          And please don’t whine about how the 14-24 would work.

          • BornOptimist

            Not whining – how about the 14-24?

            • EnPassant

              Are you joking?
              The 14-24 would kill the mount on the plastic D5100 with half the weight of the lens.
              People buy DX-camera not only because of price but also for their lower weight and smaller size.

            • SNRatio

              EnPassant might check out things if he wants to be taken seriously. The 14-24 works very well with the D5100, and it’s not _that_ much bigger than the 17-55 or even 10-24 Nikkors. The Sigma 24/1.8 is something in between weight-wise, as far as I remember.

          • CRB

            Thats my point…..

          • Zeke

            There’s always the discontinued 12-24 f/4.0 DX.

            • SNRatio

              According to Nikon, it is still in the lens lineup. But you may know better?

            • Zeke

              No, I don’t know better. My mistake. I thought they’d discontinued that model for some reason.

        • CRB

          Born…a D3200 with a 24mm FX lens turns to be a huge combo in the end…better save the money and buy a FF with a 35mm….

      • SNRatio

        IF there was such a market for DX primes, we should have expected 3rd party vendors to fill up the niches, right? And there are a few good alternatives, but when you can’t find your lens type among the 3rd party offerings, it may be because they think the potenials are too small.

        And Nikon is filling in on the dx-specific spots, what we really still miss, is a good 24mm equivalent. But where else do we get 16mm/2.0 on APS-C?

        Of course, 28mm is much more interesting on FX than on DX. But that’s not indicative of Nikon’s overall priorities. They release much more DX zooms than DX primes because the sales are so much higher, and DX primes are somewhat price constrained. To have ROI, a manufacturer must either have high volumes, which allows for low prices, or high prices, which allows for low volumes.

        • JED

          I guess it was careful market research that lead Nikon to releasing the 85 and 40mm DX macros then?

          • Victor Hassleblood

            Touchée ! ! !

          • SNRatio

            Maybe they are better at this than you are.
            According to serial nos, Nikon has sold about 25000 of the 40/2.8 macro in just half a year. You can compare that to about 100000 for the AF 35/2D over six years. The 85mm macro seems to sell at about 15000/year. That’s probably OK for Nikon, but may tell something about price sensitivity. It’s rather unlikely that high quality wide angle primes could be offered cheaper than that one, so I think we may have a hint at the potentials. Will Nikon put much resources into something that isn’t strategically necessary, like the f/1.4 primes, is likely to sell only about 10000/year and doesn’t have good margins? I doubt 3rd party primes sell that well too, otherwise we should have seen much more activity in the field. No doubt Nikon market analysts know a lot more about this than you and me.

      • SNRatio

        The 18-105 VR isn’t that far from outresolving the D7000 sensor. It is completely thinkable that Nikon has checked such matters with the 24MP sensor too before making the decision to use it.

    • geoff_k

      I agree. On my D90 24mm is what I like. No interest in this length as long as I own DX.

    • What about the 24mm f/2.8 D? I use it and it matches very well with my D300s. Not the sharpest lens ever, but good enough if you learn its quirks.

  • CRB

    Yep…nikon FF users have just about every single important prime focal lenght…and we DX users are still waiting for the 24mm, 28mm and 35mm (all Eq)…great Nikon…what is the point of having small DX bodies if we dont have small primes to go with it? The current small 35mm (52mm) eq is not enough….

    • Anna Seed

      I understand your point, but as a DX and FX user I’m reluctant to invest in any more money in DX lenses and would rather buy the FX lenses to use on both. Just hope it’s nice and light and affordable like the 85m f/1.8G. I’m really hoping for a lightweight AF-S 20mm f/2.8 to come soon

      • CRB

        Anna, that is probably because you shoot both systems…dont you think? i would think the same as you if i did have FF cameras.

      • Norbs

        I shot with only dx cameras for years. as i slowly saw the light and replaced all my siggy lenses with nikkor, i bought full frames lenses only, even though i had no plans going fx. it’s the same old addage:- lenses are an investment, bodies are consumables. fact is, fx lenses are pro lenses. expensive, rip off even i know. but thank ken rockwell who is a member of the pro photog’s guild (ha) who lobby manufactureres to keep pro gear prohibitively expensive, allowing pro shooters to differentiate themselves from the ever growing prosumer mob.

        so someone out there will always want to keep pro gear pricey, that, today is pro fx lenses. sux.

    • SNRatio

      First, you have the 35mm equivalent already. We all hope there will be a less expensive 24/1.8 soon, but maybe it’s not enough business in it for Nikon even in the combined FX/DX pool. At least not soon.

      Second, Nikon will almost surely come up with a 20mm soon, and that may have to pass for a 28mm DX equivalent.

      Third, a 16mm DX lens may have too small potentials for Nikon. The DX segment thrives, but the pro DX shooters looking for DX primes are rather few. And they are very well covered with good zooms.

      And I think a few million DX shooters (occasionally including myself) very well see the point of having small DX bodies with no small wide angle primes to go with them.

      • CRB

        SN…you are missing the point that im making…i see no point in small DX cameras (i use a D300 with 16-85mm as primary gear..but want something smaller) with huge lenses…zooms or primes..and i cant talk about millions sooting with DX, and sorry , but i guess you cant too…read thom hogans on primes for DX line…..point is, Nikon didnt want to release a mirrorless system that could compete with their own line….but they dont release small lenses too..there is a market..why people go mirrorless? pentax has great small lenses…

        • SNRatio

          Utterly hypothetical for me, along with Thom Hogan’s musings on this theme. Simple fact is, excellent telecentric fast wide-angle primes for DX are neither going to be small or cheap. Which makes market small and priorities low.

          You can skip one of these qualifications, and press the price, size etc. But what about the market then? The old AI-S primes are small and nice, but why are they so much worse in the edges of new sensors, suddenly showing vignetting and loss of resolution? Think about it. Is Sigma’s 30mm/1.4 small? Why the heck not, then, if what you say is so important?

          I would very much like a small, handy AF-S 24mm/2.8 DX macro lens. That can be done, not that much more expensive than the AF 24/2.8D, I think. And that may be the way we get something of the type we want. A manual 16mm/2.8 DX shift lens, similar to the good old 35/2.8 shift, could also be very useful. Then we could have the wide angle covered, too. But ordinary wide angle f/2.8 primes? Why, when you have got the Tokina 11-16/2.8?

          • CRB

            SN…i agree with about the old primes…they are a good option…but these new bodies, as i understand, do not have AF with the old lenses and thats a problem, for me. I do think the 11-16mm is a good option too, but i want 28mm, 35mm and 60mm (already available) on 35MM EQ….the 24mm(36mm EQ) DX already has a patent…but it needs to see the light of the day….for 16mm i can even use my 16-85mm which i consider a great lens…and for the last, of course the small primes are not going to be FF quality, but pentax has proven that is possible to make small quality lenses…..

    • Mark J.

      Nobody who can afford a bag full of prime lenses is going to want to use a DX format camera.. That is the reason you don’t see Nikon making some huge assortment of DX F1.4-F2.8 primes. I mean seriously, 90% of the DX buying market post D700/D800 era is not willing to spend thousands on lenses. They pick up a 18-200, a 50 F1.8 and call it good. Yes i know not everyone does this, but go look at what items are selling the most for DX format and it will paint the picture of why Nikon isn’t trying to make more DX primes.

      • CRB

        well, both 35mm and 40mm DXs are pretty cheap..dont you think?….i think that Dx format is pretty good now…DR and noise from the D7000 for instance , is excellent…since i dont care for shallow DOF (i rather more DOF at the same FOV), i prefer DX…

  • Bryan L

    That’s great!!! But can they please deliver the 85 1.8g???or are we gonna have to wait a year like the 851.4!!!,,,

  • Ben

    If it has no VR, then it is unrelated to the patent, which exclusively covers fast prime wide-angle designs that integrate VR.

    • Nikon often files several different lens designs in one patent application.

      • John

        Every one of the designs in that patent have VR. You don’t just decide NOT to have VR in the lens design as that changes the design you’d come up with.
        It will have VR most likely.

        If it’s under $1K I’m in, if it’s over $1K then that’ll be too rich for me. There’s too many 28/2 AIS lenses out there that are pretty darned good for this to be over $1K.

        • What if it is $1099? Because I think it will be fairly close to that.

          • My prediction is $1199.95. All of the features listed mean $$$, as Admin/Peter already stated.

    • AJ

      I’m inclined to interpret the up/down arrow above L21 and L22 in the diagram as indicating lens movement – wouldn’t that be associated with VR?

  • Gab

    It’s alright that they don’t release DX wide primes, but imo they just should refresh their old 20, or 24mm 2.8 lenses with a price tag that suits DX users. This 28 is already sounding scary, lots of big and heavy elements, nano coating already means 1200$+, but I bet it will interesting for many of the FX users.

    • Sahaja

      Yeah but a 20mm only gives you 30mm equiv on DX.

      DX needs primes that give you an equivalent to 18 or 20mm and to 24mm on FX.

  • Michael

    Still waiting for my 2.8 telephoto for DX. Never coming, not even from Tamron or Sigma. Full frame telephoto 2.8 are too large for me to even consider. I wouldn’t consider anything more than 2 pounds. I’m an amateur, and I can’t imagine carrying such a heavy (and large) lens when going out. Until Nikon produces f/4 zooms, I’ll be staying with DX.

    • Sebastian

      Dedicated DX telephotos would be not much smaller than FX ones. It’s only on the wide end that the image circle matters much. In other words, you already have DX telephotos.

      • Michael

        Not really, if you have seen the difference in weight. It’s 50% less on DX lenses.

        • Marcus

          Are you talking about your plastic 18-55 kit lens?

    • Mike

      Just get a Tokina 50-135 f/2.8. It’s designed for DX, 70-200 equivalent, and significantly smaller. IQ is incredible. Hopefully a stabilized version will be coming out soon.

      • jorg

        Agree on the tokina 50-135/2.8. Very good lens.

  • I may already have the 24 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2, and 85 f/1.4… but I’m still so excited about all these great 1.8 primes, because I really need to have multiple sets of these primes, and it’s much more cost effective to do a set of these as as second one.

  • Jim

    This is one of the few items that I will be F5ing adorama for sight unseen. I personally can’t believe that Nik would manufacture another hard-core lens between the 24 1.4 and the 35. I’m going to take the under on $800, I think this is going to be positioned as the amateur’s 24 1.4…

    • Nano coatings and aspherical elements… I’m doubting an $800 price point. I think $900 minimum… but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were $1099.

  • ben

    the G2 group looks like a VR group , but this diagram maybe a different lens.

  • Anu L

    A 24mm DX, please! Lightweight and not too pricey.
    35mm ist too tight for walkaround.

    • Ben

      Agreed! a 24mm 1.8 G for DX would be great! 😀 sharp like the 35mm, same price and better bokeh? :p

      • Odds are you wouldn’t have better bokeh in a wider lens with similar construction.

        • Sebastian

          Nor the same price.
          50 equ. is the cheapest to make. Element number and price go up both for shorter and longer f.

          • Not Surprised

            Where is the science of manufacturing to prove that?

            It always astounds me how the 50/1.8D was $90. Did it cost $50 to make it? So a 24/1.4 is $2,000? Hmmmmm.

            I think this is pure marketing. 50s are cheap, because they are culturally the “entry level” prime — the gateway drug to other primes. And the other primes are far far more expensive because its supply and demand, not because of manufacturing limitations.

            I agree that it costs more than $50 to make those lens. Its just no one has ever shown scientific proof that a 50/1.8 SHOULD BE $90, where a 35/1.4 SHOULD BE $1700 because of manufacturing — 20 times more expensive.

            Its most likely marketing.

            • Sebastian

              I think you’re right to some extent. But physics and manufacturing do play a role as well. In an SLR system 50 is the shortest lens you can make without retrofocus design. Look at the constructions of a wide angle vs a 50. 50 1.8 is a really simple double-Gauss that has been around forever. The shorter ones need to start with a negative lens, and then a bunch more complicated groups. And longer ones obviously need bigger elements for the same f number.
              Plus, and that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy you will say, they sell less of them so they are more exemsive per piece sold.
              And then on top of it there’s marketing like you said.
              But may just maybe one day Nikon will scale down the 28 to DX and that would be pretty nice, even if more expensive than the current, awesome 35dx.

  • Dweeb

    Another $2,200 dollar boat anchor. I’ll take a small 2.8 gold standard over it any day. There’s so many elements in these lenses (driving up price) that I often wonder how any light gets out the back end.

    • MattC

      That so made me lol… +1

  • Jabs

    Any News from Nikon about Products for NAB?
    Canon is on a roll for sure with some nice and expensive gear!

  • Jake

    It seems like Nikon is trying to phase out DX. It’d be a sensible business move, to transition to CX and FX strictly, assuming that prices for both come down. It would explain why Nikon has been so reluctant to release many DX lenses lately.

    • sd

      maybe the lack to dx lenses comes from the resent disasters and them trying to catch up in production with the new slrs

    • Mark J.

      Nikon releases lenses in waves ive noticed. Right now it’s a FX release period. Back in 2009-2010 it was major DX period. Give it time, it will shift back again. Nikon can’t please everyone all the time.

  • phr3dly


  • io700

    The 28mm 1.8 AF-S seems a clever choice. It stands between 24 & 35 . It gives a more affordable choice than the 24 1.4 and the 35 1.4, PLUS a choice for upgrade for the relevant 24 & 35 AF-D lenses. I ‘ll be curious to see how it performs next to the remarkable 35 F/2.0 AF-D

  • jorg

    i want one. next month! they cannot make ot too expensive, not to damage sales of the 1.4 wide primes. shame it will only be useful on FX…

    • Sparkplug

      Why? It’s a very good walk around lens for my D7000 🙂

      • jorg

        42mm is imho a weird focal length.

  • GeofFx

    This doesn’t interest me for two reasons only:
    1. Not my preferred focal length for wide. I would go for 20 or 24mm
    2. Probably too expensive. I’d be fine with f2.8 to cut down on cost/price.

    I hope that Nikon will update their wide 2.8 af-d lenses soon. There must be a huge market for “affordable” wide angle lenses with decent f stops (faster than f4) and great image quality. To me, affordable is way below the $900 price range, and I don’t see this rumored lens getting to that range.

  • donald

    The “D800 in stock” website is incorrect for UK , It states amazon are accepting pre orders (they aren’t any more) , it say’s price is £2399 (old price).
    and isn’t it’s raison d’etre to show “in stock” not preorder ?
    bit of a waste of time really.
    Amazon STILL won’t even give a delivery estimate for mine , did the entire UK shipment get sent to best buy or something ?

  • Arthur

    A new fullframe 35 f2.0G or even 35 f1.8G would be much nicer i.m.o….
    VR is not necessary, but low distortion and nice bokeh would be great!

  • Colicoid

    I’m sorry. Isn’t this a pointless lens? What is its target audience?
    Someone please explain…

    • JC

      Me! 😉

    • EAJ

      Yes, who in their right mind would want a fast, flare-resistant 28mm lens.

      • colicoid

        Well, a good lens is always nice but…
        28mm is not quite wide enough for landscapes. The speed is also not really needed for landscapes.
        The only thing I can think of is fast moving objects close to the camera. So some indoor stuff maybe.

        Am I missing something?

        • 28mm is a great focal length for street and portrait photography. It gives the photographer the chance to shoot from a distance that is the same as when you have a conversation with someone.

        • EAJ

          I understand that many photographers prefer and are successful with very wide views for their landscape work, but frankly I don’t understand the contention that one must use wide angle lenses for landscapes. I’ve shot landscapes with 4×5 for years and my most used lens is a 150mm (roughly 50mm on FX). Of my 7 lenses for 4×5 a 90mm is the widest (roughly 28mm on FX). Recently I decided to buy a Nikkor PC lens for landscape work and there was no hesitation when I chose the 45mm.

          The f1.8 maximum aperture is useful when composing and focusing at sunset and sunrise, or, for example, minimizing star trails in aurora shots and other nighttime images of the sky.

          And I agree with Plove – 28mm is a great length for environmental portraiture; any wider and distortion warps anatomy.

    • D

      me too!

  • CRB

    this got to be a joke….

  • JonMcG

    Your wide DX lens options are already out.. They are the following:

    Tokina 11-16 2.8 DX Zoom (16-24mm Equivalent)
    Nikon 12-24 DX F4 Zoom (18-36mm Equivalent)
    Nikon 10-24 DX 3.5-4.5 Zoom (15-36mm Equivalent)
    Nikon 16-35 Fx F4 Zoom (24-52mm Equivalent)

    All those options are reasonably priced and give you solid sharp options. I think if you need sharper performance than above on DX, you really ought to consider FX.

    • Joey

      I think Sigma makes something like a 8-16mm f/some.thing for dx format.

      • JonMcG

        Yea, the problem is that I think Sigma lenses have a tendency of sucking… 🙂

        • Luis

          Used the Sig 8-16 on D7000 and it actually is quite sharp. Surprisingly sharp actually.

          • JonMcG

            For $700 though it’s pretty slow and you’re potentially dealing with Sigma issues. Giving up 3mm and buying the much faster Tokina + saving some $$ seems to make a lot more sense in the vast majority of situations…

    • Dr SCSI

      +1000, all great DX options, especially the 16-35. The only reason to desire f/1.8 is for the speed for shallow DoF. I too, don’t know who Nikon is targeting with this lens; not wide enough! The difference between 24 and 28 is insignificant, just build wider and zoom with your feet, or in post; with high res sensors, this is easy to do. If Nikon is concerned about a 24 f/1.8 canabalizing 24 f1.4 sales, why then build 35, 50, and 85 all in the f/1.8 size? A 24 f/1.8 would have been the next logical size, not 28 f/1.8, I just don’t get that focal length. Maybe this new lens will have VR, as others have suggested, and that it wasn’t practical to put it in a 24mm build, where as 28 worked just peachy. That would be a great handheld night shooter, with VR that is!

    • EnPassant

      Those are all zooms. People want primes for their smaller size, lower weight, less distorsion and wider aperatures. It’s just not only about sharpness.

      If Nikon is serious about fighting the smaller mirrorless systems they need a few wideangle primes or else they will lose DX DSLR sales.

      But maybe you are a zoom-guy and don’t understand why Nikon even bothers making such a lot of primes for their FX-cameras?

      • Michael

        On DX, I don’t see a need of lighter lenses.

        • EnPassant

          And what about smaller size, less distorsion and wider aperatures?
          People have different needs and reasons for their choices.

          Besides for the full frame 24/1.4 compared to a possible 24/1.8-2.0 DX lens the difference in weight would be very notable.

      • Sahaja

        I think there is plent of demand for a light weight wide angle (20 or 24 mm equiv) DX prime. For longer focal lengths you can always use an FX lens, but for wide angle this doesn’t work

        Pentax make a 14mm 2.8 lens for DX that costs under $1000, a smaller 15mm lens for a bit less, and a tiny 21mm for about $700. (These are the prices after their recent *big* price hike). The advantage over something like the Tokina 12-24 or 11-16 is size.

        The build quality of these lenses seems high – they have metal barrels and weather sealing. Given that recent Nikon DX lenses have plastic barrels and no weather sealing, and that Nikon sells way more DX cameras than Pentax I think Nikon should be able to produce and sell at least one wide DX prime (20 or 24 mm equiv) well below the price that Pentax now charge.

  • chris

    CLEARLY … this lens is part of Nikon’s preparations for an FX D400 😉

  • lunar

    nano true, but 60 macro has nano too and it is cheap.

    this is a 800-900 lens max, and will be a great buy;

    wait and see.

    • lunar

      plus the lens structure is not super impressive either.

    • EnPassant

      Agree! And even the new cheap 50/1.8 G has an aspherical element!

      Smaller aspherical elements and Nano-coating have a very small influence on the cost of a lens in the advanced industrial production today. It’s more a thing used in marketing.

      I beleive type of glass used, size and number of elements which may demand more precision assembly and of course size and build of the lens are more important for cost of production.

      But the single most important factor for production cost is how many are being produced. In millions like the kit-lenses or single digit thousands like many super tele lenses.

      Canon’s 28/1.8 is not that expensive. Being a newer lens (and Nikon!) it should be a little more expensive. Maybe $ 100-200 more, but hardly twice as expensive.

  • My thoughts:

    1.) I like 28mm because it is not so wide that it starts to distort people in photojournalistic situations, nor is it so wide that I start to lose all hope of shallow depth at medium focal ranges.

    2.) I like this as an alternative to the 24 1.4 because, and this is just a guess of course, it’ll probably be at least half the price, maybe even less, while apparently still delivering very decent image quality. Just like the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 – superb image quality, but cheaper than their f/1.4 counterparts. And both of the other f/1.8’s, (although they don’t include Nano Coating or aspherical elements I think) …are 50-60% cheaper than the 1.4’s.

    3.) Yeah, I would have liked to have a new, affordable 20mm or 24mm prime. Nikon could probably make a 24 f/2 AFS-G based on the old AIS design for $500-$750, easy. But I’ll take what I can get, because like I said, although 24mm is awesome for landscapes and such, I like 28mm for photojournalism and other things where shallow depth and low distortion are more important than an exact FOV.

    4.) Yep, I miss DX wide primes too. I wish they’d make a 16mm/17mm/18mm f/1.8 or f/2 DX already. Heck, forget fast aperture, just make it f/2.8 and roughly the size of the current 20 or 24 f/2.8 FX lenses. I know Nikon has it’s reasons to be cautious, but I think such a lens would sell like crazy, especially with how advanced the D7000 line has gotten, with much more potential for serious hobbyist use.

    5.) While we’re on the subject- no, I don’t think the forthcoming D400 will be FX. It makes sense that an affordable FX camera will come out soon, and I’m betting there will be a D7000-like FX body out soon. Such a camera would be PERFECTLY paired with the new lineup of f/1.8 primes. But I only disagree on what it will be called, simply because I believe Nikon NEEDS a flagship DX body on the market still, and the D7000 (or any successor with it’s “prosumer” body design) can NOT fill that market well enough to compete with the likes of the Canon 7D. So, I think within the next 12-18 months, we’ll see a DX D400, an FX D8000 or something, and of course some beginner DSLR’s…

    Just my opinions, posted on a rumor discussion website! You’re welcome to disagree.

  • EnPassant

    I wonder what influence this lens will have on the inflated used prices of the AF-D 28/1.4?

    If this lens follows in the steps of Nikon’s recent 1.8 lenses it will already wide open be sharper than the old lens.
    And as it seems many owners of the 28/1.4 anyway often stop down the lens a bit to 1.6 or 1.8 to increase IQ there will hardly be enough reason to pay a lot extra to get a 2/3 stop faster lens.

  • Wayne

    There goes my hopes for a budget 28 1.8

  • Fidel Barro

    I want one. I am currently using Sigma 24mm f1.8 (bought @ 400$ new) because 24G is out of my budget. The 1st 4 photos was shot using the siggy.

    I love the range and would definitely buy one if is below 600$ 🙂

  • Dixie

    I’m a big fan of primes, so this would be a very welcomed one. I don’t see any mismatch to lug D4 with those primes and use light weight as one of the reasons to do so.

    But what about D400 questions? Have those fellows already given up? I hope they have not done anything final!

  • FanBoy

    Sh!t. This lens is not only very heavy but pricey as well.

  • Ken Kockwell

    Where is the D400????

  • Landscape Photo

    I’d buy a filter-taking 16mm f/4 right tomorrow, if it exists.

    • MJr

      Damn right, me too !

  • Roger

    Looks great to me. 2 asph elements, no VR, it should be a great lens. Probably $999.

    • MJr

      I’d lower your expectations about the price if i were you. Meaning a higher price ! Maybe it’ll go down to $999 after a good while, but i dunno really, it’d depend on built and actual performance etc. as well, which we can only guess now.

  • GeoffK

    If I owned a D800 and someone offered me ~$4k for it I would probably happily hand it over to them and reorder and wait.

  • Matt

    So is Nikon leading away from the 1.4 primes in favour of the 1.8 primes? It seems as though they are not focusing on the 1.4’s any more.

    • Gab

      They have amazing 1.4 primes now. What (viable) 1.4 prime are you missing? There are 24 1.4g, 35 1.4g, 50 1.4g, 85 1.4g, they r all pretty decent up to the current standards. Wider or longer 1.4 constructions are at the limits of current lens technology.

  • Without VR it have to be 500-600$

  • Nino N.

    Nano Crystal coat and 67mm filter tread really got my eyes. I expected this lens to be something like 50mm f/1.8G or 35mm f/1.8G DX. This is something I will be looking forward to.

  • Whaka-Do!
    I think I’ll be buying one of these!

  • I’ll have one of these, thanks.

  • Nice piece of glass! Time to start saving.

  • Back to top