Nikon patents for 17mm f/4 tilt and shift, 10mm f/4, 16-30mm f/4.5-5.6 and 28mm f/1.4 lenses

Nikon filed patent 201278550 in Japan and for a 17mm f/4 tilt and shift and 10mm f/4 wide angle lenses:

  • Patent released date: April 19th, 2012
  • Patent filing date: October 1st, 2010
  • Focal length: 17.11mm
  • Aperture: 4.08
  • Angle of view (half): 63.03deg
  • Image height: 33.00mm
  • Lens length: 188.30mm
  • Back focus 53.036mm
  • Lens design: 18 elements in 11 groups, 2 aspherical elements, 3 ED glass elements
  • Focal length: 10.3mm
  • Aperture:. 4.17
  • Angle of view (half): 64.84deg
  • Image height: 21.6mm
  • Lens length: 132.78mm
  • Back focus: 38.10mm
  • Lens design: 17 elements in 10 groups, 2 aspherical elements, 2 ED glass elements

patent: 16-30mm f/4.5-5.6

Patent 2012008273 filed in Japan is for a 16-30mm f/4.5-5.6 full frame lens. This is another example of a "cheap" full frame lens that could be designed for the rumored Nikon D600 camera:

Problem to be solved: To provide a lens having a wide angle of view, which is compact, has a small number of lenses, satisfactorily corrects aberrations and has high imaging performance, an imaging device, and a method for manufacturing the zoom lens.

Patent 201283703 has three different calculations for 28mm f/1.4, 24mm f/1.4 and 30mm f/1.4 lenses:

  • Patent release date: April 26th, 2012
  • Patent filing date: September 17th, 2010
  • Focal length: 28.50mm
  • Aperture: 1.45
  • Angle of view: 75.6deg
  • Image height: 21.6mm
  • Lens length: 133.3mm
  • Focal length: 24.70mm
  • Aperture: 1.44
  • Angle of view: 83.7deg
  • Image height: 21.6mm
  • Lens length: 133.3mm
  • Focal length: 30.87mm
  • Aperture: 1.45
  • Angle of view: 71.3deg
  • Image height: 21.6mm
  • Lens length: 135.0mm
This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses, Nikon Patents. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • spitfirestu88

    This is a great approach to take, having lower cost lighter weight lenses for FX. The 10mm would be an amazing lens, especially if they can pull it off as a rectilinear optic. It will be interesting to see how the $/Yen ratio continues in the next few quarters for selling prices, etc.

    • Nikonuser

      10/4 and 28/1.4 are not going to be “affordable” lenses. Just because the aperture is slower on the 10mm, does not mean it’s a budget design. Just look back at some of Nikon’s old past (and current) professional wide angle lenses and their apertures:


      As lenses get wider, it’s harder to make them really fast. f/4 is pretty fast for a 10mm lens. And I’m not aware of any 10mm lens ever being made for SLRs in the past. If Nikon does this, it’s going to be the widest non-fisheye SLR lens ever.

      • Metten

        The 10mm is a DX lens, the 17mm is a FX lens. Finally a DX wide angle prime! 🙂

        • Recent Convert

          They are both FX; the 17mm version with a larger image circle to allow shifting.

      • ennan

        Samyang are working on a 10mm too apparently.

  • I take it these are all FX lenses? If so, I’m interested in seeing if the 10mm is rectilinear. If so, that sounds great!

    • Travis

      10mm is DX lens. Just look on image height.

      • Travis

        BTW. 24/28mm seems to be DX aswell. That will be sweet.

      • Travis

        Sorry, im wrong. They are FX.

        • John M

          No, you were right before. Image height on these are all 21.6mm which is for DX, except for the T-S which is 33mm, and the 16-30.

          • D400

            Where did you find the measurements for the 16-30?

          • imenevichian

            No he wasn’t… those are FX image heights.

            The thing about image height is that it is not the actual height of the sensor but the farthest point (the corner) measured from the lens axis (the center).

            nikon sensors are 24mm by 35,9mm, meaning the diagonal is about 43.18mm long… now take that 21.6mm multiply it by 2 (21.6mm each way) and you actually get a clearance of 0.01mm each side.

            • John M

              Aha. Thank you for the explanation.

      • Universal Creations

        Look at the angle of view and you know it is an FX lens. The T/S lens has almost the same angle of view because at maximum shift it will have the same angle of view as a 10mm lens (if you stitch the photos of different shift directions).

        • Justin

          Yes! Everyone below speculating in a 10mm lens please read this. The patents for 17 and 10 lenses are for the same lens. One lens. 17’mm ts.

          The 10 mm is the senlens as the 17 ts. It’s just fully shifted. Part of the same patent. Someone said it above. Nothing more to see than Nikon signaling an amazing lens is on its way in the next few years. Sigh…. Hopefully it won’t take that long.

          • MLN

            They can’t be the same lens, same lens design yes, but not the same lens. The T/S has to have a bigger circle of coverage so as to allow for movements but it has to have the same angle of view as a fixed 17mm or else it’s not a 17mm.
            The angle of view of the aggregate movements of the 17mm do add up to the angle of view of the 10mm.
            Then again, I might be wrong! 🙂

  • Ben

    I wish Nikon could keep up with all the lenses they already have in their lineup.

    But these would be more good ones.

    I wonder if a zoom tilt shift could be made?

    Some of the primes have VR. Over due.

    • D400

      Where does it say VR??
      I thought VR does not work on anything lower than F/2

      • VR is a waste of space, weight and money on anything shorter than about 85mm. While I do wish the 85’s would have VR, anything less is really not that necessary. Just keep your shutter speed over your focal length and you’ll be fine hand held unless you are horribly shaky.

        • Luis

          I shoot many a waterfall and other scenes with the 16-35 F/4 VR handheld at 1 second @ 16mm. Can’t do that without VR and would need to have a tripod with me all the time, which isn’t always feasible.

          • Calibrator

            So all have to pay for VR because you don’t want to carry a tripod?

            • Luis

              Thanks for the smiley 🙂

              I was just commenting that VR is not a “waste of space, weight and money on anything shorter than about 85mm”.

              I have over $3000 USD in tripod gear alone which says something about whether I think they are useful or not. It isn’t always practical to carry a tripod and at times is actually prohibited (such as in many art museums) so it isn’t always about me wanting or not wanting to carry a tripod.

              Sometimes you simply come across unplanned scenes that you have to shoot with whatever gear you happen to have, which may not include a tripod.

              I know some older photographers that don’t have the physical capability to carry alot of weight and the tripod is usually the first to go, or even some whose hands do shake a bit from old age. These types of photographers can’t do much about that. To them VR at the wide end is very useful.

              I, for one, am happy that Nikon incorporates VR into some wide angles, such as the 16-35/4 and that they also choose to make lenses without VR for those that don’t want the feature.

            • ck

              Even better…. in body VR. Stop messing with the lenses and just put it in the body!

            • Tracht

              Perhaps more than one person in the entire world would benefit from VR on a wider lens?

        • Randy

          Thank you for deciding on my behalf that VR is not necessary. What about places that allow photography but not tripods?

    • jorg

      i wish people stopped whining. here come 4 new exciting lenses. here come a 24 MP dx camera within 8 days already shipping and that bunch of crybabies just QQ on whatever…hopeless

      • Funduro

        I agree.

  • kezar

    Is the 10mm an FX lens? That focal length seems exceptionally low for a 35mm full frame lens. Nikon’s widest FX lens at this point goes down to 14mm. A 10mm DX would give the FX equivalent of 15mm. Is this the DX prime we’ve been waiting for?

    • Travis

      Field of view is 130mm. It is indeed FX

    • Merv

      Could make FX and DX owners both happy, nothing wrong with that

      • D400

        No it can’t. If it is FX it will be rediculously expensive, and all DX owners will buy tokina instead.

        • Anonymous

          DX users have the 10.5/2.8 Fish. I think it will be FX and it will be EXPENSIVE but sweet for the UWA junkies.

        • Merv

          Save for some kit lenses and some primes, most of the interesting lenses start around the $800+ range where I live. And the new Tokina 11-16 is supposed to start at $1,000

    • Luis

      For super-wide on DX the Sigma 8-16mm is actually a very good performer, and I’m hyper critical of lenses. That is the FX equiv. of 12-24mm.

  • elph

    Pete, any idea when the 28 f/1.8 is coming out? Is the 28 f/1.4 DX or FX?

    • D400

      Looks like DX to me, it says 21.3mm image height, which is 2.9 mm short of the 24mm required for FX, unless I am missing somthing important. . . .

      • mike

        You are missing something important. Read the posts above.

  • St.

    so, if all these are FX, we’ll have:

    Or I misunderstood something?

    • D400

      The 24, 28, and the 30 f/1.4s are all the same patent.

      • St.

        yes, but what does this means?
        they are not just zoom ranges from the new 16-30mm, because it says f/1.4

    • I can absolutely see Nikon making every one of those. While it wouldn’t be for everyone, I could find room for at least two of those in my bag.

  • Vin

    Could be CX also?

    • D400


    • Vin

      Ok. Not CX, I looked. They do all look to be FX, interesting!

  • Benjo

    17mm PC-E, please come to daddy…I’d put off just about any other purchase for it, even at $2500 which it likely would be…

    10mm could be useful too…and something to replace my 18-35 as a small/light wide zoom might even open my wallet…even without VR if its corners didn’t turn to absolute mush…

    • Ralph

      The bastards, I was just about to order the 15mm Zeiss, now I will have to wait and see if Nikon can actually build this before my D800E is due for replacement. Guess I will stick to the 14-24 for a while.

      • Anonymous

        From what I read, the Nikon 14-24 goes head to head with the Zeiss 21mm, and perhaps bests it at the corners. It may also be comparable at the 15mm mark too. I say, unless you are bent on the Zeiss Look (which I think is not that prominent for lenses under 25mm), stay with the 14-24, and wait for the new 17mm. It will plug one of the biggest holes in Nikon’s modern lens line up and shut the canon fan boys up.

  • D400

    FX is 35 by 24mm right? All those patents, bar the tilt shift, and the 16-30 which does not have the calculations included in this post, say the image height is 21.3mm. So does that mean all these lenses will be DX??

    • John

      21.3mm is the image height radius which is the same distance from the center of the FX frame to the corner (i.e., sqrt((36/2)^2+(24/2)^2)). So yes, this is definitely a FX lens.

  • D400

    The 10 and the 17 look like exactly the same lens. Just with the back elements modded a bit so as to make one tilt shift capable. They have the same angle of view.

    • Char

      They do not even have the same number of elements or groups. And they do not have the same angle of view – to get the angle of view of the 10mm lens, you would have to stitch with the 17mm lens. With one single shot, the angle of view is different.

  • Justin

    17 f/4 pc-e is dream lens for nikon. How about a 24 II?

    • Ralph

      What’s wrong with the current version, other than the PC designation when it’s a TS? Love mine.

      • WoutK89

        PC – Perspection Control… what is wrong with that name? Isn’t what you do by tilting and/or shifting, controlling perspective?

        • Ralph

          No, shift is about PC but tilt is about focal plane. The original Nikon PC lenses only have shift.

      • MTP

        What’s wrong with it is the shift and swing movements should be separated like on Canon’s 24mm TS II. Makes it useless for landsapes. When you need to shift up or down you can only adjust the focus plane along the horizontal axis. Not along the vertical where it would be useful.

        • Ralph

          On the 24 you can just undo 4 screws and change it around, careful, you can only turn it one direction coz of th cable inside. Not so easy on the others I’ve been told, still have the 85 to buy, will see about that one whenI do.

          • Luis

            I did that to mine. Really simple operation.

            • Manuel

              Yes, but it’s not supposed to be done on location or on a regular basis.

  • porkchop

    How about a 24-70 2.0 with VR.

    • St.

      or as Thom Hogan predicts 24-85mm 2.8 with VR
      That I would love to have!

    • Again, unless you’re as wobbly as a tent in a wind storm, their is almost no need for VR on lenses with short focal lengths. Why make the lens any bigger, heavier and more expensive than it needs to be just for a tiny improvement to let you shoot slightly slower shutter speeds hand-held? Just keep your shutter speed at or above your focal length and it will “freeze” the majority of camera movements just fine.

      • Luis

        I shoot many a waterfall and other scenes with the 16-35 F/4 VR handheld at 1 second @ 16mm. Can’t do that without VR and would need to have a tripod with me all the time, which isn’t always feasible.

      • Metten

        It’s not just a slightly slower shutter speed you gain with VR. It’s stille the 3-4 stops at wide angle, which allows for shutter speeds as slow as 1/2 a second on 24mm.

  • Matt

    Admin, could you clarify which of these lenses are DX and which are FX? I’m confused!

    • Ralph

      Theyre all FX.

  • I don’t get the 16-30mm lens idea. We already have a great 16-35 f/4. Who would want this variable aperture offering!?!

    • EnPassant

      Because it will be smaller and cheaper I guess?

    • Anonymous

      Like Admin had mentioned, these cheaper FX zooms will be perfect companions for the entry level FX that Nikon is rumored to release later this year. Nikon is on a roll guys and gals.

  • Vin

    These do look to be FX, most of these will be
    $$$$.$$! Maybe $$$$$.$$!

  • SoftonDemand

    o shit, i placed an order for the 28mm 1.8g… should i cancel and wait for 28mm 1.4g?

    • Ke

      It’d be a long time till it comes out.

      • Sports

        … and more expensive.
        Just sell the 1.8 *IF* the 1.4 arrives and still looks attractive.

  • elnoma

    Well this lens lineup looks like it is tailor made for architectural photography – particularly if the rumoured D600 arrives. We architects love wide angle, full frame. Canon already has a 17mm tilt shift – which is drool worthy. Nikon’s is a response to that.
    If the 10mm is indeed FX then that is a really huge deal (and will come with a really huge price). My guess is DX – which at 15mm is pretty wide itself.
    I have to say that I like the direction that Nikon’s strategy is going in. I have some purchases coming up and I am disappointed that Canon seems to have lost the plot a bit running after the film crowd.

  • HKonger

    Am an architect photographer been waiting for a wider tilt shift lens than the PCE24 this 17 f4 will be awesome! Of course Canon has theirs already! Currently using 90% of the time the 14-24 with LR to correct for distortion. The 14-24 has an advantage in that is has autofocus. My eye site isn’t the best, but shouldn’t be a problem if I use the 17mm set to infinity! The 10mm if FX would be also a valuable tool, but depends on how distortion free the lens is. Having 14-24 24-70 PC17 10mm what an array of lenses to work with!

    • elnoma

      Agreed. The 14-24 is already such a great lens, even though I woory about the lack of filter rings. But 10mm full frame without distortion … well I wonder if you could even achieve that with a leica M. I have seen shots with the Nikon 13mm and I hear that the cost of that lens was in ‘collector’s’ territory.
      If they can pull off a decent distortion free 16-30 (together with a D600) – then they have an affordable winning combination. thankfully being a slower lens does not matter as much to us as it would to a portrait photographer.

      • HKonger

        My gut feeling is this 10mm is a DX lens. But am guessing. Yeah I saw on KRock site the 13mm f5.6. Dream on! :). Yeah agreed the F4 is fine for arch shoots, all my work is done on a tripod anyway to minimuse vibrations but also to get motion blur of people, as their identity cannot be revealed. For me I find every mm essential in getting the whole structure in. Can’t wait to pick up the D800 and hopefully the PC17 in the near future.

  • Mark

    A 17mm T/S lens!!! FINALLY!!!! YESSSSS!!!!

    • Discontinued

      YES, YES, YES ! ! !
      Badly want one, too

    • +1

  • Vin

    The image circle has to do with where the parallax conversion is. Inside the lens in between the elements.

  • Vin

    That 10mm seems not right, I wounder if it is ment for a bellows? Tilt shift.

  • R!

    Finally Full frame is beeing democratised!!!!!

  • Nathan

    Whoa, whoa, whoa. So that patent is for a 24 f/1.4 also? Now I could be way off base here, but what’s that 24 f/1.4G that’s connected to my D700 right now? Are we saying that Nikon is going to release yet another 24 f/1.4 in the near future and the one I have will be, ahem, obsolete? WTF?!!!

  • WouterJ

    Patenting the 24, 28 and 30mm 1.4 looks to me as for patenting purposes only.
    They probably won’t release another prime in this range, Right?

    17mm tilt and shift would shine on the D800. I think Nikon make quite a few pro shooters quite happy here.

    Overall, interesting patents, even if I do not anticipate buying any of these lenses.

  • James

    Hasn’t anyone noticed how similar the construction of the tilt and shift is to the 10mm?

    The 10mm is essentially the same lens, with only a group a little different, something which I guess will allow it to be closer to the sensor, thus projecting the same image into a smaller area. You can also see that the angle of view of the two lenses are about the same.
    And that’s how T&S lenses work, they project a larger image circle and then move the projected image around the sensor.

    So that 10mm is definitely a FX lens.

  • Smudger

    If it becomes reality, the 17mm might just see me blowing the dust off the credit card. Been quite a while since any new Nikon lens made me do that.

  • Michael

    I predict these coming out soon.
    1. 24-85mm f/2.8
    2. 35-70mm f/2.8 VR or 35-70mm f/2.0

    • Jorg

      I would prefer a 24-70/4

      • St.

        24-70/4 doesn’t make sense to me.
        I agree with Michael about the 24-85mm f/2.8; 35-70mm f/2.8 VR or 35-70mm f/2.0
        Any of those will make me buy one (in fact that’s what I’m expecting, so I keep not buying the current 24-70mm)

        • jorg

          an updated 24-70/2.8 being extended to 85 sounds great, will be appreciated even more so with vR.

          personally i do not need a pro-zoom in the middle-range, but something comfortable, light and rather 750 than 1500 € for general stuff.
          that ol AF-S 24-85 needs an update, please with fixed aperture. with loads of D700s on the used market, nikon could get an extra buck selling those people a midrange 24-70

  • HKonger

    on 18 May 2011 NR already indicates 10mm f4 to be for FX. see link


  • Arturo sanchez

    17 PC-E soon please!!!!!!!!!
    I have more than 10 Nikkor G Professional lenses and a Nikon D800.
    My main clients are real estate companies and i have to admit that i have recently bought a 5D + Canon 17 TS-E.
    My dream setup would be Nikon D800+Nikon 17 PC-E: Huge dunamic range,no distortion and shift movements.
    Also i have to mention that after usong the Canon 24Ts-II i am a little disapointed about the
    24 PC-E .The Nikkor produces color fringes at the corners and distorsion.And is not movement free like the Canon.

    • Victor Hassleblood

      The 24 PC-E is a piece of crap compared to the canon lens (when shifted on full frame DSLRS). Must be because Nikon didn’t have FX when it was designed. The 17 TS-E on the other hand is rather an APS-C (when shifted), too. If Nikon’s 17mm is going to be better than Canon’s I am willing to fork out a real fortune for it.

  • GeofFx

    Another 24 1.4? I’m looking forward to an update of the 24 2.8.

    There doesn’t seem to be much available from Nikon for a very sharp 24mm (or wider) FX lens under $1000.

    It seems like Nikon’s products are polarizing recently. Either very expensive or entry level.

    • D400

      28/1.8 AF-S
      or buy a 24/2.8 + camera w/ autofocus motor

      • GeofFx

        I already own the 24 2.8 and a camera with the autofocus motor. The 24 that I have is soft at f8 on a 12 mp sensor.

  • Matt

    I believe a 24-85 f/2.8 VR would be prohibitively large and expensive. The extension to 85mm or the addition of VR alone would make for a really big lens. My ideal lens would be a 28-85 f/2.8, but it would be viewed as a step back at the wide end, so I doubt Nikon would go for it.

  • anon

    that 16-30 looks like its tailor made for a cheaper FF non motor driven D600 along with the new 28-300 and new afs-g lens line up.

  • D1000

    I don’t care about apetrures if the 16-30 will be as sharp as the 14-24 but cheaper and with the possibility to mount filters on it!

    • jastereo

      Bingo. If it’s 95% as good for around 1/3rd the cost like all of their recent f/1.8 offerings they will sell a ton of them.

  • Matt

    AF-D prime lenses that could all use updates:

    14mm f/2.8
    18mm f/2.8
    20mm f/2.8
    24mm f/2.8
    105mm f/2
    135mm f/2
    180mm f/2.8
    200mm f/4
    300mm f/4

    I doubt we’ll see a new 28mm f/1.4 or f/2.8 now that the 28mm f/1.8 is coming.

  • FM2Fan

    great – all the wide-angle lens are stunning designs. Just compare the three first surfaces and compare that to “old” designs. radical by any means – thus interesting.

    The D800 and other pixelmonsters will pair up nicely… great scenes in ONE shot.
    That is what its all about. (ok.- you can use it for video also, but I don’t care …)

  • Sam

    Wheres the F&?%$ing FX 35 mm 1.8 or 2.0 G??? The old version F/2 is too old and the 1.4 G too expensive…?!?! -_-

    • Agreed. Probably the major reason I haven’t picked up either yet. An updated 35mm at a reasonable price would be a hot seller.

      • Sam

        Yeah we neeed new version of af-d lenses!!!!

  • Greg

    I know it varies, but does anyone have a history of how long between patent and release? I was close to picking up the 24mm PC-E, but that 17 could be really nice…

  • SNRatio

    As for a 24-85 zoom, I don’t think size is the biggest obstacle for an f/2.8-incarnation: The 24-70 is so big already, and the handy 24-85/2.8-4 isn’t that far off. The real trouble is edge performance – already the 24-70 is far from excellent on 24+MP sensors, and until Nikon has improved this, I doubt they care much about extending the range. It is also a question of price.

    What is coming, judged from the patents, is probably a 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR. Which is going to sell real well if it is good. Its WA companion is the 16-30 shown here. This is consumerland, so the tele zoom in a combo will be an updated 70-300. 70-200/4 belongs in the enthusiast/pro segment.

    I think Nikon may now finally update the T/S lenses to something matching Canon’s range, the 17mm being the first one. Interestingly, that lens will also cover the full image circle of a 36x48mm sensor.

    The fast prime patents are probably mostly for protecting their research results, but of course a 28/1.4 may be on the horizon. It wouldn’t come as a great surprise, either if they update the 24/1.4G some time after a 24/1.8G has largely outperformed it. The edge performance of the 24/1.4G is not adequate on the D800.

  • lol

    I’m going to enjoy the cries of canon users that can’t worship their 17mm TS and the only one in town. not to mention if Nikon delivers that sweet 10mm f/4 some will be very jealous. damn!

  • Remember patents cover inventions not actual products. The inventions might wind up in different lenses. However, the idea that a new generation of non-pro FX lenses appears to be taking hold here.

    • John

      Thanks Ron for reminding people of how the patent process works. Folks get carried away when they see these patents.

      It does look like Nikon is re-designing their past AF-D lenses like the 28-105 and 24085AFS, both of which I have and even with their older optical design are still very good on my D700. New optics + VR + AFS and I bet these will be winners for sure, especially if a cheaper, non-BIM FX DSLR body is announced.

  • Vin

    I remember I saw a photographer with the 13mm. The 6mm fish eye, & a 800mm at an air show with the Blue Angels, those lenses left a real impression on me about Nikon and photography, is still remember watching the guy with 4 F3’s open up the case that had the huge 6mm inside.

  • Banana boy

    I’d like a 10-300 f2 personally

  • waiting

    when is the 18mm f1.8 coming out ? Its been a while since the filed pattent !

  • When I saw those three primes in the feed I automatically assumed they were DX because of the new D3200 and the fact that there was just a 28mm and not too long ago a 24mm.
    We keep seeing patents for these variable aperture lenses (except for the 16-35 f/2.8). I want to see the pro f/2.8 zooms replaced! 😀
    After only 5 years it might be too early for a new 24-70 and or 14-24..?

  • Stephen

    Ok, fine. But where is the 50-150mm f2.8 DX, the 28mm f1.4 DX, and the 58mm f1.4 DX??

    Wake up Nikon!

    • John

      Nikon IS awake, that’s why those lenses have not been nor likely will never be made. Very few DX primes will likely be made since the vast majority of people buying DX cameras are not interested in primes nor f/2.8 glass . . .

  • I agree with the comments about Nikon needing a new non-pro 35mm FX, although I don’t think the new 35 is as bad as the 24 1.4G in terms of pricing. Man that new 24 sells for nearly $3k in Australia!!
    Time to discontinue the 17-35 f/2.8 I reckon too, it’s just ancient and way too expensive at $2,500.00 AUD.

  • Jeff

    Happy Birthday Nikon Rumors! I picked up my D800 from BB in Shreveport, Louisiana this afternoon, thanks to the timely information made available on this outstanding web site and to everyone who posted about BB’s somewhat arcane purchasing procedures last week. I hope everyone gets their camera soon. Happy photography everyone!

  • FireBallXLV

    Any idea what happened to Nikon 17mm PC-E. The patent was filed in 2012 and we should have seen the lens by now?

  • Back to top