New Nikon 1 lenses: 32mm f/1.2, 6.7-13mm f/3.5-5.6 and 10-100mm f/4-5.6

Nikon 1 normal zoom, fast portrait prime and high powered zoom prototypes

Nikon 1 super telephoto zoom, macro and wide-angle zoom lens prototypes

Nikon 1 macro, wide-angle zoom and normal prime lens prototypes

In addition to the Nikon 1 V2 mirrorless camera and Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 lens, on October 24th Nikon will officially announce also the development of three new 1 Nikkor lenses:

  • 1 Nikkor 32mm f/1.2
  • 1 Nikkor 6.7-13mm f/3.5-5.6
  • 1 Nikkor 10-100mm f/4-5.6

In the past two years Nikon has filed at least two patents (2012-185263 and 2012-98706) for a Nikon 1 32mm f/1.2 lens:

 The new lenses, especially the 32mm f/1.2, will be a nice addition for all Nikon 1 fans - the current lens lineup contains only 2 primes out of 6 lenses:

  • 1 Nikkor 10mm f/2.8 ($246.95)
  • 1 Nikkor 18.5mm f/1.8 ($186.95)
  • 1 Nikkor 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 ($186.95)
  • 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 - probably to be discontinued
  • 1 Nikkor VR 30-110mm f/3.8-5.6 ($246.95)
  • 1 Nikkor VR 10-100mm f/4.5-5.6 PD-Zoom - probably to be discontinued ($746.95)
The really strange part is that Nikon will again replace one of the existing zoom lenses (10-100mm f/4.5-5.6) with a slightly better version (10-100 mm f/4-5.6). They did a similar move with the new 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 lens that replaced the existing 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6.

It's not clear when the new lenses will start shipping - my guess is in 2013. It's a rare occasion for Nikon to publicly announce the development of future product - they will be doing this for the second time this year (after the 800mm f/5.6 lens).

This entry was posted in Nikon 1. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Liam

    Why is it that Nikon makes such beautiful lenses for their cheap (relative to the DSLR line) cameras, but continues to use that cheap, ugly black plastic on all their expensive DSLR lenses? The fake leather pattern black plastic looks like the dashboard of a Honda Accord I had in the 80s.

    • karl

      because the more expensive a lens gets, the more irrelevant is how it “looks”

      But these lenses are a welcome addition to the system. Can’t wait to get my hands on the 18.5mm f1.8.
      Might get the 32mm as well, if the price is low.

      • AC

        +1. I am so looking fwd to seeing how the 18.5mm performs. I know the 1 Series has been a lower end consumer crowd-pleaser (and who could blame Nikon fof trying to make a profit), but with these primes (10, 18.5 & 32mm) and the V1(&2) I seriously think there is a feasible enthusiast 1 System combo. The snappiness and size of my V1 has made it one of my everyday fav despite what the haters say.

      • Oh Dear!

        Boy, are you in the wrong place!

        Style matters.

        Colour counts.

        Image is everything.

        Having what is perceived to be chic, latest & greatest is what it’s all about!

        • Oh My!


          Oh My!

        • Andrew

          You must subscribe to the adage “Form over Function.” That is, design must take precedence over function. Well, maybe as a consumer, but not as a professional photographer.

          As a professional, form must always follow function. In architecture, according to Wikipedia – Form follows function means: “The principle is that the shape of a building or object should be primarily based upon its intended function or purpose.”

      • PHB

        Those are engineering prototypes, not production. They likely cost at least a grand each to make and tie up a lathe and a mill for several hours. They look great because they were made for the launch display.

        The Nikon 1 production lenses look and feel great as well but they don’t look anything like the prototype ones. they are solid but not heavy.

        F-mount lenses have to be bigger and weight is a major concern. Canon makes its lenses from plastic out of choice because they bounce rather than break besides being lighter.

    • gsum

      Not only that but why has the image quality dipped since the 70s and 80s? I’ve given up on modern lenses and have just bought a non-AI 28mm f3.5 and a 30-70mm f2.8. These metal lenses give great results on my D800 at a minute fraction of the cost (and weight) of Nikon’s recent offerings. Can’t understand Nikon’s thinking – they are letting Zeiss and Voightlander take their market.

      • karl

        what are you talking about ?
        Every new lens that Nikon releases is sharper than the previous generation.
        24-70 > 28-70
        70-200 VRII > 70-200 VR > 80-200


        • preston

          I guess he’s been taking KR (don’t want to say his name to drive even more clueless people to his site) seriously. Where every old lens with crappy optics compared to today’s standard is “perfect” on his D800.

          • PHB

            Some of the old lenses are astonishing feats of engineering but they are not the best lenses.

            My DX 10-28mmm zoom is not generally reckoned to be a stellar performer but it is a LOT better than my f/2.8 primes in every way except for maximum aperture (well duh!).

            There are some of the old lenses that have never been matched because it just doesn’t make sense but there are only a few of those. Nikon does not make a fisheye that gives a full frame circular image any more. But there are other companies that make lenses that are better than the legendary bug eye Nikon lenses of the 1970s.

          • OMG I am going to come to KR’s defense. He does not</i< claim old lenses are better than new, but in many cases he claims old lenses are "surprisingly good" or "good enough" or "just as good as". I find his lens reviews to be very helpful, but you have to understand he generates income from affiliate sales, so he's as positive as he can be about everything. (Hence his Canon pages tend to rave about how great Canon stuff is while his Nikon pages rave about how great Nikon stuff is.)

            Not only is his website pretty much your only choice if you want to see comparisons of old vs. new lenses, etc. presented reasonably consistently, but he actually deals with real world shooting issues the pixel-peeping sites (notably dpreview and dxomark) completely ignore. Coma, sunstars, bokeh in realistic settings (vs. out of focus Christmas lights).

        • gsum

          You could save yourself a lot of money and neck-ache if you bothered to educate yourself. Your ignorance is your loss.

          • iamlucky13

            Alright then. Educate us. Name a couple commonly available older lenses that outperform newer versions, and for the sake of utility, clarify in which measures they outperform.

            I’ve got a handful of mid-range manual focus lenses. For the price I bought them at, they’re a great bargain. However, none of them outperform newer lenses consistently.

            My 28mm, for example, is pretty sharp at F/8, and I personally prefer the straight bladed aperture in some situations, but wide open it is a bit soft, and it has flare and ghosting like mad if the sun is in the frame.

            I have a Vivitar Series I 70-210, which was one of their legends regarded to be comparable to the Nikkor offerings. It trades sharpness back and forth with my 70-300 VR at different points in the range, but the chromatic aberration is terrible.

            I’ve got others, too, and mostly not the budget stuff like series E. I love the handling on the lenses I’ve kept – solid build, long throws on the focus rings, etc – but pretty much anywhere they overlap my newer lenses, I pick the newer lenses because they outperform the older ones.

            So please, fill me in, because I’d love to know which lenses will give me comparable performance to new ones AND the build quality and handling of the pre-AF days.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              Your series 1 sucks as bad as a 70-300. Even a Tamron 60-300 beats the vivitar lens in it’s range. Any Nikon constant aperture zoom beats the series 1 in it’s range. Any.
              Your 28 is “ok at 8?” It must not be the f2…

    • Andrew

      I had the 4 door Honda Accord Lxi in the 1980s – and according to Warren Brown of the Washington Post, it was the first true (mid-sized) sports sedan. And according to him, Honda was the first company to get it right! His words were it was “splendiferously speedy.” It came with a racing car type full double wishbone suspension (and no doubt inspired by their success in Formula 1 racing cars). And the so called plastic you spoke about was superior to other cars I had see – the plastic never cracked during the 15 years I owned the car. And I did not have a single mechanical breakdown during those 15 years. Granted the Lxi model was the top of the line, but I suspect all the other Accord models had the same quality rubber and in my opinion it was pleasing to the eyes with a high quality look and feel. It was around the same time I purchased my first Nikon SLR camera, the N2020.

    • Foolishcfo

      I love stealth black. So much better than that ugly gray on Canon lenses. I believe Coolpix cameras come in pink or red if that suits you better.

  • jec6613

    That’s alot of glass they’re announcing. And here I am, hoping for an update to the 300 f/4…

    • +1
      …and 80-400 AF-S.

      • +1000

        If you need 300 f/4 now, buy it, you won’t regret it. The upcoming AF-S “G” VRII version will cost 80% more and only bring 5% in gains + VR.

        • jec6613

          Oh, very much so, it’s just that the 300 f/4 is about the biggest lens I can reasonably hand-hold, so the VR would actually get used there.

    • Steve

      It may seem pedantic but they are not announcing the lenses – that would mean they would be available soon. The post says they will announce the development of the lens…. so it could be a long time before these lenses hit the shops.

      On a similar point, they already announced they planned to develop these lenses when the system first started, so it seems the announcement is actually more like “we’re keeping our promise and we really are developing them now. Honest we are.”

  • Matt

    Why does the Nikon 1 lens line already have more dedicated prime lenses than DX after just a year? I don’t see a 28mm or 85mm eq for DX and the format has been around since last millennium!

    • karl

      because we don’t need dedicated DX primes – FX primes work just as well, and the difference in bulk and weight is irrelevant.

      • Paul

        I’m guessing the price difference is irrelevant also ? :p
        I’m sorry to say this, but it’s people like you that make Nikon behave like they do, and not be able (or willing) to offer more DX lenses.

        PS: I’m an FX shooter with a DX backup, and I would sure like to see some DX affordable primes (wide angle and medium telephoto ones).

        • karl

          what price difference ?
          You think a 50mm 1.8G DX lens would really be that much cheaper than the current FX lens ? I really doubt that.

          In case of budget primes (not talking about f1.4 primes), the actual costs are imho not really that important for setting the price. The consumers’ expectations and demand is much more relevant.

          • Scott M

            That’s true if you want a portrait lens, but if you want a wide-angle prime lens for DX, forget it. (Though to be fair, Nikon does make a 10.5mm DX fisheye for people who like that.)

            There’s a nice 35mm f/2 for FX, but for DX you have to accept the slower (FX) 24mm f/2.8 for the same price. And there’s absolutely nothing at 13.3mm, 16mm (regular), or 18.7mm to compare to the 20mm or 24mm f/2.8 FX lenses or the 28mm f/1.8 FX lens.

            I’m not saying that Nikon needs each of these, but I wish they would provide 1 or 2 lenses in this range for DX users.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              20 f4ai, 20f3.5ais.
              Both = same great tiny lens w/52mm filter. One less known about. Mostly sharper than the 2.8 with incredibly better color.
              Hint: You do not need AF in order to use these.

              Please stop whining.

            • John

              Unfortunately 20mm is not wide on DX.

              Nikon would need a 12mm or so to get to a ~20mm FF equivalent.

              My hope is that Nikon goes mirrorless with DX-sensored bodies and develops a new set of lenses optimized for that new short registration distance mount. If it happens a all it won’t be any time soon.

        • Ivanaker

          50 1.8 FX costs the same as its DX eq – 35mm 1.8 DX lens. Every prime works great on DX, we only need ultrawide one (10mm f4 would be great).

        • Mike

          At focal lengths > 35mm it makes no sense to make dedicated DX primes. The 50mm and 85mm primes work wonderfully on DX. Making them smaller would just hurt IQ.

          Nikon already offers 10.5 and 35mm primes for DX. They will be forced to release a 24mm DX prime to compete with Fuji when they release the new DX cameras.

        • Royl

          Another “people like karl” here. Give us a really good 16mm f3.5 that we can use on both FX and DX, and keep the price down. I’d buy that. But I’m not going to sink money into a lens that mounts but doesn’t fully perform on FX. Why the tears for DX only lenses? Would it make someone feel their DX camera is more special because it is wearing a dedicated lens?

          • EnPassant

            A DX 16/2.8 (faster than 3.5!) lens would be much smaller (52 mm filter), cheaper ($ 399) and lighter (250 g).
            A FX 16/3.5 would if it took filter at all use at least 77 mm but propably better 82 mm to avoid vignetting.
            It also would be more than twice the weight and four times as much as the DX lens!

            Maybe good enough for you if you are primarily a FX-user. But no deal for DX-users.

            • karl

              I’m not sure if there are that many people who need f2.8 wide angle lenses.
              The 16-35mm f4 FX seems to be a pretty decent lens, and it’s
              1. not that bulky
              2. or expensive,
              3. it takes filters,
              4. is a zoom lens,
              5. and has VR II.

              I imagine this lens could be easily “converted” (by Nikon) to a pretty cheap but decent 16mm FX prime. All that have to do is just get rid of the VR and the excessive focal range 😉

      • nobody

        That’s right for long focal lengths, but wrong for wide angles.

        There simply is no compact and inexpensive 16mm or 18mm FX prime that would mimic a 24mm or 28mm FX wide angle lens.

        • Mike

          Just use a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.

          • RoyL

            Whoop!!! There it is.

          • EnPassant

            Fail answer for someone who want a small, 52 mm filter, light, 250 g and inexpensive, <$400, lens.
            Not a big, 77 mm filter, heavy, 560 g, and twice as expensive lens.

            No AF with D5100 and D3200 also make it a no deal for owners of these and other cameras without screw-drive-AF.

            Besides the Tokina-zoom is not going to 18 mm as was asked for and nor is it made by Nikon.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              The 20 will make a 30. Is that not close enough?
              I can’t stand this anymore. Take your crappy dx camera and run it over in a parking lot somewhere.
              Who can’t focus a wide angle lens????

      • Patrick

        If weight and bulk were irrelevant, Nikon 1 wouldn’t exist.

        • Pablo Ricasso

          So get a Nikon 1.

  • kevin

    I want 24mm 1.8g on my d800

    • Williams


      That would be really nice to have lens.

  • Hectic3


    Essentially an 85 prime with f1.2 but nothing like that for FX.

    • Bob

      A 32/1.2 lens is very nice for this system. I don’t see Nikon coming up with a 50/1.2 nor an 85/1.2 for FX. Maybe they are convincing people to actually buy a Nikon 1 camera.

      I think the Nikon 1 system and this 32/1.2 would offer decent portraits giving an adequate amount of light. The CX sensor won’t be as bad as we believe.

      • problem is that it will be expensive and DOF as 85mm f3.5.
        It is ok, but nothing to get excited.

        one have to wonder, with these new nice lenses, if they will bother to release better body for the system. something along P7100 styling / controls

        • Pablo Ricasso

          I doubt it will be any more than and 85 f1.8.

      • PHB

        I think a 50 f/1.2 FX is actually a very strong possibility but only AFTER they have completed the AFS refresh of the complete line. I would certainly buy one if it was about the same size/price as my 85 f/1.4 AFS or a bit less (which it should be).

        The original Noctilux was brought out to show how good Nikon was at making lenses nobody could afford. It remains an emblem of the F-mount golden age of film. Canon has an f/1.2 but it is just not the same iconic status, it is an OK lens but not the best lens of its type ever. The f/1.0 that preceded it was an embarrassing joke. So it makes perfect sense for Nikon to bring one out when they have their AFS lineup complete to signal that they can do the exotic thing again. And there would be commercial sense too, the f/1.4 lenses sell very very well considering their cost.

        The big advantage of the 32 f/1.2 however would be size. I know when I am carrying my 85 f/1.4. All the time. It is heavy even on the Nikon 1 – but a heck of a lot lighter than a 200mm f/2 and the combo of the Nikon 1 and the 85 is just as good in low light as a D3 with 200 mm f/2. Same DoF as well.

        I think that is a totally logical approach for Nikon to take. I will certainly be buying the Nikon 1 lenses pretty soon after release, the FX lenses will wait and I certainly don’t plan to buy any more DX primes unless they are very cheap. The CX mirrorless format is a much better prospect than DX. In fact I would not be surprised if the CX zooms beat any DX primes. The CX primes should certainly beat the FX wide primes.

    • Bear in mind f1.2 at Nikon 1 sensor size will be f3.4 for purposes of depth of field isolation (relative to FX), and Nikon does offer better than that for both FX and DX.

      Effective f3.4 for an 85-90mm lens is pretty decent, e.g. similar to what you can get with an f2.8 at 70mm.

      • PHB

        Sadly, the DoF isolation is dependent on the aperture of the lens not the focal ratio. The aperture of the 85 f/1.4 is 60 mm. To get that same DoF on CX for the same field of view you would need a 60mm aperture again.

        That would be an f/0.5 lens.

        Now it is certainly possible to make such a lens but I can’t imagine Nikon is likely to do so.

        But the real win on the 85 f/1.4 is not the amount of DoF isolation but the bokeh achieved. Sure there are cases where having the eyes of the subject in focus and their face fuzzy is good but what I am usually happy with is DoF down to a foot or so with cream-machine bokeh.

        Thats the real test of the lens.

        • Wow, you’re right. What I did not say is completely incorrect. The straw man you’re arguing against is completely wrong. Well played.

          I said 85mm f3.4. Not fantastic, but not too bad — slightly better than the 45mm f1.8 portrait lens recently released for M43, and similar to what you’d get from a 24-70mm f2.8 pro zoom at 70mm, which seems quite OK for a lot of people.

        • And yes, of course the character of the bokeh and overall quality of the lens remain to be seen, but in general Nikon does ship lousy lenses, so I’d say the odds are on our side. The question is whether it will be merely OK.

  • Spy Black

    You know, unless they’re planning on giving the V2 PASM, this has to be the biggest waste of resources I have ever seen.

    • jec6613

      All of the N1 cameras have PASM, they’re just buried in menus instead of on the dial. What the heck they’re doing with 2/3 of the mode dial going unused though, that’s another story …

      • Worminator

        As was pointed out above, even the fastest CX lenses still don’t give much in the way of DOF control. Having an prominent A mode doesn’t serve any useful purpose, except to impress dial-jockeys.

        • Plug

          But typically these lenses are diffraction limited fairly rapidly and are better with wider apertures (the 10mm is best wide open) so control of the aperture is useful to a degree.

        • PHB

          I think the point was that the f/1.2 will change that…

          The dramatic price drop on the v1 old stock suggests that they have something significant in mind. Perhaps the v2 is more pro oriented or perhaps there is another model on its way for that.

      • BornOptimist

        You don’t have a mode dial with PASM on the D4/D800/D700 eigther, so are they a big waste of resources as well?

        • Spy Black

          So you place the Nikon 1 series up on the same pedestal as the D4/D800?D700?

          • BornOptimist

            Why not?
            It is an equippment to take pictures with. It’s not as capable as the mentioned cameras, but since they haven’t seen a reason to put a dedicated PASM wheel on the proffessional line where this is more often changed, why should they have a reson to do it on a “pocket camera”?
            I rarely use anything other than aperture mode on my D700, and program mode on the V1.

            • Spy Black

              You really are a born optimist…

    • AC

      Don’t get me wrong – I would rather have a mode dial than not. But seriously you can dismiss a camera on this alone?! Your shooting style must be significantly different to the rest of us… “A, then S, back to A, a bit of M, back to A, oh no P is better…”

      I personally would swap mode dial for hybrid phase/contrast detect AF – this matters, not speedy mode changing.

      • Spy Black

        My point is that if you’re going to engineer this kind of optical hardware, give the camera (and ultimately the photographer) manual or semi-auto control so you can make the best out of the hardware.

        I mean really, who that buys a camera like this that knows nothing of photography (the target customer of this series) is going to give a crap about any of these lenses?

  • NoHope

    It is more than clear now: Nikon doesn’t give a damn about pro or semi-pro cameras and lenses, their focus is on these more profitable toys… we have to forget about the serious manufacturer of the old days! WAF!

    • jmj

      Well yeah, that’s capitalism. Companies wants to make profit instead of being charity organization and those cheaper cameras is the area from where most of camera makers get their highest profit.

      But anyway, Nikon has released DX and FX bodies lately and is soon releasing 70-200/4 VR. Also there was 28/1.8G and 85/1.8G. Also DX and FX bodies have already lots of lenses available, but not so much for CX system. Keeping that in mind “don’t give a damn about pro or semi-pro cameras” is quite nonsense.

      • BartyL


      • Bernard

        ++++1 !

    • Ivanaker

      what are you missing from nikon?
      we have 3 great new bodies and lenses coming out every few months. was it better in the “old days“?

    • Pablo Ricasso

      Adjusted for inflation, the D600 is as cheap as the D200 or 300 were at time of introduction. It’s better in many ways than the previous top model which cost nearly four times as much. For less than a thousand more you can buy the sharpest 35 mm camera known to mankind. And you can equip either with very recently introduced f1.8 lenses that leave nothing to be desired. Or you can use fifty year old lenses. How is that “not caring?”

      Also, you might find a “pro” with one of those “toys” up his or her sleeve from time to time. Please stop crying.

      • JS


        Our complaint is that the D400 is long over due. That is what it missing in Nikon’s lineup.

        Nikon’s priority has been to release cheap cameras for the masses (whoever they might be) i.e. the D600.

        And it is okay, we understand what Nikon is trying to do. The purpose is to make profit with cheap FF cameras and at the same time making sure it won’t cannibalize the D800 sales.

        After that is said, Nikon, can we have our D400 now, please?

        • Pablo Ricasso

          I wouldn’t think of the D600 as cheap. There are a couple of specs that people don’t like. But my thought is that a 1/4000 full frame shutter is actually something a bit more than a 1/8000 dx shutter. And the slightly slower flash synch follows the shutter. I don’t believe it’s an “intentionally crippled camera.” I believe it’s nearly the same camera as the better one, but at a much lower price point. A “cheap FF camera” wouldn’t include a 100 % viewfinder, an AF motor, and the ability to work with manual lenses. Expect a cheap full frame camera at some point in the future.
          That said, you know there will be more DX because otherwise the company might as well jump off a cliff and get sodomized by a Canon. However, the thing that is the closest to what you want might not be called a D4oo. That might be the name of the next cheaper full frame camera. It might be a D7100 or a D9000. Take a deep breath…

  • Donsantos

    I nikon portrait lens has more background blur potential than the olympus 45mm 1.8 on a micro 4/3rds camera

  • Sinna

    I hope Nikon will give up their effort on pushing their CX platform and start to seriously reconsider APS-C mirrorless instead.

    • AC

      Why? So nikon can be stuck with huge lenses like other Aps-C mirrorless brands. Nikon is doing something different to gain speed and size advantage. This gives people CHOICES and that’s a good thing.

      People complain if Nikon is dull and keep churning out me-too products AND these people ALSO complain when Nikon dares to be creative and different. Come on people…

      • Mics

        “…..stuck with huge lenses like other Aps-C mirrorless brands…”

        Having APS-C doesn’t mean that lenses have to be huge. Fuji X lens is very compact. Leica and Voigtlander lenses (fullframe !) are nicely small too.

        • PHB

          To make a difference to DoF or low light the lens has to be huge. That is all that matters.

          Sensor size has only one effect, it sets the point at which diffraction effects kick in and thus the minimum aperture. Other than that it is irrelevant in every respect other than the size of the camera. The APS-C mirrorless cameras all have sensors that sit further back from the focal node.

          The difference between DX and FX is that the F-mount was designed for one and not the other. DX lenses have to fit on FX bodies and be usable without being damaged. DX bodies have to accept FX lenses. That means that the focal plane has to sit in exactly the same distance to the lens mount in both cases.

          DX format would not have been compromised by the sensor size if the sensor sat further forward in the body. But that would not work with legacy lenses.

          An APS-C mirrorless makes no sense at all. It is only one stop and that is not enough for the diffraction advantage to be significant. The calculus for an FX body is slightly different. FX allows for a 200MP sensor without diffraction or quantum effects being limiting but the FX lenses are not up to resolving 200MP. Going to mirrorless would make that possible.

          Mirrorless FX would be a much better format than the Phase One and so on. Nikon FX sensors already outperform at the cell level – as do the sensors on camera phones, the technology used is not very good to be honest. Making silicon that big means accepting a LOT of manufacturing compromises.

          So I can see a point to a second mirrorless format that is FX, but APS-C is not a sensible size. That space is more than adequately addressed by DX format.

        • “…..stuck with huge lenses like other Aps-C mirrorless brands…”

          I still hear this a lot, and I guess most people just aren’t aware of the new Sony 16-50mm NEX lens:

          Makes for quite a compact system and really negates any arguments about APS-C mirrorless lenses needing to be “huge”. It’s smaller than most Nikon 1 lenses.

          • Alfonso

            Sony can achieve this lens size by reducing image quality, and with in-camera image processing.

            Nikon can take this steps whenever they want, but it is better not to compromise image quality as others do.

    • Mike

      Nikon 1 will win in the long run.

      APS-C mirrorless makes no sense whatsoever. I don’t get the hype for the Fuji X. They are basically selling an EOS Rebel with a fancy uncomfortable exterior for twice or three times the price. APS-C lenses will be APS-C lenses, no matter what you do with the body.

      • Alfonso


      • They’re really not an EOS Rebel or they’d (a) shoot better video, and (b) have inferior sensors. They’re more like a D5100 (same sensor except for bayer filter).

        I costed out switching to full frame (D600 or 6D) vs. Micro four-thirds (OM-D EM-5) and also Fuji (XE-1) — assuming I got new, fast primes. It amazed me that the D600/6D option is far more cost-effective than the alternatives. The one (significant) advantage of the alternatives is smaller size/weight.

    • BartyL

      I hope they keep on with it. I hope they give it another 6~10 MP, more external controls and another 2 stops of ISO and DR.

      • BornOptimist

        Number of pixels? – I’m ambivalent to this question:
        They should eigther continue with 10MP, and let the improvement in technology lead to improved pixel quality, rather than a minor increase in MP count with same or small improvement.
        OR go totally nuts with MP and make it a 50+MP sensor, and use pixel binning to produce a lower MP image. Since the bandwidth on this camera is so high, it can still capture images at a good 10+ fps.
        But more important than MP is focus capability on low contrast object (what many reffer to as low light focus capability). That has to be improved.

  • David H.

    Nice to see Nikon keep making good lenses.

    I’m still an “F” mount dinosaur though! 😉

  • Aaron Shepard

    As I recall, the original 10-100mm was a dedicated video lens, so it was bigger and heavier than it otherwise had to be. At the same time, we were promised a travel superzoom. The new 10-100mm is probably that, and not a replacement.

    • jec6613

      Not so much dedicated video, but it is a powered zoom lens so not only bigger and heavier, but more expensive than you need for still work.

    • Plug

      The problem for the PD zoom is that it doesn’t have a dedicated body that is primarily for video, as NEX does with the VG 10/20/30. Sony have just introduce a power zoom to go with the VG30. Nikon probably don’t want to introduce a CX camcorder so the PD lens seems a bit redundant to me. I wish they would make such a camcorder because the VG30 is rathe too hefty for me and my system would be a Nikon integrated one.

  • Miro Bartanus

    Read carefully: “Nikon will officially announce also the *development* of three new 1 Nikkor lenses”. Did you note the word “development”? There is long way from *development* to shop’s shelves I am afraid…

    So it maid be just attempt for reaction to wide criticism of Nikon 1’s leak of accessories comparing to m43 elsewhere. See Thom Hogan for example.

  • Bernard

    Good news at long last !!! 🙂

  • ageha

    Haha, can’t wait for them to be available. The 32mm f/1.2 and 6.7-13mm looks very interesting!

    • minicore2


  • Jammyb

    If the f1.2 lens is reasonably sharp wide open and the next generation of 1 series cameras uses the sensor from the RX100 I may buy into this system just for that.

    • AC

      I would be surprised if that happens since the Nikon sensor is significantly different to the Sony one due to its phase detect on-sensor AF (which is arguably a higher tech product although I agree the Sony IQ seems higher). Anyways I can’t see nikon giving up its key selling point (Hybrid AF super fast focus).

      Making a hybrid AF sensor with the Sony’s IQ would be wonderful but seems like a technology challenge (but in time I am sure it could happen).

  • Wrong Boinkwell



  • Nikonguy

    You clowns are missing the point with these announcement.
    The Nikon 1 is here to stay.

    The V2 will be a substantial upgrade in performance and functionality.

    • BornOptimist

      I don’t think you should turn up your hope too much for a substantial upgrade. There will be some improved video features, but apart from that, not much change (that’s my prediction). Although I would have welcomed a more P7700-styled body, I expect the body will be the same as V1.

  • gonzalo

    Keep in mind that in a few years, with sensor improvements, nikon will have a very good ISO 3200 usable camera (like DX from today) but in a smaller form factor than the aps-c mirrorless of today…

    • PAG

      +1. Once the EVFs are up to snuff, the mirror is no longer required. There’s no reason a D3xxx series camera couldn’t be mirrorless if the EVF is good enough. Nikon’s low-end DSLR products will eventually creep down to compete directly with the NEX, but it will have the advantage of taking any f-mount lens.

      Compact APS-C cameras won’t be able to creep down in lens size to compete with CX. The APS-C sensors are pretty much topping out in advances. When CX pulls up to produce a clean 16-18MP sensor, only gearheads will notice a difference.

      The question I have is, does the size difference between CX and m4/3 provide the Nikon 1 much advantage in lens size?

      • Body wise with kit lens, the N1’s look sorta bulky compared to some of the slimmer competitive models. I think the nikon 1 advantage lies in the compactness of the longer zoom lenses. A J1/V1 with a mounted 30-110mm is very compact next to a NEX or m43 with equivalent focal length lens.

        With a smaller mount, the N1 definitely has the potential to go more compact vs. the competition, but I think there is a trade off in compactness to cost that many users may not be willing to go for. IMO, it needs to be compact w/ above average optics otherwise there’s really no advantage in going with a CX mount over an E-mount which already trumps the N1 with the APS-C sensor (but bulky glass).

        As a Nikon shooter, I’m a bit partial to the V1 as a casual compact camera because of the ability to attach my DSLR glass to it with the FT-1 mount. I prefer other CSC bodies for their handling/controls and larger sensors (OM-D, NEX 6, XE-1), but I’m not necessarily looking for a replacement for my DSLR and the N1 sensor is capable of putting out very good results. Besides, the V1 kit is heavily discounted so you could get one pretty cheap.

        • PHB

          The Nikon V1 looks like it is positioned to compete against the Leica M-series to me. Its not going head to head right off the bat of course. But give them five years and I think they will outperform on every spec.

          The styling certainly suggests that.

      • I don’t think we’ve really seen Nikon try to go for super small lenses. Indeed, I think that the Nikon 1 cameras with the smaller lenses (10-30mm etc.) are plenty small and (as others have said) they have a great advantage for telephotos. Nikon’s biggest mistake with the 1 system (in my opinion) was not giving enthusiasts a little more to like in the initial offering — a single portrait prime, standard hotshoe, and slightly better hard controls and I think the Nikon V1 (if it had been that camera) would have been a huge hit. I certainly came within a whisker of buying one.

        That said, maybe the first release was almost a pure experiment and never intended or expected to be a wild success.

  • CJ

    Nikon is creating a small world for you.

  • Sylvesterii

    Nice. These will be great additions to the system. I also think the 32 f/1.2 lens has been in the works since they decided on the system, and is partly why the lens mount seems bigger than it has to be. People always talk about how hard it would be for Nikon to design an f/1.2 for the f-mount. Glad that they didn’t make the mistake of making the mount too small to eliminate the possibly for the 1-mount.

    • Jabs

      @Sylvesterii – It’s not hard, it’s just very expensive. Nikon has made I think, up to an F1.0 lens in the F mount plus several F1.2 lenses in AiS for film cameras.
      50mm F1.2 and 58mm F1.2 Noct plus several others over the years.
      The next problem is AF at F1.2, as the DOF is razor thin.

  • PS

    One of the criticisms of the 1-series hybrid AF is that the PDAF doesn’t work in lower light, e.g., indoor lighting? Is this remedied with a faster lense such as the 50mm-equivalent or the new 18.5mm f1.8?

    Is Nikon really replacing the kit lens with a new lens w/o VR, as the Admin states? That is plain stupid.

    FTR, I will stay with my Oly PEN and Canon EOS and would only consider the 1-series if Nikon addressed the ergonomic issues of the V1, such as the lack of a mode dial, and came out with a good macro lens.

  • T.I.M

    Nikon, stop waisting your time (and ours) making V1 lenses that nobody will buy.

    What about a Af-s 50mm f/1.2 asph ?
    or a AF-s 300mm f/4 VRII ED ?
    Thanks !

    • Jabs

      @T.I.M – I would rather a 50-58mm F1.2 Noct AF-s and then a 300 F4.0 ED-IF VR3 as VR2 is so passe’ – N’est pas? – lol

  • Jabs

    All this talk about lenses and not much about the new Nikon 1 V2 – what gives Administrator?

  • John

    Now Nikon just needs to come out with a decent 1 System body for us more serious photogs who want a more compact system than our FX DSLRs, but something bigger than the 1/1.7″ sensored point-and-shoots.

    – Fantastic EVF
    – Built-in flash
    – Somewhat articulated rear LCD
    – Lots of external knobs/buttons/controls
    – Excellent construction with at least a hint of weather proofing
    – Remote shutter release and GPS capability
    – Maybe even a small grip (like the OM-D)
    – etc.

    Oh, and more selection of faster zooms and even faster primes with very very good IQ. I won’t give up my DSRL for this type of system, but I won’t buy a m43 product or another 1″ sensor-based camera from a competitor.

    Build it with excellent specs/capabilities and they will come.

  • Tidiane

    I want a fisheye for nikon 1

  • Back to top