Nikkor PC-E Micro 24mm f/2.8 lens: typo or a leak?

Nikkor PC-E Micro 24mm f/2.8 lens

Nikon recently sent out a survey to existing product owners. One of the questions about current lens ownership included also a listing for a Nikkor PC-E Micro 24mm f/2.8 ED lens. Nikon currently has three perspective control lenses and 24mm f/2.8 is not one of them: PC-E 24mm f/3.5D ED, PC-E Micro 45mm f/2.8D ED and PC-E Micro 85mm f/2.8D. The question remains: typo or a leak? A 24mm Micro lens doesn't make much sense, but you never know - VR on a wide angle zoom was also strange until the 16-35mm f/4 was announced. Maybe Nikon wants to up the game after Samyang announced their T-S 24mm f/3.5 lens.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • BTW, the PC Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 listed on top is an old Nikon lens:

  • Ralph

    Survey of existing product owners, the micro 24 f2.8 doesn’t exist. It’s a typo by the tech illiterate marketing department. Macro 24 would have subjects just about touching the front element.

    • MyrddinWilt

      A PC 24 f/2.8 would have to be HUGE. The problem is coverage. A PC lens has to be able to cover the whole frame regardless of how it is tilted or shifted and so the coverage demanded has to be more like an MF sensor coverage than FX. Hence all those silly Otoji rumors back in the day.

      A new PC lens for FX would be much less useful and interesting than a PC converter mount for CX. A PC lens on F-mount has to be an expensive one off. But pretty much any F-mount lens has the coverage necessary to cover the CX frame regardless of tilts or shifts.

      Micro does not make much sense on F-mount either. OK so you have a 1:1 reproduction ratio. But the sensor sites are bigger than on CX. So if what you are trying to do is to take pictures of something very very small you are better off starting with a small sensor. QED.

      PC and Macro lenses are exotics that require the lens designer to meet some hard challenges. Trying to meet those challenges in a DSLR format puts an additional difficult constraint on the designer. Since fast focus speed (the main DSLR advantage) is not an issue for either application (manual focus is used for both), mirrorless is the better format. For PC applications the availability of wider apertures on the CX format is going to beat any sensor size advantage on FX. For micro applications the CX format is just better.

  • stepper

    I vote typo. I highly doubt Nikon will be releasing any new “D” lens designs

    • ragamofyn

      The PC-E lenses are all “D” lenses; you can see the “D” designation here:

    • ragamofyn

      All the latest PC-E lenses are “D” lenses. They have aperture rings and relate distance information to the camera bodies.

      • Joe

        ‘D’ is for distance, it submits the focus distance information to the camera, and most current lenses (except AiS types still on sale) have it. But the ‘E’ in PC-E is for the electronic aperture coupling, it is not a traditional, mechanical aperture ring, thus they don’t work well even with DSLRs prior to the D300.

        • ragamofyn

          almost, but not quite.

          in general, Nikkor “D” and “G” lens uses a mechanical lever to set aperture size (you can see the mechanical coupling inside your SLR’s F-mount).

          PC-E lenses are an exception because the tilt & shift feature makes the mechanical aperture linkage too complex, so Nikon included an electromechanical aperture.

          you can use these lenses in two ways:

          (1) set the aperture via the mechanical ring (i.e. the way it’s been done from the earliest AI lenses all the way up to the “D” generation of lenses); or

          (2) on higher-end FX and DX bodies bodies, set the aperture ring on the lens to the “L” position and use the on-camera aperture controls, like you would a “G” lens.

          PC-E lenses work perfectly well on DSLRs prior to the D300; you simply have to use the aperture manually like you would on the earlier PC lenses that didn’t have an electromechanical aperture.

  • Useful for taking pictures of insects crawling on the front lens maybe.

    • 800mm f/2.8 DX VR

      And people think they have a working distance problem with the 40mm micro . . . .

  • sebas

    good for shooting architectural models maybe? definately looks like a typo to me.

    • jon


  • Anonymous Maximus

    I’m a loyal nikon user but nobody sent me a survey.

    PC-E lenses will only work if the foreground to background transition is uniform (eg. grassy fields, carpets). If anything is sticking out vertically, then you’d better forget it.

    28-135mm VR would be a more useful lens with less distortions & better corner performance than the existing 24-85mm VR. I was going to buy the latter and use it with 1.2x crop mode on D800 (for cutting soft corners), but then opted for 3 different primes.

    Zoom lenses are handy, but they can’t reach the optical quaility of primes. Most zooms will do ok on D700, but D800 is very demanding.

    • “PC-E lenses will only work if the foreground to background transition is uniform (eg. grassy fields, carpets). If anything is sticking out vertically, then you’d better forget it.”

      I’m going to go out on a limb and guess it’s LSD that you’re abusing…

    • Pat

      Not necessarily….I would prefer my 24-70/2.8 over any of the Nikon 50mm primes any day. and I am shooting a D800E.

    • Preston

      If you want Nikon to include you in surveys then you should probably refrain from saying completely nonsensical things on nikonrumors.

  • BdV

    If that is not a typo, then I’m gonna …. not buy it.

  • Aldo

    I wish there was a rumor of a 24-70 2.8 VR…sigh

  • guymp

    The 24 PC-E is essential for my work (architectural photography) and is one of the lenses I use most. However, despite being breathtakingly sharp in the centre, it’s performance falls off too much in the corners. This has become even more obvious with my new D800E, even with shift set to zero. I’d also prefer the tilt/shift axes to rotate independently. Canon produced a Mk 2 version of their 24 shift which is excellent. If Nikon do the same, I would rush to buy one.

    • Joe

      Same here, an improved 24mm would be an instant buy. BTW: The current 24mm already focusses very close (2-3 cm to the front lens), so it almost already is a Micro.

      • MyrddinWilt

        To designate a lens as Micro, Nikon require a 1:1 reproduction ratio.

        I can’t remember where the focus point would have to be for a 24mm but I am pretty sure it would be inside the lens (i.e. impossible)

        Its a typo.

        • fjfjjj

          No, there are Micro-Nikkors that are only 1:2.

          • ragamofyn

            And the fabled 70-180mm macro only went to 1:1.33.

    • Ralph

      I have the same criticism of my 24 and 45, at least the 24 I can fix for the odd shot but the 45 cable in mine is too short to rotate the tilt and shift. I also find the 24 soft in the edges on my 800e, it’s more pronounced on tilt and shift extremes. I think the 45 is better in that regard. I’ve been wanting to get the 85mm but will wait for an upgrade now.

  • Thought that was a typo when answering the survey, I’d have preferred to see a PC 17mm leak…

  • Udo van Dongen

    70-180 mm f/4 VRIII Macro???

  • Jurassic Pizza

    Probably a typo and they meant the older, non-E PC 85mm micro?

  • Back to top