Nikon patents for 16-35mm f/2.8 VR lens, dual lens hood

Nikkor 16-35mm f2.8 VR lens patent

Patent 2012-247687 is for a new full frame 16-35mm f/2.8 VR lens with 5 aspherical surfaces and 3 ED elements (the current 16-35mm f/4 lens has 3 aspherical surfaces and 2 ED elements).


Patent 2012-252177 is for a dual lens hood - basically a smaller hood will be placed inside the regular lens hood in order to further reduce flare.

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

    Question is will this result in an actual 16-35/2.8 Nikkor lens that we can use?

    • KnightPhoto

      16-35 f/2.8 VR would be a great and probably highly purchased offering if they really end up making this lens. 14-24 would become more of a specialty lens then. And 16-35 f/4 would be the lower cost alternative. This does sound great!
      NOW, if they only actually make the patented 50-300 f/2.8-4, that would be a really key lens for me, especially for video where I need the 50mm start point. I would also strongly conside a 35mm-200mm for video too, but I’m guessing that wider range couldn’t be as fast as f/4 (I can always dream).

  • onan

    I hope the front element isn’t as bulbous as in the 1st picture

    • MOJO

      Yeah looks like a “no-filter”-version again 🙁

      • Petr Klapper

        The lens construction looks almost identical to current 16-35/4 VR with filters, so I’d expect filters not be a problem..

    • KnightPhoto

      Maybe there’s an allowance for a flat meniscus in front of that first element like on the super-telephotos? It’s not hugely bulbous. I agree that a really key reason to differentiate this lens from the 14-24 would be an ability to mount filters.

      • Andy

        1424 can mount filters just fine. It is just rather expensive. And yes, you can even get circular polarizer on that as well, alas with such a wide angle it’s close to useless.

  • first_here

    cool – can’t wait for this lens

  • kevin

    id buy this lens when it comes out.

  • CommonSense

    VR on a 16-35mm? Bringing up a stop? Sounds awesome!

  • Cloke

    This would be a good lens as long as this one actually gets made unlike the other patent.

  • Phil

    They’re kidding me… I got a 35/1.8 and a few months later Nikon announces the 28/1.8. I bought a Tamron 90/2.8, few months later Tamron comes out with 90/2.8 VC. I get a used Nikon 70-200/2.8, half a year later Nikon announces the 70-200/4. Three weeks ago I get a 16-35/4, now they announce a 16-35/2.8 Ó_ò.

    Expect a 300/4 VR in production anytime soon, since I recently bought an AF-S 300/4 😛

    • Curtis Brandt

      Meanwhile, enjoy your 16-35, which is actually already in your camera bag, and which is a fine lens for the price. 😉

    • Dyun

      Thanks for the heads up about the 300mm f/4. Lol!

      • Mato34

        LOL!! (Again)

        • fisheyland

          It’s funny because that lens is due for an update.. it’s going to happen… poor phil 🙁

    • Fly

      Nikons haven’t announced anything, is just a patent. and most patents never make it to a real lens.
      Theres an patent for a 50/1.2G that poped up in january 2012, and I haven’t seen that lens yet.

      And the 300/4 is expected to be updated anyways.

      • An anonimous Photographer

        Actually many patents for lenses do show up. It are the lenses which do not reach the patent procedures and by that will not see light of least on in production. Keep in mind that a lens design from the moment it is patented to production takes about 2 to 3 years. Keep also in mind that many modifications are made to the original design before the lens is even produced.

        • Exactly, many patents that were previously reported here were released 2-3 years later. Of course there is no guarantee that this lens will be released as well, but at least it gives us a hint on what Nikon is working on.

          • Vik

            Im really curious about this lens… Im miss something that will take place of the 17-35.

      • AJ

        The cost of a patent is so high that one doesn’t do it ‘just in case’.
        Nikon must have very serious intentions if they raise one.

    • Deborah

      LOL! I really would like to see that happen. I’ve been waiting, and waiting for Nikon to update the 300mm f4 with swm and VR.

    • Nikon Shooter

      I don’t see one legitimate complaint here. Even now it wouldn’t be wrong to make those same purchases.

      The 35 1.8 is $500 less than the 28mm and you won’t see any difference between the two on your DX camera.

      The 70-200 2.8 VR 1is preferred to the f/4 version because of the extra stop for the same price.

      The 16-35mm 2.8 will cost at least $1000 more than your f/4 (if it ever gets made of course) and the old Tamron is probably just as good as the new one and can be found for 1/2 the price. VR is not really that big a deal at this focal length.

      The 300mm is specialty lens and only you know if you need it, otherwise it’s a waste of money with or without VR. If you’re using the hell out of it right now then it was a good purchase.

    • Donz

      Thanks for being the human sacrifice! I’m waiting for the 300 f4 VR too : )

    • mtnguy

      Loved the 30/4 prediction ESPECIALLY since I just bought the 16-35 f4 and am shocked that they would update this, of all lenses. LOL

      • Pat Mann

        They’re updating the 17-35 f/2.8 with this formula, not the 16-35. It’s pretty long in the tooth by now, though still a great lens.

    • Any change of you buying a D300s? :-p

    • nobody

      Would you mind buying an 80-400 zoom tomorrow? Please, do it! Pretty, pretty please!

    • Karmawy

      Well … it seems you got a psychic power. Do you still have anything in your mind ? (:

    • toonie

      Phil, can you please buy the 135 DC and 20 f2.8 so they’ll make a new one :))))

    • Alex

      This is not an announcement

  • Hangman

    Sounds great. Looks liek a great replacement for the aging 17-35 f/2.8 they have right now.

  • Tero de la Rosa

    At last!

  • Pat

    Nikon filed a patent on a 16-35 f/2.8 VR design once already in 2011.

    I suspect this might be an update with the “third-generation VR”. But the fear is this would be another filter-unfriendly design, like the 14-24 and Tokina 16-28.

    Given the 17-35 was not discontinued, this lens might well be the replacement a lot of folks have been waiting for.

    My gut feeling is this lens might be annouced together with the AF-S 80-400 update. It would drive many folks crazy with their NAS.

    • Pat Mann

      If the curve on the front element in the illustration is representative, it looks pretty filter-friendly to me. Might not be 77mm, but it looks possible.

  • Richard

    16-35 f/2.8 VR III? woohoo time to dump my 14-24!

    • Pablo Ricasso

      Don’t be silly…14-24 f/2.8G obviously wasn’t for you in the first place.

  • Manj

    With Nikon filtering VR technology to focal lengths like this…looks like the 24-70 f2.8 might be in line for a VR update in the next couple of years too.

    • Pat

      while they might….. it may carry a $2399+ price tag.

  • Z

    Lots of patents, but few lenses.

  • hoffsta

    I want this lens. My 17-35mm no longer looks sharp on the D800. Since its sitting in the bag competing with the excellent 24-70 and 70-200 II, it’s become somewhat of a dud.

    • Dave Ingram

      Is that only when you’re focused on an object in the left hand side of the frame? : )

      I bought the 16-35mm VR f/4 a while back and am really happy with it – love the close focusing distance and ability to stick a ND filter or polarizing filter on it. Haven’t had much chance to use it on my new D600 yet but had excellent results on my old D80.

      • hoffsta

        No, It’s just generally not too sharp wide open (which is how I usually use it). I might have a bad sample but it’s not considered one of Nikon’s sharpest lenses. I think the 16-35 f/4 VR and the 14-24 are generally regarded as much sharper than the 17-35 f/2.8.

        • luxicraft

          This is not my actual experience. I put a known good copy of the 17-35 f2.8 up against the newer 16-35 f4. (Hand picked from a local dealer’s inventory). The operation of the 17-35 was a little creaky in comparison but they both looked great on a D800 and making a choice between them was very difficult. I’d but the two lenses very much on par.

          Eventually, I opted for the 16-35 but my feeling was that, in the real world, there was not going to be a perceptible difference in my pictures *unless* I was handholding the camera, in which case it helps to have VR.

          Also, I didn’t test under conditions that would readily show the benefits of nano-crystal coat. But I have seen these benefits and they are real.

          Rarely would I shoot below f4 under 50mm, so I personally will not miss the extra stop. Your results may vary.

          When this 16-35 f2.8 comes out, it will be a big heavy beast. I will not trade in the 16-35 f/4 on it unless there’s a very significant breakthrough in acuity.

          • Pat Mann

            With 5 aspheric surfaces and 3 ED elements (the 17-35 and 14-24 have 3 aspheric and 2 low-dispersion elements like the current 16-35 f/4) I suspect they’re working on lateral and longitudinal chromatic aberration as well as distortion and curvature of field to bring a really amazing lens to market for the D800 and future high-resolution cameras. I look forward to this lens with great anticipation.

          • hoffsta

            Don’t get me wrong, my copy of the 17-35 is not a total dog, however, it’s not up to the same acuity as the 24-70 or 70-200, I also shoot with. And I do have issues with some of the funky distortions. If Nikon produces a new lens based on this patent, and it’s a noticeable improvement, I will be very happy!

        • Dave

          Not my experience either. The 17-35 is sharp and close focusing but also distorts pretty badly. A weird combination of barrel on the outside and pincushion in the center

        • Dave Ingram

          I was trying to get a subtle D800 left focusing issue joke in there … perhaps a little too subtle : )

          • hoffsta

            Oh sorry, I never had the left-focus problem so I didn’t catch it!

        • lesovers

          I think you may have a bad sample hoffsta. I have new 17-35mm and have compared to the 16-35mm. Here are some conclusions;

          At 16 and 17mm;

          17-35mm corner sharpness at f2.8 is not great at all however you have the option to use it if you have out of focus corners anyway.

          Both lens have the same corner sharpness at f4, with 16-35mm maybe slightly worse.

          By about f9 both lens are almost identical however the center sharpness is slightly better on the 17-35mm.

          Contrast and colors are identical

          Distortion is far worse on the 16-35mm compared to the 17-35mm.

          At 24mm;

          16-35mm bets 17-35mm by a small margin.

          At 35mm

          17-35mm bets 16-35mm by a small margin.

          I also would much rather have my 24-70mm without VR over the 16-35mm for low light wedding photography for example. The 17-35mm has great center sharpness at any f stop giving each shot an uncanny lifelike look.

          Overall until the new 16-35mm f2.8 comes out I’ll be sticking with my 17-35mm.

          Here are a few examples of the 17-35mm lens;

  • jeff

    dear NR, when do you expect us to see this actual product on the market?

    • No idea, but we had several patents in the past that materialized 2-3 years later.

  • Ali

    16-35 F2.8 VS 17-35 F2.8???

    • Mansgame

      The 17-35 is not a very well liked lens…Not quite wide enough or sharp enough on the edges to be a true UWA…it’s more of a different purpose. 16-35 can cover a lot of ground when paired with a 70-200 almost getting rid of the need for the 24-70

      • Jeff

        I shot tons of weddings with just a 17-35 and 70-200, so you are right. Even now with a bag of 11-12 lenses, I still have never owned the 24-70 and never felt it was necessary.

  • Donz

    I wonder how much heavier and expensive it will be compared to the f/4 version? would complement my fav, the 35-70 f2.8 nicely : )

  • JS

    I would really like to see a lens lika a 16-35mm f/2.8 made for DX. Any new informations about lenses for the DX-format in 2013?

    • Nikon Shooter

      Tokina 11-16 is the closest and the best.

    • Pat Mann

      Nikon wants APS-C range shooters to go to Fuji/ Sony/ Olympus/ Panasonic mirrorless. That’s the only reason I can see that they haven’t given us the DX lenses we need to stay committed to Nikon for the long haul. Only high-class full-frame shooters are wanted here, plus those that want a pink Juicebox-3 fashion statement.

  • Nikonguy

    Come on Nikon… Update the 80-400mm and the D300.

    Upgrade the V2 to a V3 to get a respectable DXO score.

    • ffong

      I always thought a D7000 was a reasonable upgrade for a D300. Am I wrong?

      • Dave

        Yes. The D7000 is for the most part a great camera for the price, but its weak link is the buffer. You can get about 9 raw shots on continuous high motor drive. Meanwhile, the D200, a six years older design, can get 22 raw on continuous high. The D7000 should be considered to be one grade lower than the D300. If you use the motor drive at all, the D7000 will disappoint.

  • EnPassant

    And when will we see the affordable 16-30 f/4.5-5.6 FX lens:
    for ordinary consumers who bought the D600 with the 24-85 VR and added the 70-300 VR?

    I think such a lens would sell in much more numbers than a 16-35/2.8 VR lens for $ 2.000. Price could be about the same as the 28/1.8

    Nikon does after all already have three 2.8 wide angle zooms, 14-24, 16-35 and 17-35 which are all considered very good to excellent. They are also all very big and expensive to very expensive. A smaller and cheaper AF-S FX wide angle zoom is completely missing in Nikon’s lens line-up. All they have is the old 18-35 which got 1.5/5 points in Photozone’s full frame test.

    • Mansgame

      If you can’t afford quality FX glass, FX isn’t for you. Plenty of cheap UWA lenses down at the DX world.

      • EnPassant

        You don’t know what I can afford and what glass I already have.

        If you carefully read my post again you will learn I was not so much asking for a consumer super wide AF-S for myself. I pointed out such a lens is a missing hole in the Nikon lens program while there already are two AF-S Pro wide zooms and one Semi-Pro wide zoom.

        A cheap and light weight wide zoom would sell much more to newbie D600 owners than a behemoth 16-35/2.8. That should be reason enough for Nikon releasing such a lens as fast as possible.

        And for the record; I already have several DX and FX UWA zooms and am confident I have many more Nikon WA primes and zooms starting at WA than you have Nikon lenses!

        • desmo

          his point is valid you told him you wanted cheap consumer lenses

          these lenses fall well short of the D600 sensor’s resolution

          D7000 with 10 to 24 will equall or outperform D600 with consumer lens
          however D600 with at least 16-35 F4 or 70 -200 F4 is really sweet

          • EnPassant

            Another Gearhead who can’t read and understand English!
            I repeat: I never told I wanted such a lens myself but that it would be in Nikon’s interest making one.

            With your reasoning One can ask why Nikon made the 24-85 VR?

            Besides you can’t claim to know the optical performance of a not yet released lens!

  • DT

    this is the 17-35 replacement. lets hope it gets rid of the barrel distortion and the chromatic aberration. and stays just as sharp.

  • Omg. I just got 16-35 F4 a few weeks ago.. damn lens depreciate fast now.

  • Mansgame

    I own the 14-24mm f/2.8 and I love it but if this lens was around, it would have been a harder choice. The only other alternatives then were the 17-35mm which to me wasn’t sharp enough on the edges, and not quite wide enough for landscapes, or the 16-35 f/4 VR which wasn’t f/2.8 so I couldn’t use it for other applications.

    If they had the 16-35mm f/2.8 VR, I can see myself pairing that along with the 70-200, or even an 85mm 1.8 and skipping the mid-range zoom all together. Now I’m committed to the trinity though.

  • vinman

    Ok, I’d sell my 14-24 for this one for sure!

  • Bin

    I saw a few articles on Japanese website about this patent request. The earliest one seems to be from 2011. Does that mean in 2-3 years, which is this year or 2014, they will release the long-waited 16-35 f/2.8G? I’m waiting for Nikon to change the game again! I’m still debating if I should buy 14-24mm for my D800 now… What do you think NR editor? Thanks!

  • Alexandr Darius Maximilian Rad

    I’m still waiting for this beauty. I keep switching 35mm and 20mm Nikon lenses, but sometimes I wish I’d have to. And going a few mm wider could also add more effect to these close-up photos.

  • Back to top