Nikon announcement for the CP+ show: new Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED FX lens


Nikon will announce at least one new full frame lens for the CP+ show in Japan at the end of January: Nikkor AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED.

This comes as a surprise to me, since I was expecting for Nikon to concentrate on new DX products in 2013. The 18mm focal length at f/3.5 will most likely be well accepted by many photographers. I expect the new 18–35mm f/3.5–4.5 lens to be the lightest FX zoom in Nikon's lens lineup. Here are some of the specs:

  • Filter size: 77mm
  • Weight: under 400 g/14 oz
  • Lens design: 12 elements in 8 groups

Nikon already had a 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D ED lens that was announced back in 2000 and currently sells for $609.95:

Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5D ED lens

There will be more new products announced at the CP+ show. I have no reliable information for a new DX camera, but this may change in the next two weeks.

Many Coolpix cameras are already listed as discontinued (for example the waterproof Coolpix AW100, the superzoom Coolpix L810 and several other models) and February is the time when new Coolpix models are introduced.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • twoomy

    This might not excite some, but this sounds FANTASTIC to me as the 16-35mm is a wee-bit too long to be enjoyable on hikes. A nice light wide-angle zoom would be most welcome.

    But… image quality is the real question. If it has good corners I’ll gobble it up in a second.

    • Discontinued

      IQ of the 16 to 35 isn’t breathtaking (sorry to say that, especially for myself, because I have one). I was not surprised at all if the new 18 to 35 would manage to keep up pretty well at smaller size and price. So gobble it up you might indeed.

      • thomasv99

        What are you saying? 🙂

      • I’m in the market for a UWA and looking at many different options including but not limited to the Tokina 16-28, Nikon 16 35 and the Samyang 14mm. The only thing holding me back from buying the 16-35 is the huge disto at 16mm.

        I’m surprised as a fellow hiker you’re not happy with this lens. I would very much like to leave the tripod at home and shoot handheld with VR. May not be able to do it all the time, like when doing 360s or night shots, but for general day hiking, I’d love VR.

        • desmo

          the distrtion is simple,
          meaning just post process in Lightroom or PS and use lens profile and it snaps right out.
          the Tokina’s distortion is complex and will not easily correct

          • Kim

            When you use your PC to remove distortion, the image must be cropped if you don’t want to keep an image that looks like a batwing. If you correct an image taken at 16mm with the 16-35mmVR you en up with an image that has the same field of view as if taken at 20mm! There’s no free lunch….

        • twoomy

          If you’re asking me, the 16-35 is a fine lens, most sharp around 20-24, quite distorted at 16 and relatively soft at 28+. Since I already hike with the 24-120, having the redundancy in range, a very small sweet spot, and being relatively long and heavy, it’s NOT a fun hiking lens. I opted for a Zeiss 18mm prime instead. Honestly, the VR in the 16-35mm didn’t make much of a difference for me. I won’t miss it. I’d rather not have VR and make the lens smaller.

      • preston

        The IQ of the 16-35 is actually fantastic except for the monstrous distortion from 16-18mm. The 16-35 is worlds better than the current 18-35 though. And the 16-35 is just as good as the 14-24 at 24mm. See the side-by-side comparison tool at The Digital Picture if you don’t believe me (

      • Discontinued

        I don’t care much for the 24 mm comparison, to be honest. If the 14-24 ain’t any better it tells me much more about the 14-24 than teaching me anything new about the 16-35 (which I can tell by myself). Anyway, there are not many alternatives (with filter thread) at this range, are there?

    • Craig

      Same here. If they do a decent job on this I’ll be much more likely to buy a D600. I like the balance of the 16-35 when I’ve held it, but it didn’t quite make sense to me to hang it off a D600 for hiking or backpacking. This could be the FF equivalent of carrying a d7000 with a 12-24 on it – ideal.

  • Macs

    That’s what I was looking for since year. The 16-35/4 and other lenses are too expensive and heavy for me, but the current 18-35 is really a poor lense. I hope they will improve the optical quality!!

    • Abraham Collins

      It isn’t that bad, I own one and it’s very useful how close it focuses. Stop it down to 5.6 and it performs very well considering its price.

      • Arthur

        That exactly the sweep spot of that crappy zoom…

    • RMFearless

      Try the Tokina 17-35 F/4. I own on my D600 and it’s fantisc, low distortion, less then nikkor 16-35 F/4

      • desmo

        not less distortion just more complex,
        if you don’t use lightroom or photoshop
        your ahead of the game, but
        if you post process in LP or PS it will ultimately have less distortion
        either way straight of the camera 16-35 is much sharper and better built

  • kfoto

    Yawn…..I don’t care for variable aperture lenses….

    • Ralph

      Yawn….. Why is that?

  • Chimphappyhour

    Whoa! So if the current one costs that much, one has to wonder what Nikon will price the new one at given their decisions on a few of the most recent redesigned lenses.

  • Pat

    Damn. That means we won’t see the 16-35 f/2.8 VR then. That’s the 17-35 replacement many many folks were waiting for !

    On a side note, 14-24 plus this new 18-35 (for filter usage) might be a good combo.

    • Arthur

      Having the 14-24, I won’t beleive anybody will get interest of any kind to carry both of them..l

  • niXerKG

    I am glad they are updating this lens even though I have no need or want for it. I guess the D600 really did change the game but I had no idea the old one still sold for so much. You could easily save a tiny bit more and get a used 17-35mm f/2.8.

    • gsum

      I have the 17-35 f2.8 but find that I don’t use it much as it unbalances the D800 and gives me a pain in the neck, I’d happily put up with that if my copy of the lens was sharp but the 24 and 35mm f2.8 primes are sharper, cheaper and lighter, and if you want extreme wide angle, PTGUI (or similar) weighs nothing.

      This new 18-35 has a little more than half the weight of the 17-35 and appears very attractive – assuming that its performance is up to scratch. I doubt that it will tempt me away from my primes though.

      • niXerKG

        I guess I am sweet on my 17-35 since it is so sharp and great when on my D3 though I don’t wear it around my neck!

        I guess my problem with the 18-35 is the variable aperture. It gets annoying.

        • joseph

          My 17-35mm is absolutely abysmal in the corners and far sides even at f/8. I keep thinking I need to get rid of it and spring for the 16-35mm VR.

  • DW

    Just make it an f/4. Variable apertures are so annoying I end up just shooting at f/4.5 so my exposure doesn’t change when zooming. There is no point to a zoom if you shoot manual and the zoom has a variable aperture.

    • zebrazebra

      you forget that an 3,5 to 4,5 lens will focus faster and better at the short end.. so if you buy the lens shoot f4,5 and you have good time with an fast and exact focussing lens at the short and the long end..

  • I thought they may have brought out a 24-70 F4 VR for FX first.
    Complementary to the new 70-200 F4.
    Strange decision at this time.

    • Mato34

      24-70 f/4 wouldn’t make too much sense against the 24-85/3.5-4.5 . At least on specifications, perhaps quality would be another thing (and probably price too…).


      • desmo

        the current 24-120 f4 is much sharper than the 24-85 kit lens, but the 24-70 is even sharper,
        so i assume his point is

        like the recent 70 200f4 by matching the f2.8 lenses zoom range

        it could acheive a much higher level of sharpness than the current 24-120 f4 vr

        • jake

          no, the 24-120f4 is less sharp than the kit lens , I tested these side by side many times and the kit lens was sharper through out most of range.

          only at 24mm in extreme borders the 24-120f4VR was a bit better.
          but in any case , considering the huge price gap , the kit lens is a better deal!

          • Arthur

            Hope you’re not getting confused by prior version f/3.5-5.6

            • desmo

              plus 1

              24-120f4vr isn’tas sharp as 16-35f4 or new 70-200f4

              but is way sharper than kit lenses and upper grade consumer like 16-85vr DX

              All of above based on shooting my own copies of lenses in variety of lighting conditions

          • Arthur

            Forgot to mention, the new kit lens 24-85 is cheaper than DX 18-55 IMO…

          • desmo

            you need your eyes checked

          • I agree with Jake on being better, but not sure about sharper. Had both, kept the 24-84.
            Also, 24-120 is WTF creeeeeeeppp.

      • twoomy

        As always, these lenses play a balancing game between cost, image quality, size, and range. I have the 24-120 f/4 and would only consider a 24-70 f/4 if it were significantly sharper or smaller.

        Remember in the DX world, there was a 18-70 an 18-55, then an 18-200, 18-135, and lastly the 18-105. Far too many in my opinion, but each was a compromise putting one of the above factors ahead of the others.

    • dale

      yes because people would prefer that to a 24-120 F4 which already exists?

      • jake

        but it is a crappy lens , I replaced it with the cheap 24-85VR since I already have the 24-70f2.8.
        the 24-120f4VR should have been a 24-85f4 with better IQ than the current one.

    • desmo

      maybe they should bring out a 24-120 f2.8 Vr as 24-70 is an inadequate range as a zoom

    • Aldo

      I love the quality of the current 24-70… but for video works best on a tripod only. A vr 24-70 2.8 with my d800 would be a dream come true

    • Point is that I’ve looked at the alternatives and they all have some reviews and/or comments that none are as good as the current 24-70 F2.8 over the same range.
      Many have remarked they could do with VR on the 24-70 F2.8 as well.
      A well built/designed low zoom range 24-70 F4 would be light and cheaper than the 24-70 F2.8 and judging by the new 70-200 F4 could have as good as or better IQ than the F2.8
      The Nikon ‘Holy Trinity’ has always been the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8. Ditto at F4 seems logical.
      Why would one need to overlap zoom ranges and get inferior IQ from extended zoom ranges?
      Anyway, it was just a comment. I’m happy sticking to primes at this point for IQ, size on camera and for mass (assuming you know what you intend to shoot and chose your packed lenses accordingly – not just ‘holiday snaps’).
      For ‘happy snaps’ I’d want zooms that are light and portable – i.e. ± F4.
      Variable apperture zooms don’t come without negatives.

  • Bkmy

    300mm f4 with vr or 80-400 replacement ahhhhhh fkdnndodusgsgdkocudjs

    • PeterT

      Yes, yes, yes… !

    • Micah Goldstein

      There appears to be a malfunction between your keyboard and monitor…

  • Terry

    A 17mm PC would really be nice

  • brian jones

    i’m in shock. I have have been waiting for an updated 17-35 2.8 II, but I was definitely not expecting this. I really don’t want to spend 700 dollars on a variable aperture… I can already buy the 16-35 for about 1000 bucks if I wanted something that was only f4.
    I hope this lens is 600 bucks or less or has some kind of insanely good IQ, then it will be awesome….. Otherwise, i’ll just wait for a 2.8 UWA(I already have a pretty nice copy of the tamron 17-35 F2.8-4,)

    • desmo

      you don’t need f2.8 in a UWA lens
      your starting point is 1/16
      I consistantly handhold my 16-35 at 1/6 1/4 w/o the VR selected
      (forgot to check the switch) my bad
      but it still works
      handholding these focal lengths w/o Vr is not a big deal
      as far as IQ the 16 -35 meets or exceeds the 17-35 f2.8
      and again Wide angle is not about depth of field

  • pressstart

    I didn’t realize Nikon made lens with that ugly hood built in (or whatever the rim of the lens is called). I cringe when I see that on people’s Canon dslrs.

    • Zinchuk

      The hood is a petal style that goes onto that. Because it’s a wide lens, the petals are pretty shallow. With the hood, it actually looks pretty imposing to non-photogs.

  • Eric Calabos

    It was too hard to make it 1mm wider?

    • Mato34

      I agree. At least for my personal situation. I have Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 and Sigma 20/1.8, and while the first isn’t that good on corners until f/5.6, is clearly wider than the 20 mm.

      But 18 mm instead of 20… Perhaps it’s not worthy to me. But let’s see IQ.


  • equus

    This lens will be optically as good as 24-85mm, so this is for beginners.
    They already have a professional lineup at f/2.8 and a better than average lineup at f/4.
    Still cheaper and amateur lineup is available now with this lens along with 24-85mm and 70-300mm.

    • desmo

      maybe not, on the DX side the 10-24 at least equalled the sharpness of the 12-24 gold ring lens.
      if this lens equals the performance of the 10-24Dx it will be an astounding value

  • 24-70 2.8 VR for FX. Thats what we what nikon.

    • jake

      it would have to be a huge lens , though.
      and if it gets the VR , it will not be as sharp as the current one.
      so personally, I prefer a bit smaller version of the same current 24-70 (hopefully inner zoom) without the VR.

  • Abraham Collins

    Admin, is this an AF-S lens?

  • zoetmb

    The “current” 18-35mm AF-D is discontinued, although B&H, among others, still have units in stock (at $610). It’s one of the few cases where Nikon USA has actually removed the lens from the website, so they really must be out of them, although the lens did appear in the 6/2012 lens catalog. So a replacement is really not a surprise, especially since it will probably be priced higher.

  • Rhonbo

    All those new D600 owners need a wide angle they can afford. The current 16-35 is pricy and basically not available most of the time in the US. Nikon will sell many of these if the IQ is good and the price is kept low enough. Looks like no VR though. Makes FF more affordable for the masses.

    • RMFearless

      Tokina 17-35 f/4 I have one on my D600, sample image below.

      Or other images on my flickr:

      The lens has low distortion and great sharpness, it cost half then nikon 16-35 f/4

      • mimefrog

        Beautiful photos! I guess I need to consider this lens (and go to Prague).

      • Craig

        Great shot. That 17-35 is one I definitely looked at, but the 82mm thread is a problem for me – couldn’t face buying even larger ND and polarizing filters.

      • Anonymous Maximus

        Is it HDR?

        • RMFearless

          No it isn’t. But I used layer in photoshop

    • desmo

      verytrue I bought the 16-35Vr when i got the D600 ,and don’t regret it,
      as the lens is really well constructed and exceedingly sharp
      but this lens might have better suited my needs both in price and size/weight

      • jake

        it is a good lens , I even prefer it to the 14-24,which , imho, is overrated.
        the 16-35VR is the best , most practical wide zoom in any mount.

        • 5DollarFootlong

          14-24 is not overrated in fact it is the best lens I’ve personally used. I’m talking prime like sharp.

          The 16-35 on the other hand, again from my experience is overrated and overpriced IMO.

          • Ralph

            Well, I don’t know if the 16-35 is over priced, outside of the normal – all Nikon lenses are over priced theory. The 14-24 is a lot sharper with the 16-35 a bit soft in the corners. The 16-35 has a real advantage with taking filters, kind of essential for landscapers. The 16-35 is overweight due to the stupid VR so the 18-35 will find a niche for people wanting no VR for weight and a lens that takes a filter, assuming it a high IQ lens. I eect it to be high IQ coz heir other one isn’t.

          • jtr

            I have both, and each is responsible for some of my best, and clients favorite shots. The 14-24 is optically superior, but the extra reach and non-cumbersome filter solution provided by the 16-35, not to mention VR make it a great lens when you are shooting on the move or are in a hostile environment. Now, 16-35 2.8 with less distortion and VR — if feasible — would likely beat out both for what I need 85-90% of the time. All that said though, I would never sell my 14-24.

        • Robert

          The 14-24 is not overrated. It is superior to almost every prime lens with an equivalent focal length.

          It is quite simply the finest wide angle zoom lens in the world as of this writing, bar none.

          • Spy Black

            That’s a load of marketing crap. Try comparing for yourself with primes and you’ll see that, while it is a good quality lens, you can’t compare it to a prime. It has a lot of nasty CA too. Overrated? No. Overprice? Very.

          • shivaswrath

            the 24 1.4G is MUCH better than the 14-24f/2.8….

        • Mansgame

          Overrated?? There is nothing like it on the planet. 16-35mm is f/4. even at UWA, you need f/2.8 in many situations. Not to mention it’s the sharpest lens Nikon has.

    • Dave Ingram

      I agree – this is probably made in the same factory in China as the 24-85mm kit lens and would be a good lens for folks new to FX who want to add to their lens collection. If you think about it, you could get both the 18-35mm and the 24-85mm lenses for about the cost of the 16-35mm. I got the D600 + kit lens deal when it was on sale over the holidays for $1999 and have been pretty happy with the quality of 24-85mm as a walk around. Do love my 16-35mm f4 though for more serious work.

      I’m hoping that they upgrade the 300mm f4 with VR soon – need something with a bit more reach!

      • Spy Black

        Let’s hope it’s not made in the same factory, because the 24-85mm Nikkor kit lens is total piece of crap.

    • José Diniz

      This new one, plus the 24-85 VR and the 70-300 VR should make a really nice, light and affordable set for cheappo D600 users like myself. Same for the great f1.8 prime trio (28, 50 and 85mm). Nikon is really trying hard to get everybody aboard the Full Frame train, and I applaude that.

    • Emcee

      I’d be willing to bet it will have VR, what was the last zoom released without it?

  • Jonas in Sweden

    “Many Coolpix cameras are already listed as discontinued (for example the waterproof Coolpix AW100, …”

    Oh that is why Nikon Sweden have a campaign now:

    Köp en Nikon COOLPIX AW100 och få
    ett exklusivt Nikon vinterset på köpet!

    By a Coolpix AW100 an get a exclusive winter-kit free!

    The kit is a hood (hat?) and a thermos with Nikon logo.

    • Michael Hesley

      Hope Nikon releases an updated version to the AW100. Like the Nikon 1, it took some unrealistic critiques… I liked the V1 and the AW100 so much I bought two of each of them. Both supplement my D800 and D700 for places I don’t want to lug around the beasts.

      • niXerKG

        I’d love to see them make the AW100 into a true Nikonos successor.

  • Swade

    How many more years will it take to get an update on the 135mm and 180mm lenses?

    • Alain

      and the 24mm f/2.8?????????

      • ChristosSP

        And 35mm f/2

      • nobody

        28mm f3.5 anybody?

    • shawn

      The 135 is beautiful just the way it is.

      • refresh

        EXCEPT for the horrific gross chromatic aberration… green and purple fringing all over the place. I do love it compared to lenses of the same era.. but its seriously time for a refresh.

    • Ralph

      Buy the 135DC it’s brilliant. Buy the sigma 180 macro, also brilliant. There, problem solved.

      • The 180 AF-D is excellent too. I bought one second hand that looks like it was thrown down a cliff. It is very sharp and one of my best nikkor lenses, just after the 85mm f1.4 af-D. Any replacement will probably be heavier, loose the wonderful aperture dial, be a lot less rugged (due to the AF motor and VR), only advantage will be the VR, which will sell it to some.

  • NikoFanBoy

    hi admin

    thanks for the post. Is it the only lens or any other fullframe lens expected to be released along with the new camera?


  • Mack

    God Bye nikon! You become more and more a Plastik fantastic! Now i Switch to c

    • HotDuckZ

      Canon is more plastic lens, 24-70 II, 24-70 f/4, 17-40, 16-35 2.8 that all plastic.

    • Michael Hesley

      ???? You don’t have to buy the Plastik stuff… There is an inexpensive line of lenses and the pro line of lenses. That is a good thing, is it not?

    • Aldo

      One of the worst canon trolls ive seen in a long time

      • desmo

        your right
        not very erudite
        if he’s going to waste our time,
        should at least bring some intellect

    • Eric Calabos

      Good luck in switching to plastk non fantastic

  • Zinchuk

    I’ve used this lens since 2003 in a professional capacity. When I bought it, I simply couldn’t afford a 2.8 lens. Since then it has done yeoman’s work for news and weddings. Indeed, until very recently when I got the 24-70 f2.8, it was the lens that stayed on my D200, D700 and D4.

    My example looks like hell. My young son dragged the D200 off the kitchen table, twice. The first time took out the UV filter. The second took a big chunk of the fairing on the top. But optically, it was still sound. So when someone would ask about it, I would joke that it was a close call in Afghanistan.

    Even with the holy trinity lens I have now, I really miss being able to go to 18 mm at a whim without reaching into the bag and switching lenses. It still stays in the roller bag, no matter what, and gets a lot of use in creating 360 degree virtual tours like this: Doing a 360, you should really shoot it in portrait orientation, and the wide nature of this lens makes for much taller panos.

  • n11

    18-35 DX? That’s even more subpar then the 18-55 no?
    If it was 2.8-4 then it’d be interesting.

    • desmo

      its not DX
      pay attention

  • John

    Hopefully this lens is much much much improved over the current 18-35 which is very poor on FX. I hope they are not doing the same type of “update” that they did with the 24-85AFS VR – it really is no better and in some ways worse than it’s predecessor 24-85AFS (non-VR).
    Better get my 17-35/2.8AFS tuned up to see if it can still be sharper than this new 18-35.

    If Nikon can make this a sharp lens across the focal range then it will be a winner and I likely will swap out my 17-35 for it. I tried a couple of 16-35/4VR’s and was not impressed with any of them – at least not enough to plunk down the cash for the price of a new one.

  • Technician

    Wait, wait… What is the point? There’s reasonably priced 16-35 f/4 VR.

  • jake

    really who do you think will buy this one?
    I think the 16-35f4VR is a much better lens.

    • Mansgame

      people who shouldn’t have bought FX in the first place because they didn’t have the lenses.

      • Craig

        I can see you’re one of those tiny people. A quick browse through the first four or five of your recent posts shows it up. Tiny.

      • Craig

        True though isn’t it moderator? I mean you must feel the same way? 🙂

    • Anyone who would want a cheap and light lens.

  • jake

    give me a good new DC 135mm f1.8GED, then I will be happy.

  • Anonymous Maximus

    An affordable & lightweight 18-35mm FX would be welcome as long as the optical quailty is acceptable when stopped about f/8.

    In the need of ultra-wide, I occasionally use my 10-24mm on D800 with 1.5x or 1.2x crop, and have no intention of buying anything else. I’m simply happy with the results. The widest rectilinear FX is the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6.

    • Richard

      acceptable at f/8? any lens is acceptable at f/8. I just hope this is acceptable at f/4.5. This is definitely a nice casual lens to have for low budget lightweight FX

      • Not really. The current 18-35mm has weak corner resolution at any aperture.

  • EnPassant

    Ha Ha! I told you so!

    When all the Gearhead plonkers got bonkers over a 16-35/2.8 patent I wrote a slower AF-S consumer wide angle zoom for new D600 buyers to make the FX consumer trinity with the already present 24-85 VR and 70-300 VR complete would be the most expected FX lens this year.

    My complete 2013 lens predictions are these:

    10-100/4-5.6 super zoom without the motor Zoom of previous 10-100.
    6.7-13/3.5-5.6 wide angle zoom. Both expected in January.
    32/1.2 portrait prime. Later in 2013. Already displayed as a prototype

    Any DX wide angle prime.
    f/4 mid-zoom.
    Portrait prime.

    f/3.5-4.5 or 3.5-5.6 wide angle consumer zoom.
    AF-S 135/1.8 VR
    AF-S 300/4 VR or 80-400 VR replacement.
    AF-S 800/5.6 will be available
    Joker: AF-S 20/1.8!
    An eventual 400/4 will propably not be released this year but maybe some year later.
    Read more:
    How many more of my predictions will be correct? So far I am 100% correct! 🙂

  • 123

    I waited for 15-30 or 16-35 2.8 VR

    • No longer Pablo Ricasso

      There’s no doubt it will be, but the existing 18-35 needs replacing more than the 17-35 and the 16-35 is too expensive for that. You could just get the 14-24. I doubt you’d get filters on anything wider than a 16 no matter what, assuming they made one…
      Let’s have high hopes for the plastic fantastic.

  • Gedrick

    “I was expecting for Nikon to concentrate on new DX products in 2013.” – what new toys can we expect? Hoping for D7000 replacement.

    • D90

      Yep, a D7000 and D300 replacements are said to be introduced this year. Together with some new (DX?) lenses (like a 16-85mm f/4?).

  • Allen_Wentz

    Of all the lenses Nikon users need, a new consumer-grade FX 18-35mm is WAY low in priority.

    How about a ~35mm or ~40mm ~45mm pancake? An FX pancake could be used FX or DX; or a smaller lighter DX pancake would be sweet on the D3xxx and D5xxx cameras. To complement my large bodies I picked up a half-off D5100 as a pocket cam when they were EOL’d and would settle for either FX or DX as long as IQ is good (better than kit lens IQ).

    Availability of a pancake lens for those two lines would totally change the versatility of the lines and would be a huge selling point. And such a lens would be an easy sell-up, great for retailers. E.g. decades ago I bought a Pentax SLR just to get the 40mm pancake combo even though my gear was otherwise all (much larger) Nikon.

  • look like a joke. a BAD joke

  • Spy Black

    Let’s hope it doesn’t suck like the 24-85.

  • Mansgame

    I’ll keep my 14-24

  • TomF

    How about Nikon thinking about all of us who are looking to replace their D300s, with a new Prosumer upgrade. Is Nikon going to abandon the high end DX user? If I don’t see a replacement soon, I guess I will hav e to consider the D800 and new glass. Perhaps that is the Nikon game plan!

    • DX user

      Same DX situation here.. I will wait for 12 months to see what Nikon comes out with next…maybe a D400??
      I thought the D600 an under-spec compromise, D800 is the only choice left. I have been buying mainly FX glass for last 5 years, my 300mm f4 AFS and 80-400mm are due for an update soon I expect!
      Guessing Nikon maybe doing the ‘holy trinity’ at f4, = sharp, less $$ and especially lighter.

  • shivaswrath

    this would be a nice travel lens…I hate taking the 24-70 along, feels stupid. I wish there was VR though…

  • Would be more excited to see a replacement to the 80-400 AF and the 300 F4 AFS – come on Nikon you can do this.

  • Down the hatch

    Another piece of crap zoom… way to go, Nikon!

  • D800

    I don’t get Nikon sometimes, this lens is redundant, not needed in my opinion, they should pay attention to Canon and make an ultra wide Zoom like the 8-15mm F4. It would fill out the line up nicely with the14-24, 24-70, 70-200. They already had a version of this lens and other manufacturers fill this need and make great lenses in this range.

  • Martus

    I really miss the equivalent Canon 17-40/4L. Relatively cheap and quality lens without stabilization, dust- and weather proof.

  • Harbebie

    I’m waiting for 16-35 f2.8 Nano

  • So uninteresting

    Bah. Another uninteresting, mediocre, plastic zoom lens.

    The other lenses should be an updated 20mm f/2 prime and 300/4

  • Bratislav ILIC

    Following Nikon latest new lens price rampage it will be at least 1000$ at start, but let us hope it will be at least a bit better than the current 18-35 …

  • Back to top