Nikon SB-300, Nikkor 18–140mm f/3.5-5.6G, Coolpix L620 available for pre-order

Nikon-SB-300-compact flash

Nikon SB-300 Speedlight pre-order options (shipping on August 29th, 2013):


Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX VR lens pre-order options (also shipping on August 29th, 2013):


Nikon Coolpix L620 camera pre-order options:

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

    Admin, this lesn wans’t suppsed to be a “cheap line” lens? It sell for about 600US$. I doubt with a similar price range to be a kit lens for a D2000. So if it’s a kit lens it’s for …. D400???

    • I still think that this lens is not designed for the D400.

      • Fred Flintstone

        Gives us an idea of how pricey the 16-85 f4 will be then

        • Pat Mann


          • Fred Flintstone

            That’s $899 as a kit lens with the D400 of course 🙂

          • Steven Wade

            $699.95… according to Nikon’s website.

  • Rhonbo

    So Nikon basically updated the old 18-135. Yet another 18xxx consumer zoom lens. At $600 hopefully this one will perform better with a 24mp sensor otherwise I will just continue using my 18-135 or the 18-105vr as the kit lens.

  • jrconner

    I suspect the 18-140 is the 18-135 with VR added. The difference between 135 and 140 is insignificant, and undoubtedly represents product differentiation. I use the 18-135 on a D5000. It’s very sharp (much sharper than the 18-200 according to most reviews), has noticeable vignetting, and becomes an f/5.6 lens long before it’s extended to 135. It’s a good choice for shooting daylight events such as parades, parties, and political demonstrations. With effective VR, it will be suitable for the handheld shooting of twilight events. Is the new lens worth $600? Probably not. But will be discounted. I paid $230 for a refurbished lens and got double my money’s worth.

    • Merv S

      I thought the 18-135 was discontinued when the 18-105 VR was released. This new 18-140 VR in my opinion could replace both. Not much point dedicating manufacturing capacity for both the 18-105 and 18-140.

      After the Christmas season this year, I can see the price of the 18-140 VR dropping a bit.

  • Art Mullis

    More toys for Best Buy! Nothing here to see folks….move on……

  • Pat Mann

    This was just to give us something to complain (laugh?) (cry?) about before the D400 is released together with the 9-18 f.2.8, 16-50 f/2 and 50-135 f/2 DX zooms, the 24 and 18 f/1.4, 12mm f/2 and 8mm f/2.8 DX primes, and the 16mm f/3.5 PC-E DX, finally making the DX line a complete system.

    • Fred Flintstone

      Purchased, of course, by the magical man from Happyland, living in a gumdrop house on Lollipop Lane

    • Sparkplug

      I’m shooting on a D800, so I’d wish for the following lenses:

      – AF-S 135mm f2.0G

      – AF-S 50mm f1.2G (Good build quality, center sharp @ 1.4, fast and ACCURATE af)

      – AF-S 35mm f1.8G

      – AF-S 24mm f1.8G

      – AF-S 16mm f3.5G

      I’d buy those within a heartbeat.

  • HotDuckZ

    Please R2C2, AA battery. Working with CR123 is too complex.

  • Photo-Jack

    Strange! On one hand Nikon issues a fearful statement about the future of the camera market and then continue like before still placing their priorities on the toy department. The 18-135, in my opinion, really did not create an urge for update, while a bunch of other lenses certainly do. And some omissions remains empty since years, like a 17mm PC-E.
    Cannon has shown, that the obstacles of radio controlled flashes can be overcome. And Canon is exporting into the same regions with their particular regulations as Nikon does. But instead of an accordingly equipped SB 950, what we get is a SB 300. Incridible how urgend I need that one!

  • jk

    WTF, why do they waste very very limited R&D money into this shitty kit lens , no one need it.
    we all got one similar to it or sold it already.
    anyway , where is new DC primes?
    just put AFS in the excellent 105mmf2 DC(my favorite Nikon lens).

    • timarts

      I don’t they do spend that much in lenses like the 18-140, they basically added VR tech to the old 18-135

    • Hen Cockwell

      What makes you think no one needs it? Just because you don’t?

      • Mansgame

        Because there already is a cheap 18-105mm VR lens and a $600 18-200mm vr lens. There are also tons of old sb-600 flashes for the same priceb with far more power and usefulness and everybody has a phone with a camera so no need for another junky point and shoot. Nobody needs these things.

      • jk

        we have too many junk kit lenses already.

  • I wish the sb-300 was 90 degree tilt AND 180 degree swivel. why can’t these little SBs swivel like a SB-N5? basically I want a hotshoe SB-N5 with more power. I will gladly pay nikon nosebleed MSRP!!! imagine one of these on a future coolpix a2. it would be deadly!

    • AnthonyH

      I agree–if the SB-300 could swivel, I’d be buying at least one for use as a small, easy-to-carry i-TTL flash, when I don’t need the full power blast of my SB-800. If it could work off-camera in i-TTL, I’d buy several of them. C’mon Nikon, you’re missing the boat! Just a few simple changes and you’d sell a ton of these things. Otherwise, people might as well buy a no-name cheapo automatic flash for $30.

  • anon

    I was ready to suggest that my wife’s parents get this 18-140 as a complement to the 70-300 they just bought for their new d7100. They are by no means pros, so they don’t need to spend thousands on pro lenses… So this looked like a great option…. UNTIL I SAW THE PRICE!!!! i guess we should give it a chance. The 18-135 was about 300 bucks or so when it was available, at least what i remember.. If the VR is good (no reason it shouldn’t be) and they’ve improved the optics and AF speed enough, the new one could be worth it. The 18-135 had AWFUL distortion, wasn’t overly sharp especially at the edges, and had pretty slow AF.

    • Giovanni Baga

      I doubt that optically it will be significantly better than 16-85 that now is the best complements to 70-300.
      For VR probabily is a little better but not optically.
      And 16 mm is more usefull than 18 mm if you have already the 70-300 in hands.

      • anon

        agreed, however that’s a $630 lens (new). I was more hoping to see this 18-140 come in at $300, $400 tops, which is more in the range they’d want to spend for that type of lens. For that amount, i’ll just let them borrow my 18-135. It’s never used anyway unless my wife and I are both out shooting at the same time and she is using the 24-70 and 70-200.

        • We can’t say until we see the IQ… After all the 17-55 and 18-55 are only a mill different and less than a stop apart at the wide end and only 1.3 stops different at the long end but the price is a factor of 10 different… As I say, this might be a complete internal redesign.. it IS 140mm and not 135 after all.

    • Jorge

      Wow. You must truly dislike your in laws.

      • anon

        not everyone needs or wants multiple thousands of dollars worth of f2.8 or bigger lenses. Nor do they necessarily want to haul them around. My mother-in-law has absolutely no desire to EVER use our 70-200 2.8. It’s not comfortable for her. They are general everyday general-purpose photographers who takes pictures for themselves, not for customers, not for contests, but they like to have a bit more control over the camera than what the d3#00s and d5#00s chincy plastic bodies can give… hence the 7100. An OK lens for $350 that they will actually buy is better than a $1000 lens that they will never even consider…
        And how can you already judge that this lens will be so bad? maybe it’s great for it’s purpose… maybe the AF is quicker and more accurate. maybe the distortion isn’t as bad as the original. For non-pros looking for general zooms, this may be fantastic. I don’t know that because i haven’t tried one.. Neither have you.

        • Jorge

          Hey, it ‘s not a lie if you (or your in-laws) believe it.
          Go forth young man!

    • That’s what happens when Nikon add the VR to the lens and not the camera body… You have to buy the VR again… and again… and again… +$100 here, +$300 there… Who’s counting?

  • Glen

    Better pre-order now or you’ll be waiting months to get this. A lot of pent up demand for a new mid range zoom for DX. I pre-ordered mine immediately so I can sell it on eBay for a big markup.

    • Jorge

      Wow. What BS. Seriously? G o T A K E A P I C T U R E
      or get a girlfriend

      Theres a reason I barely touch my D700, and D800 anymore, or come here. the BS is so deep it’s like a mini DP REview.

      • Glen

        I thought it was obvious the post was satire but I guess it did not come through well enough. I would get a girlfriend but my wife probably wouldn’t approve.

  • Dat Nguyen

    Ref. to Nikon Speedlight; I am very dislike the Nikon locking mechanism on all of the Speedlights because after a year or so of use, It will no long sited tight on the camera hot shoe mount.

    The only thing that holed it in place is the one pin that pull-down, but the Speedlight will dancing on the shot shoe. For that reason, many time the flash will not fire because it did not sit firmly tight in place.

    I wish that Nikon will looking into the new Locking Mechanism like the Quantum Q-Flash. ( They do have the pull-down pin and also the dial that pull-up together that make the flash sited very tight in place on the hot-shoe.

    Dear Nikon, I hope you’re reading this comment and continuing to improve this Locking Mechanism for your customers satisfaction.

    • I have 3 sb-900s and 1 sb-910. my sb-900s are almost 4 years old and have several hundred thousand fires each. zero issues with the locking pin. in fact the nikon style locking pin is one of my favorite things about SBs. is it possible that your camera hotshoes might be out of spec? I know they seem rock-solid, but some folks run into this. a set of needle nose pliers can probably address the issue.


    In my opinion..(of course)
    Nikon D7000 =18-105 (kit lens)
    Nikon D7100=18-105 (kit lens)
    Nikon D600 = 24-85 (kit lens)
    Nikon D800=24-120 (kit lens)

    Nikon D400=18-140 (kit lens)
    D400 (body only) (1,699.99)
    D400 w/lens ((2,399.99)
    And 36 MP…DX SENSOR
    (Wouldn’t put past Nikon to do this)

    • robert

      I would not invest in DX anymore. I would simply add $300 over the D400 price youre quoting and even get a D600 or even a used D700 for the low light. the sensor is not the same mfr for DX/FF and there is a huge difference in IQ

      Im guessing the problem is people have invested in lenses.
      FF is night and day

  • Bob L

    I would still like to see an AF-S 400mm f/4 VRII lens … the f/2.8 is just too heavy!

  • Back to top