More details on the upcoming Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G FX and 18–55mm f/3.5–5.6G DX lenses

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f1.8G full frame lens
Few more details on the upcoming Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G FX and 18–55mm f/3.5–5.6G DX lenses:

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G

  • 11 elements in 8 groups, 1 aspherical and 1 ED elements (the 35mm f/1.4G lens has 10 elements in 7 groups with 1 aspherical element)
  • No golden ring
  • Minimum focusing distance: 25 cm
  • Filter size: 58mm
  • Weight: around 300g / 11 oz
  • 7 blades aperture (rounded)

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 18–55mm f/3.5–5.6G DX VRII

  • 11 elements in 8 groups and 1 aspherical element
  • Really compact (collapsable) and light lens body
  • Filter size: 52mm
  • Weight: under 200g / 7 oz
  • 7 blades aperture (rounded)
This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • guest

    “Minimum focusing distance: 0.25 cm”


    • yes, or 0.25m (fixed)

      • analyzing

        1.8 has 11 elements…. 1 more element that 1.4G?

        that makes 1.8 better, right?

        • Spy Black

          Depends on how it’s engineered.

        • Marc W.

          More is always better.

          Except when less is better.

        • nycticorax

          It _does_ go to 11

  • J.D.Clampett

    Coming in at 499.99…I hope they get it right like they did with 85mm 1.8G…

    • Marc W.

      And 50mm 1.8G

      • Piyaju

        They got it more than just right with the 50mm 1.8g

  • guest

    minimum focusing must be 25 cm, right?

  • guest

    Sounds nice. My 35 f2 D sucked eggs! I sold it back to B&H for $150.

    • Marc W.

      I didn’t like my f2D either and sold it to get an AI-S version.

  • LarryC

    Here’s hoping for lens only rebates in Feb/March that includes the 35 like early this year when I picked up my 85 f/1.8 for a great price.

    • pricer

      399 is the best price.

      Particularly, without the ‘golden ring’ … yep. Keep the ring, give the discount.

      • My guess: $499.

      • desmo

        see 7 blade vs 9, fewer elements, etc,
        gold ring indicates pro quality thus the higher price,

        f1.8 is a more affordable consumer product,
        but , that doesn’t necessarily mean poor performance

      • Marc W.

        Especially if they didn’t put a ring on it…. now is the song stuck in your head?

  • Neopulse

    Good walk around prime on a DX 🙂

    • Pat Mann

      24 would be better

      • Neopulse

        Well, when there’s a more affordable 24mm like this AF-S lens then yeah, why not.

      • NikNik

        Try the Sigma 24 f/1.8. I bought it for the D90 and it worked great. Now I’m using it on the D800 and it’s very good.

        Really, give it a go to the Sigma -only problems is that it doesn´t have an internal motor. Other than that, it’s a fine lens (just my opinion)

        • ausserirdischesindgesund

          The Sigma 24/1.8 is a fine lens, sure, but it is too heavy. We DX users need a wide angle that is as light and small as the 35/1.8 DX.

          What might work on your D90 is simply too large for a D3200.

      • David

        That could be on the way but the 28 1.8 fills a similar need. I could see a budget 24 for DX.

        • Marc W.

          Then you’ll have half the people complain there needs to be a new 24mm 1.8/2.8 for FX. No one is ever happy.

          • delayedflight

            More like they’ll whine that the 24mm f/1.8 DX is too expensive and buy a third party Sigma anyway.

            Typical behavior crying about wanting a lens but too tight fisted to actually commit to buying one when it does eventuate.

    • iamlucky13

      But why when there’s already the DX 35mm F/1.8 for one third what the FX lens is likely to cost?

      • bigD

        Because this dude is dumb.

      • ausserirdischesindgesund

        Why are there FX cameras when there are DX cameras for one third the cost?

        Different markets.

        • asdfasdf

          Cuase the DX will do everything this FX will do for 1/3 the cost. As in he’s trying to explain reality to him.

          • Marc W.

            A Honda can do everything a Lexus can do too.

    • asdfasdf

      For the price premium that Nikon will charge, you’d be better off going with the new Sigma 30mm 1.4 for a DX.

      • Neopulse

        Ehhh…. it’s better to see the comparisons first before deciding that. Ya never know.

  • Mansgame

    unless you don’t own any f/2.8 zooms, f/1.8 primes make less sense when f/2.8 zoom is just a stop lower and you have ISO 6400.

    • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

      Why use ISO 6400 when you can use a f1.8 prime at ISO 2500? 1.3 stop doesn’t sound like alot, but it do have an impact.
      Primes are also generally smaller and lightweight compared to zooms. And that 1.8 aperture gives slightly more seperation than f2.8.
      Zooms do have more flexibility though, and on some image stabilisation.
      Pros and cons to both of them.
      I have zooms and primes in the same focal length, and I use them both, mostly primes because most of the time I have a pretty good idea of what I’m actually going to shoot, so I don’t need the flexibilty with zooms so much, but an extra stop or 2 can be much more useful for me.
      I’ve been thinking of getting a 35mm prime, I do already have a 24mm, a 50mm and zooms from 14mm to 200mm.
      Its not a high priority, so something like nikon/sigma 35/1.4 is a big maybe, and samyangs lack AF which I would like to have.
      So this is a really interesting lens for me, looking foward for it.

    • iamlucky13

      Well…yes, that’s true.

      But just because an F/2.8 gives you enough light for most situations at ISO 6400 doesn’t mean an F/1.8 won’t still occasionally be even better, and clean high ISO doesn’t give you subject isolation.

      And it’s a good bet this will be in the $500-700 MSRP range, which means all the budget-minded shooters whom the D600 invited to the DX world can afford the 24-85 and this 35mm while saving $600-800 compared to 24-70 F/2.8.

      Interestingly, assuming this new lens weighs no more than twice as much as the older 35mm F/2, that pair of lenses would still weigh slightly less than the 24-70 alone.

    • Spy Black

      If you can afford an f/2.8 zoom, you can easily also afford the f/1.8 prime.

    • Jesse Cablek

      I get noise above 600-800 ISO on my D200 and D2x so the faster lenses certainly help. I know I could get the cheapo DX version, but I’m of the mind set to get the right lens first, so I can use it when I go FX later… so this would be perfect for me right now to get me close to 50mm usable FOV on DX with wider on FX and I already have the 50mm 1.8 for FX for the same

      • Aldo

        I would invest in a new body if I were you before buying expensive lenses.

        • Jesse Cablek

          The only thing I need a new body for is higher ISO shooting.. which yes I want to upgrade.. however as everyone should know by now, the glass makes more difference. 35mm f/1.8 would fit perfect for me to get rid of my 17-50 f/2.8 (for DX only) since I rarely use that lens anymore anyway

          • Aldo

            You are right.. the glass makes more difference… but the current prosumer/consumer cameras do better than some of the older pro models when it comes to image quality. The gains you will have from a new body will outweigh buying better/expensive lenses in your case imo. Besides, there is a lot of good glass at a better price.

            • Jesse Cablek

              My wallet doesn’t gain 🙁

              I already have the AF 50mm f/1.8, 60mm Micro f/2.8, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, Sigma 10-22mm and my rarely used Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. The 17-50 could be close to even trade-off for 35mm f/1.8 FX lens provided it has good quality, and still satisfy a broad range for myself with minimal cost and faster glass. Much prefer primes at this point over what I have being that the 10-22 is also DX only, but the rest could go either way.

              Don’t get me wrong, I want at the very least a D700 right now to upgrade, but it’s not yet in the cards (at 2.5-3x the cost, presuming this lens will be around $500).

            • Aldo

              I hear yah … I’m just throwing you some opinions here and there… You could throw in a couple hundred more and go for the 5300 instead of buying this lens… you could sell one of your bodies to get some dough back.

            • Jesse Cablek

              I certainly have my wish list 😉

              D5300 isn’t on it though, I wouldn’t be happy with it. It has to be a substantial upgrade, and I’d still keep my trusty D200 as back up (better than D2x at higher ISO). Anything with less at-your-fingertips controls would bug me and D300/D300s is likely the oldest/lowest I would consider, but the D700 these days is only a couple hundred above that. I’d plan on the D2x selling and 17-50 lens, but if I went with FX then 50mm is the widest lens I have, which is why I want to set myself up with wider first before upgrading. I’ve shot plenty at 1600 ISO on the D200 with some noise removal in post and making it work thus far.

              Trust me, this week I was close to a D700 purchase as it was hah.

            • Aldo

              It comes down to what would make you happy. But even the d5300 will have better ISO than what you have and the sensor is sharp… I know this is not a pro camera, but it is sharper than the d700 and d600. I think that alone is worth taking a step back and think what’s the best value… especially if money is tight.

            • RCR

              The D5300 is a great little camera. For $800 you can’t beat the IQ. Far beyond the D200 and D2X. It’s not a pro body, but I use it alongside my pro gear and sometimes instead of, because it’s small but outstanding.

            • Aldo

              Yeah I mean that’s what I’m trying to tell him… My logic is he would benefit a lot more from a better sensor than from buying this lens… assuming he has 500 bucks to invest. Also newer glass is designed to resolve higher resolutions… If his intent is to go with the d700 in the long run… He could get away with cheaper glass. In the end you gotta love what you shoot with though… and like with women… you can’t be forced to love a particular camera =]

            • AnonGuest

              @jessecablek:disqus You can get a new D7100 for less than what used D700’s are going for. They have nearly the same ISO performance to 6400. While the D700 does give you the FF advantages to a certain degree, its not the same advantage that the D600/610 has over the D7100.
              Also, I’m starting to wonder how the supply of D700 parts are coming along as many are reaching the shutter replacement phase. Does Nikon still have adequate supply/still manufacture parts of D700 shutters. Also you have to add in the price of a shutter replacement into a D700 with medium shutter counts as you will have no warranty.
              While we all lust after FF (me included), just because its FF doesn’t mean you need/should get it. But in the end its your money to spend, and you have every right to spend it how you want. I’m just providing some food for thought is all.

            • Guesto

              For $100 more he can get a Nikon Refurbished D7100. Same sharpness, but an internal focus motor for non AF-S lens options. I bought a D5100 a few years ago as my entry into DSLR, and regretted it once I realized couldn’t use excellent lenses like 50 AF-D, or Tokina 11-16 (w/o motor). So to the OP, get a D7000 or D7100, so that you have more lens choices. It’ll save you in the long-run spending a little more on a body to have access to lenses w/o the focus motors.

            • BigD

              Those cheap-ass D lenses suck with the D7100. You need good current lenses. The 50 AF-D was great up to about 12 MP. Those lenses weren’t designed to work with high-res sensors and it shows.

              You cheapskates can pretend all you want, but you really know it’s true.

            • rt-photography

              the D600 IQ is better than the D3/D700. I have a D3/D600 and its very clear on the monitor. from iso 3200 till 6400 it has less chroma noise. just a bit better. on par or a tad better (just a bit) than the D800.

              a very nice video


            • rt-photography

              btw, if you buy a used camera try to buy it at a place that gives some warranty. a broken shutter will kill your pocket. I NEVER buy a used camera. I also buy the 3 yr mack diamond warranty. its an all risk type. its not IF the shutter dies, its WHEN. every shutter will fail down the line. better safe than sorry. cheap is expensive.

            • Jesse Cablek

              Ran into that with my D200 initially, and I would get the used D700 from the same store. Had a focus issue and it wouldn’t read 16gb CF cards, but I had gotten the warranty and had it fixed. Warranty paid off immediately. Haven’t had an issue with it since

            • rt-photography

              good cause these repairs will kill any discount someone is trying to save by buying a cheaper model. sell both cameras and jump to FF.

            • rt-photography

              good cause these repairs will kill any discount someone is trying to save by buying a cheaper model. sell both cameras and jump to FF.

            • JXVo

              D200 and D2x are still excellent cameras. In good light with the same lens you will be hard pressed to see the difference except in deep shadows, when cropping a lot or when printing large.
              The strategy of buying good FX glass that fills a hole in your DX range and that will also suit an eventual upgrade to FX camera seems sound to me.

            • Aldo

              I never said they were bad cameras. At ISO 100 under good lighting conditions any camera rocks… however this was not my point. We buy better cameras because we often find ourselves pushing the limits of the sensor in low light conditions. A new sensor will have an immediate impact in his photographs with the current lenses he owns… a new lens will not. That is all.

            • rt-photography

              nope. fx in IQ is far superior than any DX. there is something very different in the look. and im not talking about PP. im talking straight out of the camera. those two are good cameras but very limited in what they can do. you cant shoot more than iso1600 with them without heavy chroma noise. even with the d600 you can shoot at iso 6400 and it will look better. better resolving power less smear/waxy look/a lot more detail in small things like hair. sell both and move to FF. your eyes will thank you.

            • JXVo

              I still say Jesse’s strategy is sound – lenses that will suit both formats first, then upgrade to FX. What’s the point of an expensive upgrade to FX camera if there is a big hole in your lens range. Building a system here – a single excellent component doesn’t make the whole system functional when other bits are missing.
              Having moved from D200 to D300 (big improvement) to D800 (huge improvement) I agree with what you say about FX being better than old DX but it’s relative. In poor light it is chalk and cheese but less so in good light.

            • Aldo

              Not sure if you looked at his lens line up but the guy has his bases covered. He can buy an fx sensor and still use what he has if he wanted to. It’s not like he owns a bunch of kit zoom lenses and we are telling him to buy a new camera instead of good primes.

            • rt-photography

              exactly. if he buys the D600 he can shoot all his dx lenses at 10mpx which is very acceptable file sizes for most applications. I would not go with a D700 though. it may have the better build, although thats hearsay as I own/owned. (ITS HUGE WITH A GRIP THOUGH-D600/grip is D3 size exactly) but lack of dual card slots for peace of mind and 24mp and video(JIC) and better IQ is a no brainer. the D600 hangs with the big boys IQ wise. AF speed are both the same. the D700 is a great camera but 1 generation back. less chroma noise, better grain quality and less as well. better resolving power as well and EXCELLENT dynamic range.

            • rt-photography

              he has a nice selection of lenses as it is. I could do 90% of what I want with 4 lenses. 24/50/85/105. out of everything he has in his gear lineup, the camera is the one clearing lacking. he has enough. time to upgrade. he wants more from his images, you can see from what he says. the FX will give his images a huge boost. get rid of the 17-50 and get the tamron 28-75 instead. forget the prime for now. dont invest anymore money in DX JEsse. you know this as well. make the jump. good luck

            • umeshrw

              D2x yes but D200 has a very bad sensor. He can definitely benefit more from change in body than from getting a better lens.

            • TeaBreak

              D200 has a superb sensor for everything that is meant to look soft and gentle (but not unsharp – with good glass the D200 is capable to produce razor-sharp images at low ISO ). For everything else I agree. D2x will be a better choise.

            • umeshrw

              True that but it is nikon’s worst semipro Dx (Dxxx series) sensor. It had all the tonal range and same colour balances of other sensors but it was a very bad performer where high iso was concerned. I could easily use D100 at 1000 iso if needed but for D200 even 640 used to give a lot of noise. I had to overexpose and then pull down the exposure to get acceptable noise levels with my D200. I loved my previous D100 . I can’t say the same about D200 even if I used it for double the time.

          • desmo

            sell your d200, keep d2x as backup (it,s 12mp cmos sensor)
            or sell both bodies and 17-50 lens
            get 70 – 200 f4 or used 70-200 f2.8 vr1
            and this 35 f1.8
            use your feet for the mm gap until you can afford more
            get D600 or D610 your choice

            despite the rocks thrown at D600 the sensor really rocks especially in low light

            • Jesse Cablek

              Already have Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM 🙂
              Use it for a lot of portraiture and sports shooting.

              D200 performs better than D2x in low light though, and I find myself using the D200 way more often

          • Dpablo unfiltered

            In less than a year you should be able to trade your 17-55 for a D600.

        • Dpablo unfiltered

          I agree with Jesse. Prices of cameras tumble continually and that lens will cost about the same. Eventually he will buy one anyway.

      • Can’t Believe It

        Don’t ever sell your D200. I’ve owned several cameras since then and none of them has equalled the awesome skin tones and beautiful landscape colors of that camera. The secret to the D200 is to always use custom white balanc set (as explained in the manual) with a calibrated gray card. I use a Kodak gray card, best $14 I’ve ever spent.
        The other secret with that camera when shooting at high ISOs is to use the +.7 positive exposure setting. With those two tricks the D200 remains the camera that produces the most reliably gorgeous results.

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      One and one third stops. And about two stops or more faster than slower zooms. Stop it down slightly and it probably beats the zoom at f5.6.

  • Rodney

    I’ll bet the 35 will work just as good on the A7 as the DX 35 works on the Nexy7

  • gartblaum

    Hope there would be a retro version to go with the DF 😉

  • tony

    No Nano coating :((, I guess price will be 500$, unless the stellar perfromance, I’d rather buy Sigma.

    • David

      Looks like gold ring = nano coat.

      • Drazen B

        Usually N badge is given to lenses with 9 apperture blades, as well.

        • Glenn

          No. The Nikon 28mm f1.8G Nano coating has 7 blades.

          • Drazen B

            That’s why I said – usually.

            28mm f/1.8 is one, and that’s about it.

            • Mr. Mamiya

              It usually doesn’t make much sense to lump completely different aspects together. I could also say “All ‘E’-lenses are manual focus only! Yes, except the 800/5.6 E”. Stupid, eh?

            • Aldo

              All humans are men… except fifty percent. (it’s actually more than that)

            • Oram Gusstavsson

              Mr Mamiya, what you just said it doesn’t make sense at all.

            • Joe

              Any particular reason why?

            • Marc W.

              Nope, all Series E lenses are manual. 🙂


              What IS the E in the 800mm 5.6E?

              NEVER MIND:
              “E or PC-E — Electromagnetic diaphragm. The aperture diaphragm of an E lens is controlled digitally by the camera, and actuated electromagnetically by a system housed within the lens, rather than employing the F-mount’s traditional mechanical diaphragm linkage. Currently this system appears only in certain Perspective Control lenses, designated PC-E (with designs that preclude a mechanical linkage) and in the AF-S 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR. The E feature is only supported by the Nikon D3 and newer cameras. PC-E lenses require manual diaphragm operation on other cameras. Not to be confused with Series E lenses.”


            • Mr. Mamiya

              Correct, I meant the ‘E’ as in ‘E’lectronic aperture coupling, not the ‘Series E’ lenses. Nikon lens terminology can be confusing sometimes. 😉

        • Mike Cavell

          Agree, it’s usually both the Nano coat as well as 9 app blades. They both come on pro-grade Nikkor lenses gilded with the gold ring.

    • Marc W.

      For $500, it needs either N or VR. Or just extremely sharp corner to corner. I rather have the corner sharpness.

  • Photoretouchpro

    Any nikon stepper motor lenses for video coming/patented?

  • Jeff Curtner

    The D5300 using new body material (Tejin’s Sereebo Carbon Figre) gets 75g weight reduction from the D5200’s 555g. D3200 is weighted at 505g. I’d expect a D3300 using Sereebo would also get a weight reduction at least 50g, bringing its weight under 500g, say 455g, making it the lightest DSLR. With 65g weight reduction of the 18-55 kit lens, overall kit weight reduction can be further reduced by as much as 100+g.

    • Yes, I guess this is Nikon’s response to the mirrorless trend: we can also make smaller DSLR cameras.

      • Federico Zaza

        To answer to mirrorless trends Nikon need a mirroless camera, not a smaller DSLR… Pointless. Please don’t even think about the Nikon 1….

        • HotDuckZ

          EVF suck, DSLRer didn’t like that!!

        • megadon357

          You mean don’t think about the camera that shot this incredible photo documentary?

          • orpickaname

            The “camera” shot on its own? Wow!

          • Elvir Redzepovic

            Nikon 1 is nice but it’s not even close to what the crowd wants. It’s sensor is tiny.

            And Craig Litten could make toy camera look good.

    • David

      • orpickaname

        Big guy, small gun. Just sayin’.

      • tertius_decimus

        No, you’re not.

      • Marc W.

        My RZ67 is keeping me buff so I can use larger cameras.

        • Masochist

          As is my Pentax 67 with lenses… recently acquired and love it for black and white imaging… Like raising a 5# bag of sugar to your eye when shooting handheld… but, oh, the images!


        +1 David

      • zoetmb

        Probably not, but frankly, unless someone’s got really big fingers and hands, I don’t see why anyone wouldn’t want a smaller and lighter DSLR (and lenses).

        Back in the film days, Nikon’s primes mostly took 52mm filters and the lenses were physically small. But even then, the bodies were large and heavy. I remember the first time I picked up an F4, I really couldn’t believe how heavy it was.

        In the 1970s, I switched from Nikon to Olympus. I loved the OM-1. It was small and light and while not as modular as Nikon’s F-line, it was far superior to the Nikkormat I used at the time. It had a quieter shutter that vibrated less and I was able to hand-hold at far slower speeds than I could with the Nikon.

        I’d love to have a camera like that today, but I don’t want to give up sensor size. As I’ve posted before, I checked out the Sony A7 at a recent camera show and was quite impressed. It’s far from perfect and there’s only a few lenses, but I’d love to be carrying that around.

        Now everything is gigantic and heavy. Personally, I’m really tired of lugging my camera case around

        I’m hoping Nikon finds a way to release a body similar to that Sony with a new line of smaller, lighter lenses (but hopefully still f-mount). It doesn’t have to be mirrorless. If it’s a little taller because of the prism, that’s okay with me.

    • guest

      100g? That’s what, 3 ounces and change? Who buys this stuff, Caspar Milquetoast? It’s your gear. Carry it.

  • jefferylewis

    Just release it already so I can get one!

  • Aldo

    No golden rings? What kind of xmas is this? At least I still got my 3 french hens

    • orpickaname

      No bells, no whistles, and no (nano) CRYSTAL (coating) either…

      ‘Tis xmas on a budget!

    • Spy Black

      I’m wishing for a French maid myself…

    • James Donahue

      Voud u like to share maybe

  • Henry

    No spec comparisons to the Sigma 35mm 1.4 yet? Let me get the ball rolling…
    Elements/Groups: Nikon: 11 elements in 8 groups vs Sigma: 13 elements in 11 groups
    Minimum focusing distance: Nikon: 25cm vs Sigma: 30cm
    Filter size: Nikon: 58mm vs Sigma: 67mm
    Weight: Nikon: “around 300g” vs Sigma: 665g
    Blades: Nikon: 7 vs Sigma: 9
    Nikon specs from above post. Sigma specs taken from:
    So what do you say folks? Implications? The weight battle certainly goes to Nikon. We’ll have to wait and see about the image quality of course…

    • Good idea.

      I will own both. I’m sure that the Sigma will be a little sharper, and obviously faster, but I shoot 35mm every day as my standard lens.

      Being on the hunt for the lightest full-frame kit with a proper mirror lead me to the Dƒ and a nice, light 35mm will be more than welcome!

      Closer focusing is always welcome.

      • delayedflight

        Jeepers now that you put it that way the Df seems even more appealing as I run a similar day-to-day kit…

      • Marc W.

        Or save a half a pound with the D800 and Nikon 35mm.

        • I already have the Df. I’m going for light and fast!

      • Dpablo unfiltered

        You might be really surprised.

        It is really a hard call between the manual 35 f1.4 and the last manual 35 f2.

    • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

      The nikon also have 1 aspherical element and 1 ED glass.
      Sigma has 2 aspherical elements, 1 FLD glass and 4 special low dispersion glass.
      Sigma has a more complex build and more correction elements.
      My guess would be that they are pretty much the same wide open, and thats because the nikon has the advantage of being f1.8. Stoping down and the sigma might take the lead, it all depends on how nikon is constructing this lens.
      The main thing that would differentiate them is the price I think.
      If the nikon is half the price of the sigma or more, it will be a great piece of glass.

      • bob2

        This goes to all the Sigma fans–please look at the whole picture (pun intended)!

        Sigma always has lenses that have great specs, but fail for one reason or another. Sigma’s been doing this since at least the 1980’s, and it was the same sales banter then as it is now–great lenses at lower prices. Specifications and measurebating are nice, but don’t really help. Sort of the Leica image to noobs–“why so expensive when I can get the same thing or better for $19.99?!”

        The problems, from my own personal experience, are several fold:

        1. Durability: I’ve had several Sigmas that just didn’t last for one reason or another (both manual and AF). It’s the way they build and cut corners to save some money. I’ve seen Sigmas where the rubber coating decomposed and became gooey and sticky.

        2. Repairabililty: Try to get spare parts, hoods and service on older Sigma (and many other third party lenses)–you cannot. Sigma won’t support them. With Nikon, you can often still get parts for old lenses/cameras. Leica will MAKE a part that is no longer available! Good luck with Sigma.

        3. Quality Control: the net, and my own personal experience, is of poor quality control–decentered elements, poor construction, etc.–things not often seen immediately. Often have to send new lenses back to Sigma several times to find the “cherry” sample–if you are lucky. What would not pass at Nikon would pass as “acceptable” for Sigma.

        4. Compatibility: many lenses, even exotics (like a Sigma that I have and the Tamron 300mm f/2.8 that needs to be rechipped to meter correctly–good luck getting that done, at a fair cost, if at all) fail to work properly with each successive generation of Nikon lenses. While everyone is accusing Nikon for Sigma’s latest AF failure, the blame falls squarely on Sigma, who is selling a product that is not fully compatible. That is the true cost of buying something that is not supported by the camera maker–and they ALL are closed systems–even m43 (they pay licensing/use/etc. fees).

        5. Resale-just compare the prices of used Nikon and Sigma lenses that are several years old. Many places won’t even take a look at used Sigmas and other third party lenses, and even then the resale is lower.

        Measurebating and comparing number and types of elements is for desk jockeys. Try using the stuff in the real world and within 6 months you’ll see why pros don’t screw around with third party lenses (unless its Zeiss).

        • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

          I agree.
          Sigma has solved the compatibility issues on new lenses with the USB dock.
          But the quality controll and reliability is much the same.

        • Pablo Ricasso

          Awesome summary.

          Can we use this as a template next time the out-pour of love towards the newly released Sigma lens gets from those uninitiated and high on endorphin, please.

          • Graeme Jarmusch

            LOL, Pablo!


        • guest

          There you go again, making sense…
          Props to Leica for offering insane build quality to a customer base not big enough to support it at non-insane prices. For the rest of us (like, me), Nikkor for my Nikons. Full stop.

        • Simon Goldsworthy

          I probably would have said the same were it not for a couple of things:
          1. Actually my experience of Sigma service is far better than Nikon service. I received back a couple of lenses that had to have FW updates within a week, rather than 6 weeks which is how long Nikon took to fix a zoom ring on a damaged lens (most of that time they were “awaiting inspection”).
          2. The Sigma 35mm F1.4 completely changed my perception of Sigma build quality It’s nothing like the older Sigma lenses, in either performance or optical quality. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it isn’t intrinsically flawed merely for having been made by Sigma.
          3. Other third party manufacturers do a good job too. I’m particular enamoured of Cosina’s Voigtlander pancake lenses, which are very fine examples of that variety of lens, and built like tanks. I wish Nikon made lenses that good (actually they still do, but its not like they will develop any new ones).

    • Spy Black

      Strange as it may sound, you’re comparing apples to oranges when comparing an f2 optic to an f/1.4 optic.

      • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

        You could say the same about every lens comparison. 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 is in the same spot. one “low end” lens and one “high end”
        Sigmas 35/1.4 is very popular in the amerture market, And the nikon 35/1.8 is also aimed at the amerture.
        Both of them will have pros and cons, and thats the whole point of the comparison, and these two lenses will most likely be compared to death in the coming months.

        • Aldo

          the 50mm example was a bad choice as in this case the “lower end” lens is better.

          • Muldo

            how it performs at f1.4?

            • Aldo

              Just as good as the new noct performs at f1.2.

          • Marc W.

            Agreed. I sold my 1.4D for the 1.8G. The 1.4G focus speed is just pitiful. The 1.8G is amazing.

            I tried the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art lens and it’s amazing also. I would say Pro amazing, even.

          • guest

            50mm f/2 Ai vs. 50mm f/1.4 Ai(S). the more things change…

        • Spy Black

          They’re really two different kinds of lenses, and as has been pointed out here, faster doesn’t necessarily mean better. People buy them for different reasons, and could very well own both version for those different reasons.

          • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

            Pretty much what I was saying.
            But any reason why they can’t be compared? They are both fast 35mm, and I think anyone looking for that kind of lens will mainly compare these two lenses.

            • Spy Black

              It’s easy to compare any two things, especially when they are in such close proximity to each other. I think however that when you’re looking for an f/1.4 optic, what an f/2 optic has to offer may not cut it, and vice-versa, which is really my point. As similar as they seem, they are surprisingly two different things. I discovered this when I bought a 135mm f/2.8 Ai Nikkor to complement my 135mm F/2 Ai Nikkor.

    • Drazen B

      Agree with Spy Black, apples and oranges, one of pro designation, the other pedestrian.

    • callibrator

      Henry, not even close. Two very different lenses and target markets.

    • phil

      Nikon decided to produce one plastic 1.8 budget crap for $300 and one high end 1.4 lens for $1700.
      Sigma 1.4 sits somewhere between and is the obvious choice for everyone who can’t justify the $1700 price tag of the Nikon 1.4

      • fred

        eh? Nothing wrong with the f1.8 35mm DX!
        Sharp as a 50mm.

        • phil

          Nothing wrong with it, as long as you’re after a small cheap plastic lens with slow AF.
          But there are people willing to pay three times the price for a better build and f1.4.
          And only 3rd party producers make lenses like that.

    • Carlos Marroner

      …and your point is exactly?
      The lenses you are comparing are of different max aperture and product level. Sigma stated the ART series is their pro-grade lens family, this budget Nikon 35 f/1.8 is far from that – simple as that.

      Nikon hasn’t put their best engineering and build into this lens, so why comparing it to Sigma f/1.4…

    • Henry

      Wow. Great discussion initiated here, which was my goal!

      Some people think I’m equating the two lenses. Clearly they are different as my spec comparison above indicated. My goal was
      to initiate discussion on the comparative qualities of each lens, and what those differences offer or take away from image captured and the photo taking experience as well.

      I actually see the comparison as Apples to Apples. One 35mm prime to another. They are within the same family, but different varieties of differing quality. Each variety of apple offers a different taste or use when it comes to eating or for cooking. A Granny Smith is a long way from a Honey Crisp apple (I go for the latter myself!), but may be preferred by some for particular reasons. Hearing those different opinions is what I was aiming for. I think I may have succeeded on that point…but don’t stop now! I’m sure there are more opinions out there worth hearing! I’m definitely open to what people are saying and will be deciding in the coming months which of these lenses that I’ll buy. Cheers folks! 🙂

      • JakeB

        Henry, you’re confused. Again, as otherjs have pointed out, already. Why didn’t you throw in Leica and Zeiss lenses, for good measure? Doesn’t matter they are all unrelated, you could draw us some comparisons, couldn’t you…

  • AM

    Just received my brand new 28mm f/1.8G. Just in time for the holiday break.

    • Marc W.

      I’ve been debating on getting one. Looks like a nice little lens at a good price.

  • kab

    Kit lens #123678213
    Glad I left DX!

    • hello

      recently owner of a d600?

    • Marc W.

      Use the tools for the results you want to accomplish.

  • koenshaku

    Looks like the 35mm 1.8 will be making the 35mm 1.4 look like the 50mm 1.4 to the 50mm 1.8 again. Interesting that Nikon is putting so much weight behind consumer level products I guess that is where they are making their bucks though. I will of course be buying once since the 35mm 1.4 was too pricy to be so flawed.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      Another Nikon lens engineer among our midst, who decided to spread his ‘knowledge’.


    • JakeB

      35mm f/1.4 is “so flawed” ?!
      Really? Reading internet reviews much?

      • Mandrake

        He probably never shot with one, had he had a chance he wouldn’t have posted that nonsense.

      • jojo

        Perhaps he used the wrong word; disappointing would be better than flawed. If you want the aperture you have to accept compromises. However, if you want the best IQ,
        slower lenses are potentially better, although other compromises are often introduced with the price point.

    • Soothsayer

      Yep, the current generation of f1.4s are mostly dissapointing. Vignetting is so heavy at 1.4 that Nikon is really stretching it designating them as f1.4 at all.

  • Soothsayer

    A collapsing lens won’t save the collapsing company!

    • jeremy

      at least 5 fanboyz disagree (so far)

    • Aldo

      A for effort!

  • ausserirdischesindgesund

    Am I the only one excited that there is a new 18-55?

    In some ways I think this is the most important lens in the Nikon lineup, because it is the lens most (in sheer numbers) people buy.

    I always thought Nikon should give more love to the lowly kit zoom, as this basically sets a lower threshold for the image quality in the system. If you improve the kit zoom, suddenly *many many* Nikon made photos get better technical quality.

    Also, I love mine. Sometimes it is really all that is needed (eg on sunny days outside). It is so light. It is so cheap&small.

    • Aldo

      metal mount it’s really all it needs.

      • ausserirdischesindgesund

        I don’t miss the metal mount. I do have some concerns that the new colapsible lens might be too fragile if pure plastics, though. Also might not really be usable with a shade (love the shade on my 18-55).

      • RMJ

        And constant f4

    • rt-photography

      really an underrated lens.

  • David

    I don’t think that Nikon will make a 35mm 1.8 “low”-price Lense wich performs better then its 1.4 brother and… Nikon 35 1.4 is nothing compard to SIGMAs 35mm performance.

    Even if it weights less, ever had a D800 & SIGMA 35 1.4 in Hand? It feels like it have to be, the perfect wieght balance between Body and Lens in a relativly compact form.

    I own a Nikon 50 1.8, a Nikon 85 1.8 but I got a SIGMA 35mm Lens and I love it 😉

  • ggweci

    What are the chances this 35mm has VR to compete with the newish Canon 35mm f2 IS lens? I know it’s not absolutely needed, but would be nice to have at the suggested price point.

  • kappa

    Good job Nikon… 18-55mm VRII, 18-140mm, 18-300mm & 40mm micro is what DX users really want. Even tthe crappy 1 system gets far more sophisticated lenses! I guess there is no need for a revised 17-55mm f/2.8 VR, 18mm & 24mm primes, 10-24mm f/2.8 superwide zoom and a small & lightweight 50-150mm f/2.8 right? Do they really believe that these bodies and lenses can face mirrorless competition for long?

  • Mato34

    I feel curiosity for the size of that 18-55, mostly because the actual 18-55 looks oversized to me (for its specifications), like the size wasn’t a preference when they designed it (and so became kind of a monster).


  • TR_T-Rex

    Pros of the expected 35mm 1.8: 1) 25mm close-focus compared to 30mm, which allows for even shallower DoF than Sigma wide-open at its min focus distance. 2) Weight: Sigma is more than twice the weight.

    Con of the expected 35mm 1.8: No VR, which is really necessary for D800/E. I’d have preferred this lens 100gr heavier with VR for a more expensive price.

    • BigD

      Yay! More stupidly shallow DoF portraits with wonky huge noses!

  • Willis

    No “N” = No buy

    • desmo

      for you maybe, but
      for many others on a budget a good nikkor at a more affordable price can deliver quite good IQ within their budget,

      Nano coat isn’t everything,

      My 24-120 F4 has Nanocoat and it’s the worst ghosting and flaring lens I’ve owned.

      Nanocoat’s primary purpose is to stop that,
      so go figure?

      • Pablo Ricasso

        “My 24-120 F4 has Nanocoat and it’s the worst ghosting and flaring lens I’ve owned.”

        I’d suggest you return it for replacement. Mine is excellent in this respect. While this lens has some of the flaws with distorsion and corner sharpness, the flaring and ghosting is well contained and N-coat does exactly what it says it does.

      • Kane’s

        Have you ever sent the lens to check? It seems to me that you probably have a defect one. My 24-120/N works fine for flare and ghost control. It is not perfect of course but it makes me very happy!

    • Ethan

      +1. In the “N”, we trust!

    • Zograf

      Nano coating is used in critical designs where without it the optical formula will produce too much flare to be of practical interest. Because it is used just to mitigate performance issues(and usually applied to large concave lenses) it does not necessary mean it will produce better contrast than another lens which doesn’t need nano coating. For example the original 18-55 due to its simple design had stellar performance regarding flare, unsurpassed even by ‘N’ lenses.

  • Andrew Hollywood

    Am I the only one excited for the 18-55mm VRII. This sounds great. I bet they pair it with the D1000 and make it smaller than the SL1.

    • Marc W.

      Are you announcing a D1000 model?

  • Ryan

    It seems that 35/1.8 has more pieces of glass than 35/1.4. Why is 35/1.4 heavier? Perhaps because of solid metal VS plastic crap housing?

    • Espen4u

      yup, and bigger pieces of glass.

  • broxibear

    If you need a Df fix, Steve Huff just posted his in depth review, here’s the link…

  • MB

    Golden ring used to stand for ED glass.
    It seams things are changing, 58 f/1.4 does not have ED glass but is “golden” and this 35 f/1.8 is not … well it appears that these days price is the ultimate golden ingredient …

    • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

      The gold ring these days are like Canons red ring. indicates “pro” or high quality lens.

    • Kenzo P.

      No, no it isn’t.

      Gold ring comes primarily on pro-built lenses with Nano coating, fixed aperture and 9-leaf aperture blades.

    • Jimmy Polock

      “Golden ring used to stand for ED glass”

      Gold ring on Nikon lenses has nothing to do with ED glass, sorry. As Kenzo P pointed out below, it’s to do with Nano coat and few other features, but not necessarily ED glass.

      • saywhatuwill

        It does today, but in the days past (1970s – 1990s) they all meant it had ED glass in it.

  • Matthew

    Nikon should not waste their resource and effort for the DX format. This format is obviously collapsing, will be obsolete surely and definitely be replaced by Nikon’s own FX and mirrorless.

    • zoetmb

      You have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re expressing a preference, not a marketing fact. Far more DX cameras are sold than DX cameras. It’s not even close. DX doesn’t disappear until Nikon and the other manufacturers can produce FX for the same selling price as DX is now. Why do you think they keep releasing DX model after DX model at the low and medium end?

      • Paul

        Matt’s forecast is obviously a bit early. Obsolete at some point? yes. But collapsing? (burning platform in business speak) no.

  • James Donahue

    Its missing a zoom ring to.

    • Carlo L

      You seem to be missing many things too…

  • James Donahue

    gold ring..GOLD RING, ve dont kneed no stinkin Gold Ring.

    • saywhatuwill

      My gold ring on my lens is fading, so who cares about a gold ring?

  • Ginny

    Very disappointed that it doesn’t have built-in VR. If I remember precisely, Canon offers IS in their fast prime. Whyyyy?

    • BigD

      Stop being a bitch and learn how to hold the camera. For christ’s sake we have cameras that shoot clean at ISO 3200, lenses that open to f/1.8, and you STILL need VR?

      • Jim

        Must be a dpr forum member with such a rude, stupid comment.

        • BigD

          You must be new here. This forum is filled with people that leave rude and stupid comments. But mostly the people that comment here are whiny little bitch babies that never seem to get the perfect product.

          Lazy consumers that want VR and f/1.4 lenses and cameras that put out perfect images at ISO 900000000000 with every useless feature and a million buttons. And they want them CHEAP.

          Notice I called them consumers. because they sure as hell aren’t photographers. VR on a fast wide prime? Stupidity.

    • callibrator

      VR on a 35mm prime?

      Boy have the recent generation been spoiled.

      • blue

        yeah, certainly spoiled…. who needs video anyway… we should all go buy a DF with lots of retro looking dials that are actually completely redundant

    • Cathy

      +1. Nikon should learn from Canon how to incorporate I.S. Into the lens body.

      • Ben

        Exactly! Among Canon users, fast prime with I.S. is nicely helpful espectially for videography. Sadly Nikon must lack technologies to implement VR into their fast prime. Seriously they need to learn from Canon engineering team for this matter.

    • Cathy

      +1. Nikon should learn from Canon how to incorporate I.S. Into the lens body.

    • UA

      On those focal lengths VR is only helping with stationary objects. And then, why not use tripod? It is still something that requires room, increases weight, more moving failure points etc. On primes under 70mm, I personally prefer non-VR, cheapness and robustness.

      • Joven

        Not everyone uses a DSLR strictly for photos. Nikon also loses a lot of ground to Canon b/c the video support is still behind. A 35mm with VR would be nice for those who shoot video.

        • Diego ‘Finrandi’ Vargas Urbina

          WTH? Use a steadycam, VR won’t really help a lot with video. VR on a short focal lenght is pretty dumb.

    • Stephen

      If you need VR for fast prime, Canon is your choice.

    • KnightPhoto

      The Canon WA primes with VR are 24 and 28mm f/2.8 and a 35mm f/2.

      So no, even Canon don’t make f/1.8 and f/1.4 WA primes with VR. THe 35mm MTF is kinda so-so looking wide-open.

      So I think it’s best to say Canon are putting VR on their slower WA primes but not their fast WA primes. Personally I like choices and I think that when Nikon finally do re-issue slow WA primes, putting VR in them makes complete sense as it differentiates them and provides another reason to own them. And yes they do sound good for video.

    • Björn Lubetzki

      Canon offers IS in their prime lenses (but I think the first lens is the 100mm macro and after that it is bigger lenses, just like Nikon). And why would you need VR with a 35mm prime?

  • Any new rumors? Man, I want this NOW.

  • me

    i want a 24mm 1.8G 🙁

  • me

    i want a 24mm 1.8G 🙁

  • peevee

    They should stop with 18-55/3.5-5.6 stupidity already. Why not 17-56? 😉

  • Back to top