Is this Nikon AF-S 135mm f/2G lens real?

A reader sent me this picture of a new Nikon AF-S 135mm f/2G lens:

Nikon AF-S 135mm f:2G lens
What do you think, real or fake?

Update: Nikon has already filed a patent for a 135mm f/1.8 lens.

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

    I think the image is missing!

    • You don’t see the image?

      • Nope.

      • Zebula

        Jepp, the image is missing.

        • Just fixed it – refresh your browser.

          • kazziz

            still looks like fake, 85 1.4G photoshopped. but I wish it’d be true, but with DC…

            • manhattanboy

              It’s a fake because:
              1) Nikon now only produces lenses where no updates are needed, like another 50mm, etc.
              2) There is no feet markings on the distance scale

              It’s real because:
              1) Gotta compete with Canon
              2) The lens is about the right length and diameter

            • silmasan

              No, it doesn’t seem the right length. Not long enough.

            • manhattanboy

              That’s what I thought at first, but then went back and looked at the lengths of Nikon’s various G lenses and this is actually about right for an f2 with advanced optics.

            • silmasan

              Advanced optics? And what G lenses you looked at? I mean other than the 105/2.8 VR, there’s not many else to compare it with (none) yet.

            • Paul

              haha I lol’d reading point #1

          • Spy Black

            Nice job on the text wrapping. It made me think however that I wish Samyang would make a 135mm f/2.

  • Guy With-camera


    • fjfjjj

      Fake because it doesn’t have Defocus Control 😉

      • Neoh Soon Hueng

        I agree. I’ve a AFD 135 F2 DC. It’s one of my favourite lens

        • sdancer

          I’m not terribly thrilled by mine right now, seems overly fuzzy and the green/purple fringing is rather extreme (yes I have read the manual). Maybe it fares better on bodies like the relatively low-res D4 than on 16Mp DX/24Mp FX and smaller pitches.

          • Stephen

            Agreed I dumped mine due to the color fringing.

      • Arrdyarr

        And how exactly do you think that the electronic aperture would enable building the DC mechanism? I say true, and keep on to your DC lenses because you won’t see G-series DC lenses appear (no patents cleared and D-series DC was mechanical patent).

        • fjfjjj

          What electronic aperture? Nikon still uses a stop-down lever. What does that have to do with DC anyway? Maybe you should explain why it would be hard to build a DC G lens.

          • Markus

            They also have/had an electronic aperture for Long teles. All other lenses I know have the mechanic aperture control

          • Their latest tilt/shift lenses actually use electronic aperture actuation. But no, there’s no technical reason we won’t see another DC lens.

      • Guy With-camera

        REAL…Ok..maybe not…

  • Zebula

    A new Lens? From Nikon? No way!

  • invisibly real 🙂

  • djm

    Image file is missing

  • Matteo Campodonico

    I just bought the (really good) old one, I hope it is a fake, by the way i do NOT see the image as well

    • Cubalz

      Cause then yours will stop working? Chances are you saved a significant amount anyway.

  • Radu Grozescu

    You can see it here: I find odd that is was published 11 hours ago and no replies. Everyone is on week-end on dpreview ?

  • Tair
    • Nick

      Thanks for the link. I’m pretty sure it’s fake because I found a repeating pattern on the focusing ring.

      I was excited. But too bad.

      • phosgene

        I can’t see the repeating pattern, but it could be there. If I were photoshopping a fake lens, though, I’d just lift a real focus ring from another lens. My guess is that, if fake, the focus ring is from the new 35mm 1.8 fx lens.

      • D-RiSe

        indeed, de horizontal lines right from the white dot clearly show a pattern…. quite surely fake

  • Nesto

    I think its a fake, look at the white mount indexing dot. It’s larger on the newer lenses.

    • Good catch!

    • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

      Also, any reason why there isn’t any ft above m in the focus scale thingy.
      The front element also looks very strange.

  • Looks too short to me.

    • John M

      I compared it to the 85mm 1.4 and 1.8. The length of this seems reasonable. If you were going to make a fake, stretching one of those images out would certainly be the place to start, of course.

      • I certainly hope so; everything else about the image looks real, and I would be first in line to buy it. The last things I’m looking for in the modern Nikon line-up, a great 50 and great 135, might be within reach this year.

    • rafakoy

      I think it’s fake too… the old 135 f/2D lens is much longer than this… but who knows? we’ll know soon I guess.

      • El Aura

        You might be right, but you should consider that the front element on the current 105 and 135 mm f/2 lens is deeply recessed. On my 105 mm it is about 30 mm behind the front of the lens body, I would assume that’s the same or a bit more on the 135 mm.

        • Michael_Foley

          Incorrect. I own the 135mm f/2 DC. The front lens element is not very recessed, in fact with a filter attached the front element is very close to the filter surface.

          • El Aura

            My assumptions on the extent of similarity of the two lenses were have thus been proven wrong. Here is a pic of my 105 mm f/2 DC:

            • El Aura

              Nikonrumors doesn’t want to host my picture, trying another service:


    • Size does matter ? Ask the brides 🙂

    • Lanye Bush

      That’s what she said.

  • John M

    Went to the dpreview link to see it. If it’s a fake image, it’s a very, very good one.

  • Young

    If it’s real. Watch out, Canon 135L!

  • Mike

    I would say, it’s about time. But it would be a shame, if Nikon continues to lag of shake reduction lenses.

    • The lack of VR and f/1.8 actually makes me think this is true.

      • Rafa R


  • n11

    Where’s the DC control? D’ :

  • Size Matters

    It’s dimensionally challenged.

    • Espen4u

      Yes, looks more like a105/1.8(ish). N should be hard at work updating the 24-70 before even considering this kind of focal length.

  • false, but it would be very sexy

  • Infinite Vortex

    Nooooooooooo! The last thing we want DC to stand for is Death Cometh. *cry*

  • Andrei C

    if it’s real it better be 24-70 2.8 range AF fast :D!

    • Clint

      I have top scientists working on what the hell you just said!

      • E

        He means the af better be like the 24-70

        • AM I Am

          You’re smarter than Clint and the top scientists.

      • Andrei C

        AF as fast as 24-70 2.8, not slow like 85 1.4 for example :

  • DanDroid

    I want that thing to be real, but it almost seems too cool for Nikon right now.

  • lorenzo
    • Tracking AF speed and wide-open sharpness. The old one is good, if it was micro-adjusted properly, but not world-class.

      • W

        Define world class and what are the other options?

        • The other option right now is Canon or Sony, which is why a new Nikon would be nice.

          • Matteo Campodonico

            Hi Ryan, do you think that the Canon and Sony counterparts are better than the Nikon one? I’m very curious about opinions of someone who tried them on the field

            • timthewinn

              I’ve used both Nikon and Canon 135’s…the Canon is undoubtedly superior in terms of AF and wide open sharpness! I prefer the bokeh of the canon as well but that might just be my preference. The Nikon is very nice though, but suffered from purple fringing and wasn’t necessarily sharp wide open (although the second one I owned seemed sharper and, as we know, sharpness isn’t everything). It is in need of an update…oh, and I never got on with the whole DC thing so never missed that on the Canon. Personally, I find the 85mm a much more useful range!

          • sloma_p

            There’s always Zeiss 135/2 🙂 As for new, good 50, have you tried 58/1.4? Sam Hurds setem to love it 😉

    • Duarte Castelo Branco

      vr and af-s otherwise, is a good lens, slightly better optics. the 85mm 1.4 D is great and got replaced.

      • lorenzo

        doesn’t say VR, anyway.

  • Philipp

    fake as told above. Should be a AF-S 135/2.0 DC. Without DC it is a lazy produced Nikkor or fake.

    • If it said DC then it would be a guaranteed fake. That was an artifact of 1990s portrait aesthetic and technology.

      • silmasan

        Lovely artifact though.

    • lorenzo

      like the 85mm?

      • 85f1.4

        That is interesting!!

        • Actually, when you show them side by side, you can see how the speckled finish is actually identical between the two. There might just be such a lens in the works, but this clinches it: the OP is fake.

  • Matteo Campodonico

    I do not know if it is real or a fake, but where is the Defocus Control? It doesn’t matter any more?

    • Kynikos


      No DC, not interested.

      If it is real, it’ll cost more than the DC lens, which will be ridiculous.

    • kotozafy

      VR would be far more useful than DC

      • I honestly disagree. While I normally LOVE having VR on a lens, this is such a specialty lens for me (portraits) that I’ve only been using it on a tripod in a studio. Granted, I’ve only had my 135 DC for a couple of weeks, but that’s how it’s been useful for me.

        • Ee

          The lens does not have to be a tripod lens… Your own limitations are clouding judgement I think

          • That’s fair- as I said, I’ve only had it for 2 weeks, so I’ve yet to become experienced in using the lens.

        • kotozafy

          Agree, no need for VR on tripod, but this does not make DC more useful than VR. Many 135DC users say they hardly use this feature. I continue to believe VR will serve more people than DC. Both the Zeiss 135 and the Voightlander 120 lack DC, noone on earth complain about. VR on a 135 F2 will make many people very happy.

      • Dd

        DC confuses me…I never touch it

  • Duarte Castelo Branco

    release alongside 105mm f 2.0, at a low price, 7 blade diaphragm and no Nano coatings. And put vr in both the dc crap is very subtle, leave it to the old model

    • Me

      2/10 for trolling.

      • Chat

        You are

      • preston

        8/10 for fanboyism

  • photdog

    Anyway, it would be EXTREMELY welcome if it is tack-sharp!!!
    I’ve checked the Zeiss 135/2.0 on the last Photokina. Awonderful lens -but without AF. With this lens DOF will be like a sheet of paper, thus I don’t trust the green AF confimation in the camera and without split screen focus becomes a real poker game.Don’t always have the time to set up the camera on a tripod first to check sharpness in maginfied rear screen.

    • If this is real, my guess is that it will be one of the sharpest Nikon lenses.

      • Michael Sloan

        The current one is tack sharp. The DC is subtle, but can help cover blemishes in the face. I’d rather have the VR over the DC, as the DC effect can soften the sharpness if overly done.

  • RMJ

    I think it’s fake. DC marking is missing…

    • preston

      Much rather it be either of these options:
      1) be cheaper due to DC ommission
      2) be same cost as a DC version would but have VR instead of DC (VR is about a million times more useful)

  • Yes it is!!!! At last! But why not 1.8?

    • RMJ

      What’s the difference ?

      I’d rather want to know why 1.8 was invented in the first place ?

    • Me

      Because the diameter of the front element would be the size of a soup bowl.

  • Paul

    It’s definitely a fake, sorry. Look here:
    Same specs in the coating. Highly unlikely. Incredible job on the lettering changes and changing the depth of field scale.

    • O.

      And notice the bad cloning job on the focusing ring. The structure repeats itself a dozen times.

    • n11

      Good catch.

    • RMJ

      yes, it’s a fake. also there is pattern repeating on the focus ring. So it was cloned.

    • kotozafy

      The front glass wouldn’t even fit inside the external barrel and the reflection patterns on it is anything but real. Definitely fake.

    • paulnuts

      And also..The Nikon is the same and so is the white dot, plus the N is the same. Oh Lord Paul…gurl down.

    • MyrddinWilt

      The only way it could be real would be if Nikon had already had the PR shots made. Not very likely those would leak unless deliberately.

      Updating the 135 and 105 to AFS definitely makes sense. Not sure about the DC thing. Who really wants the soft focus of the foreground?

      • n11

        Probably wedding photographers which happens to be a big group. Bouquet of flowers being held in front of the bride, crow in the foreground of the couple, etc…
        Its to make it *more* out of focus.

        • preston

          The VR would be much more useful than DC in many of the dimly lit wedding venues, so I’d rather have that.

          • RMJ

            VR doesn’t stop the motion.

          • MyrddinWilt

            I took a look at the patent. The DC feature is supported by a change in the relative positions of the first and second elements at the front of the lens. VR is almost always supported by putting a movable element right at the back of the lens. So they are not mutually exclusive.

      • I use the soft foreground focus when shooting people through trees and tall flowers etc, outside on a sunny day creates some beautiful images.

    • AM I Am

      The glass on the 135mm is so fake.
      I don’t know why the admin even bothered posting this.

    • zoetmb

      And assuming that the image of the 85mm hasn’t been manipulated in any way, then you win. Definitely a fake. It would be impossible for the paint coating pattern to the left of the focus footage indicator to be the same on both (in fact, I don’t even think it would be the same on two samples of the same lens.)

  • DuncanM

    Please be real, and please don’t be $2000.

  • geo

    O M G !!!!!!! a dream lens . I have 2000 pounds ready !

  • George Y

    It’s fake — look closely at “NIKKOR 135mm” and the aperture scale and you’ll see that the text is slightly redder than the surrounding “AF-S” or “Nikon” — and noticeably more so than the image it is mostly likely based on, which is the 85 1.4G’s product photo. The “2” in the aperture designation “1:2G” is also slightly skewed; this is made obvious if you rotate the picture clock-wise and read the words horizontally. It’s probably because it’s harder to photoshop on a number that’s on a curved surface.

    • El Aura

      Moreover the ‘Nikkor’ and ’85mm’ labels are right and left-aligned in two boxes centered on the distance indicator. The 135mm is not, clearly the ‘1’ was added while keeping the ‘5mm’ in place (and the 8 was changed into a ‘3’).

    • lorenzo

      The scale in ft usually has a number before infinity, while nothing is above the 12 for meters – Oh too bad, I want it to be real!

  • broxibear

    I remember the f/1.8 G patent appearing a couple of years ago, maybe that was going to be just too expensive or big ?
    With all the negative press Nikon have been getting lately a couple of good lenses might bring them some cheer. The f/1.4 lenses have the same angular, semi circle around the rear white coupler mark, as this image has, the f/1.8s have a circular one, which if it’s real suggests a f/1.4G price range.

  • lorenzo

    I think it is real.
    Now, what could the price be $1,796.95?

  • Robert Isha

    I switched to canon because of 135 f2. It’s breath taking. I don’t use anything else ..if nikon releases a new version with canon price I might go back.

    • DuncanM

      You don’t use anything else? How does that work?

      • Robert Isha

        It suits my needs. I only walk in a park I don’t do landscape nor portrait .one lens to rule them all. And if I have the money I’ll go with 200 f2 is or vr ..cheers

    • I don’t know about ONLY using the 135…. I find it a bit “tight” for group shots… LOL…
      But seriously the old 135/2 DC is a spectacular lens. You didn’t need to change to Canon.

      • Robert Isha

        I don’t do portraits. So its OK for me. 🙂 plus I wasn’t heavily invested in Nikon. So its all good. I’m sure the Nikon version is good. I just wanted something more silent ..cheers

    • D

      Why change if it is breath taking?

      Seriously you refer to your work as breath taking?

      Oh palleeeeez

      • Robert Isha

        I didn’t say my work is breath taking lol .where did you get that from?. But it is one of the best lenses I have ever used .cheers

  • kb

    Fake…the glass is too big for the barrell.

  • kotozafy

    No VR ? Fake !!

  • DK

    Fake – the 2 in the 1:2 doesn’t curve with the lens – it is just kinda straight and raised higher

  • MB

    Image is Photoshoped but seams real enough … pretty compact too for a 135mm f/2 lens … well see soon enough …

  • Ernesto Quintero

    Looks like the experts on here spotted the Ps clues.

  • Wish this was true because this is a very overlooked FL. They won’t do this lens without VRII, so I think this is fake.

  • Chris Cheek

    Damn I hope this is real..

  • Size ratios seem off to me. However, the Sony Zeiss 135/1.8, which is amazing, is fatter than you might expect. So I guess it is possible. Still, I would guess fake. I do hope for a real one, though.

  • Also, infinity focus for 135mm, even at f/16, is far more than 12m. The field becomes focused at 22.5m at f/16. I think this scale would be different. Finer grained with more markings between 12 and infinity (45.m for center of focus field).

  • D800Eowner

    Looks like the 28mm f/1.8 photoshopped

  • Alain Claveau

    Fake ! look closely to the number 2 on left of G. The base of the number is not following the curve. The perspective is not right. Nice try though.

  • If a 200mm f/2 ends up looking like this: – how do they expect a 135/2 to look THAT short. FAKE!

  • Tooki

    Seems pretty fake. I’d expect it to be slightly longer and less stout. At least I hope it’s fake….I was really hoping for 1.8 and VR.

  • GEO

    Why is the number “1” taller then other numbers in “135mm” marking? Is that normal if it’s real?

  • Bubba

    I think it could be real or fake. No one but those close to Nikon know.

  • Glenn

    I’m not an expert but the image looks pretty authentic to me BUT then again, most of the folks here who guessed that the initial rumor images of the D800, D4, Df, and so on, where also mentioned as “fake”. None of them ever came back to admit that they were wrong. What are your thoughts Admin?

  • darkhole

    I really belive on them really slow news days..that our loveable leader..Peter..just places bs up here to see how many Girl’s Get their panties all bunched up. I see there are plenty of bunched up! lol

    • I’ve heard that many times before 🙂

    • Darkness

      Clickbait. The “1” of 135 has just been badly shopped onto into a NIKKOR 35mm badge.

  • Back to top