New Nikon 24mm f/1.8 lens on the horizon

In addition to a new DX camera, Nikon is rumored to announce a new 24mm f/1.8 lens in 2015 - most likely in the January-February timeframe for the CES or CP+ shows. With a performance close to the f/1.4 versions and for a fraction of the price, the f/1.8 lenses have been a huge success for Nikon and it is not a surprise if they decided to expand their current f/1.8 line (20mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm).

Nikon currently has four 24mm lenses: Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.4G EDNikkor AF 24mm f/2.8DNikkor AIS 24mm f/2.8 and Nikkor PC-E 24mm f/3.5D ED.

Sigma is also preparing to announce a new 24mm f/1.4 lens soon (they already have a 24mm 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.
  • Rosebud

    Oops, you forgot a recent addition. We will have 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm f/1.8 lenses… ^_^

  • Jarret O’Shea

    I’ll be very interested to see how the Nikon and the Sigma compare.

    • amaas

      Not really worth comparing, none of the Sigma f1.8 wides are notable performers, they’re all old designs which prioritized speed over optical performers. The 28/1.8 is barely better than the mediocre 28/2.8D, the 24 and 20’s are inferior to the Nikkor f2.8D’s.

      • This is semi-true. The QA varied wildly on the 20mm/1.8 Sigma. I have a good sample and even though it looks like the new Nikon version surpasses it, for it’s time there was nought to compare. It’s sharper at 2.8 than anything Nikon made that hit 20mm, up until the release of the 14-24 (the 20-35, 20mm, 18-35).

        The 24/1.8 and 28/1.8 Sigma lenses were indeed compromises, and never lived up to the hype. But I’ll defend the 20. (even though I’ll eventually replace it with the new Nikon!)

        • nicolaie

          I also have a very good Sigma 20 f/1.8. At 2.8 it is very sharp, with fast and precise focus.

        • amaas

          I’ve had a chance to shoot with a good 20/1.8.

          It’s a lot better than the 24 or 28.

          It’s not nearly as good at 20 and f2.8 as a 14-24 or 17-35 and debatable as to whether or not its better than a good copy of the 20/2.8 AI-S. Really it only has an advantage over the 20-35/2.8

          • My experience with the 17-35 was that is wasn’t as sharp in the corners. It might just be sharper in the middle at 2.8 than the 20mm. I’d have to see it to believe it though.

            The 14-24 is just too stinking good. It’s only hitch is a touch of CA, but it cleans up in post quite well.

            I’ve never used the 20/2.8 AI-S. I’d be curious to see some shots from it if you’ve got them.

      • Jarret O’Shea

        I meant how the rumored Nikon compares to the rumored Sigma 1.4, but that wasn’t particularly clear with my wording.

  • Spy Black

    This would be good. The f/1.8 line is pretty decent.

  • jec6613

    Any chance of this actualy being a 24 mm DX prime?

    • It’s possible, but I doubt it – Nikon has not released a decent DX lens in years.

    • Ian Lindo

      Why would they make it DX only?

      • jec6613

        It would make a good DX lens as a 24 mm f/1.8, it’s 35 mm equivalent. It would be another mass market lens like the 35 f/1.8 DX, but sadly I suspect the admin is correct and it’ll be another FX lens – a good FX lens, but still not the smaller, lighter and cheaper one we could have had with a dedicated DX lens.

        • Spy Black

          Why so sad? It’s STILL a “35mm equivalent” for your DX baby. How “big” do you think an f/1.8 lens is going to be, anyway?

          • It looks like it’ll be about the same size and even shape as the Sigma. It’s a bit big. But DX was never much of a size or weight savings anyway.

          • Coolhand

            It’s just that the Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Lens look tiny and cheap at $149.
            It would be great to have an F-mount 24 mm f/2.8 DX available for $149 as well.

            • David Peterson

              Agreed!! (and I say this even though I own the excellent Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, but I would still consider getting such a lens for my D5200)

            • jdizzl

              Well that makes more sense. But Nikon wants people to move to FX…probably smarter marketing on their part.

          • David Peterson

            Spy Black, it is obvious because: “…but still not the smaller, lighter and cheaper one we could have had with a dedicated DX lens.”

            • Spy Black

              How much smaller do you really think it’s going to be? If you have to maximize your resources, are you going to try and design and sell two different 24mm lenses, or one compact one that will work on both platforms?

            • David Peterson

              Just look at the size and price difference between the two 35mm primes for DX vs FX, and the gap will only get bigger and bigger as you go wider!!

              The FX version is over 50% heavier and THREE TIMES the price!

              This is a huge gap (and as I mentioned, as you go wider… I expect the gap between the DX vs FX will grow even further. Such as 24mm on DX vs 24mm on FX).

              One lens is quite affordable for a new comer to NIkon, the other is not. Plus even for those who are not so concerned about price, an extra 50% more weight is quite a significant consideration if you’re going to take your kit out all day hiking and would like to go with a smaller lighter DX set up.

            • Spy Black

              “This is a huge gap..”
              2.8 inches long versus 2.1, yeah, that’s almost as big as the 300 f/4.
              11 ounces versus 7 ounces, yeah, that’s really going to break your back.

              As for the price, I’ll agree it costs more than it should, however you’re getting a lens that fits both a DX and an FX camera, versus one that doesn’t.

              Personally I hope Nikon never makes another DX lens and concentrates entirely on FX, but they’ve mention some more DX lenses are on their way, so you never know, your 24 may on the list.

            • David Peterson

              On a per item it might not seem like much extra weight, but once translated across the entire kit… yeah… an extra 50% or more weight for FX vs DX? That can be a deal breaker for some people.

              And it not just people who go back country trekking, in many other areas people appreciate a lighter weight kit: all day long event shooting, weddings, holidaying retirees, etc…

              > “Personally I hope Nikon never makes another DX lens”

              This would be very bad news for not just me, but you too, if it happened.

              As without an assessable entry point to shooting with Nikon for newcomers, then Nikon ecosystem is going to die off. I don’t want that, you don’t want that!

              Unfortunately, Nikon has already lost me as a customer for any potential future 24mm f/1.8 DX lens, as I’ve already got the excellent Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8

              But this is not a cheap lens, so is hard to recommend to a newbie to get (unlike the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX lenses, which I reckon everybody who starts out with a Nikon DX camera should get).

            • jdizzl

              They can just get the 35mm f/2 used, it weighs 7 oz, same as the 35mm 1.8g, only slightly more pricey. It works on d80/d90/d7000/d7100/d7200/d200/d300 etc. It won’t AF on the entry level 3000/5000 lineups, but you can still manually focus in viewfinder.

            • jdizzl

              If you want a light weight lens with prime, just get a mirrorless fuji, sony or olympus.

        • jdizzl

          There is not enough of a market for it. If you really want a 35mm just get rid of your DX, get FX like the d600 or d610, or older model, and get the cheapo 35mm f/2. Most dx users just shoot zooms, and kits at that. DX is becoming a realm for sports/bird photographers only at the current price points.

      • Pat Mann

        Because it would be smaller, lighter and less expensive, use smaller filters, and therefore sell a lot more copies to DX shooters. A fast 35mm equivalent for DX is one of the biggest holes in the Nikon DX system for those who seek a DX system to cover all their photography needs. (The next biggest are a fast 16 or 18, and a pro 50-135 f/2.8 zoom.) A fast 35mm lens is one of the core components in every full frame SLR system. Given the current competition and the primary applications of a fast 35mm-equivalent lens, however, Nikon’s 24mm DX lens should have a maximum aperture of f/1.4, not a 2/3-stop-short-of-a-picnic f/1.8.
        If they do release a D300 replacement, they will absolutely require a more complete system of lenses to sell me and other DX users on Nikon DX as a system for the future. There are other APS-C-sized sensor systems that already have more complete and appropriate lens ranges particularly in the wide prime and fast zoom categories, and a couple have the potential to surpass Nikon’s top-of-the-line DX camera capability in their next iteration.

        • Ian Lindo

          All fair enough. I wonder what the price will be though, and I’m really hoping it’ll have nano coating or ED elements (or both, like the latest 20mm). I imagine it’ll be priced somewhere between the 28 and 20mm 1.8’s. I’m happy to hear it still, because even if it’s not cheap, it’ll definitely be cheaper than the 24 1.4. The 24 2.8D is alright but I’ve definitely had better lenses for the same price.

        • Spy Black

          You make it sound like an f/1.8 FX lens is somehow monstrous. How delusional would you like to be today? This is a far more intelligent idea in a compact lens that will work with either format.

          • El Aura

            It’s probably a good bet to say a 24 mm f/1.8 FX from Nikon today would be sizewise in between the 20 mm f/1.8 and the 28 mm f/1.8.
            Less certain, but maybe a good starting point is to say that a 24 mm f/1.8 DX would be smaller than a 24 mm f/1.8 FX by the same relative amount as the 35 mm f/1.8 DX is compared to its FX cousin.

        • Piotr Kosewski

          Less expensive – only marginally. Cost of production is mostly determined by used technology, quality and so on.

          Lighter – maybe a bit (slightly less glass).
          Smaller – not really. Current lenses are big because of motors, IS, sealing and so on.

          Nikon 20/1.8:

          Leica 50/0.95

      • amaas

        Because then it wouldn’t steal sales from the 24/1.4G

        • preston

          Amaas – I know you wrote this 3 months ago (and that you may be speaking from Nikon’s point of view rather than your own), which was long before the announcement of the Sigma 24 f/1.4 Art, but this is exactly the reason why this type of thinking is bad. Nikon’s 24mm f/1.4 was never a big seller to begin with (their 85 f/1.4 has sold over twice as many copies in 15% less time) mainly since it was priced out of reach for amateurs at $2000. Now that there is a competing Sigma Art lens that is most likely equal or better performance – judging by their 35mm and 50mm lenses – for less than half the price even the pros are likely going to choose the Sigma. If Nikon had a 24mm f/1.8 that was cheaper than the Sigma then hobbyists and even brand loyal photographers might actually buy it over the Sigma.

  • Espen4u

    Yes-yes jolly good N, now get on with the development of the 135/1.8G.

    • Pat Mann

      Let’s not leave out the 200mm f/2.8G

      • amaas

        I think you mean the 180/1.8VR G

        • Pat Mann

          I’m looking for something under $10,000.

          • amaas

            1.8 was a typo, I meant a VR G update to the current 180/2.8

        • I think you mean f/2.8.

          • amaas

            I do, 1.8 was a brain fart.

        • Espen4u

          Mm, that would be a fat bastard. Sadly out of my leauge.

          • amaas

            I meant 2.8, not 1.8. Typo, not a competitor to the 200/2VR

    • Nelson Barley

      Yes please !!!

  • Kynikos

    Please tell me this “completes” the 1.8 set so Nikon can get after the longer, slower primes. 300/4 with latest VR would be great.

    • Daniel Laloyaux

      mmh why don’t you look at the sigma 120-300 f2.8 ? it’s VR and way cheaper than nikon. Good score on DXO as well

  • Danny Hernandez

    How about a Nikkor 500mm f5 VR? If they can get it right under 3k they would have a killer budget tele.

    • D600 Owner


      • Danny Hernandez

        Compared to the f4 and f2.8 ones, yes.

        • D600 Owner

          the “budget” solution is the new sigma or tamron 600mm telephotos. They might now be the “perfect” lens *insert typical blabbering about how only nikons primes give out the sharpest photos, etc* but they are both around $1500. That is a lot less than $3000. I don’t think the market is big enough for a $3000 500mm lens. I think the majority of people are in the $1500 group of f4/f2.8 group.

          • Danny Hernandez

            Those are super zooms. I’m not interested in that kind of compromise. Already tried both of the 80-400mm lenses. They didn’t satisfy me optically. I’m looking for a lightweight prime like the classic 500 f4 p (or the canon 400mm f5.6. But for nikon!) These are gorgeous lenses and considerably more compact than other super tele primes. I already own the 500 f4 p and it is indeed better to me than the super zooms you are hyping. The only thing it’s lacking is AF which isn’t a big deal when you got trap focus. But it would be nice… And I would pay for that. And I’m sure I’m not the only one.

    • Pat Mann

      That’s an objective about the same size as on the 300mm f/2.8. $6000+lens.

      • Danny Hernandez

        It would be 100mm. About 5mm bigger than the Bigma.

  • Carleton Foxx

    Do we think we’ll ever see a 135 or 185 f/1.8? I really need a telephoto in that range but I don’t want to buy the 135 f/2 or the 185 f/2.8 if they’re going to be replaced…

    • Mr. Mamiya

      There is a superb 135/2 from Zeiss and a superb 200/2 Nikkor available today. Those should do it for you.

      • Carleton Foxx

        Oh to be young! You must be a kid because once you hit your 50s, you’ll find out that your eyesight is the second thing that starts going soft. I need autofocus.

        • Mr. Mamiya

          If f/2.8 is okay for you, I can recommend the Sigma 150/2.8 OS HSM macro. It’s the helluva lens, optically, and replaced my 135/2 DC-Nikkor.

          • Carleton Foxx

            Thanks….I love the 135 DC but the fringing is beyond annoying. I’ll give the Sigma a look.

        • Plug

          My eyesight is standing up pretty well. 🙂

        • Steve

          What is the first thing that goes soft?

  • So, I’m going to put this out there. . .I just sold my D700s for a pair of D750s. I’m a wedding shooter and have the 24, 35, and 85 f/1.4 primes (my only zoom is the 70-200 2.8). I’m wondering if I should consider replacing those with the 20, 35 and 85 1.8 series?

    I always swore I’d never sell the 24 and 85, but not only does the D750 look great at super high ISO, making me less concerned about the 1/3 of a stop than I would be with the D700, but I don’t know how the f/1.4 primes will balance on the smaller D750. I have not shot with the D750s yet in a wedding environment yet, and have never even handled one of the 1.8 lenses, so would love feedback from anyone who has either.

    • Global

      KEEP THE 85/1.4 REGARDLESS. Damn, I love that lens. How could you even threaten something like that?? 😛 The real plus to the f/1.8 version is that it focuses faster. Then again, just stop the 85/1.4 down and it also feels faster. But I wouldn’t give up its bokeh power and degree of sharpness even wide open. Its one of Nikon’s best lenses wide open and stopped down.

      The 24/1.4 is questionable. Wide open its often rubbish under numerous conditions where its very severe aberrations pop up (when viewed full size or large; small prints and off the computer screen are far far more forgiving). The D810 exposes this to an extreme in its huge files at 100%. On the other hand, if you shoot stopped down, the 24/1.4 is a damn fine lens. But it sounds like you want wide open. Like the 58mm/1.4, the 24/1.4 is often very frustrating to work with wide open if youre looking for something aberration free. I highly suspect a 20/1.8 and a 28/1.8 are a better pair to own than the 24/1.4 by itself, depending on how you feel about the bokeh rendering. As far as light goes, its been proven that the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is even less than what the math would say — and there are long articles on it if you google. So I don’t think an f/1.8 would hurt you any.

      As for balance — the f/1.4s will balance perfectly fine. That’s a total non issue. Your teles and zooms are going to be the ones where you notice a difference (and hardly at that). I’d put together something like this, if it were possible:

      24/1.8G (?)
      28/1.8G … 1 or more of these 4 replacing the 24/1.4G
      35/1.8G [Prob. the 28mm so people aren’t too distorted.]
      50 S-ART… or.. 24-70/2.8 (depending on need)
      85/1.4G…… or.. 135/2 (depending on need)
      70-200/2.8.. or.. 200/2.. or.. 300/2.8 (dep. on need)

      • GLOBAL, thanks for the input. Yeah, just putting the idea out there conceptually, though I’m with you – the 85 1.4 has made me a lot of money, and I love it to pieces. It also seems to me to be an especially ‘bright’ 1.4 lens, when it’s wide open I get even more light than I feel I get from, say the 35, which I know is exactly the opposite of what the math says should happen.

        I’m not too worried about CA, but I am intrigued by the prospect of the 20 f/1.8. quite a bit. We have the 14mm for our Fuji kit (my wife and I work together, she rocks a pair of X-T1s) and I like the extra bit of viewing angle that a ~20mm offers vs. a 24mm. Of course, to your point I could just get the 14-24 and be done with it.

        Interested in your experience with the 58! I’ve considered this too – I’d love to get a 50mm-ish lens again and this seems like such a wonderful portrait lens. . . . sounds like it’s a bit persnickety though?

        • Craig John

          I sold my 24/1.4G because the AF was dirt slow and entirely unreliable for my wedding work. I just replaced the 85/1.4G with the 85/1.4D because the AF is more accurate in dark settings for me. I had the D version prior, but sold it to get the G version. Glad I have the D version again.

          I sold the 35/1.4G for the 35/1.8G ED. It’s smaller and lighter. Not missing anything from the 1.4G version. The Sigma was also big and heavy, so that was out.

          I sold my 14-24 for the 20/2.8D because the 20 is so tiny and compact. I love that lens. …at f/4. The new 20 intrigues me a lot. Hope the AF isn’t dirt slow.

          If the 24/1.8G is going to real, I hope it focuses 3-4 times as fast as the 24/1.4. If it is, then I’ll be in a pickle about which wide angle I’ll want. A good problem to have. 🙂

      • Spy Black

        ” Then again, just stop the 85/1.4 down and it also feels faster.”

        That, as you’ve probably already surmised, is all in your head. The camera is still focusing at full aperture.

        • Steve

          Actually no, it’s focusing at f/2.8. The AF system by design sees no more light than an f/2.8 lens provides, even if you have a 0.95 lens attached.

          • Actually, no. The 2.8 thing is about the focusing screen (usually cut in some fresnel pattern). The meter and OVF see through the focusing screen. The AF sensors are in the bottom of the mirror box, and do indeed see through the full aperture of the lens (through a semi-transparent spot in the main mirror).

            This is why, when you see specs, the AF systems are rated with 50/1.4 lenses. They do indeed benefit from as fast a piece of glass as you can put in front of them.

            AF also benefits from sharper lenses, since significantly bad aberrations can hamper what the AF “sees”.

            1.4 lenses tend to have slower motors, since they require the utmost precision. I would not be surprised if the 1.8 lenses were less precise than the 1.4s if compared under controlled conditions.

            And no, closing down will not do anything, except give you a touch more DOF, which could hide AF inaccuracy. AF happens at full aperture.

            • Michiel953

              It won’t hide much with 36MP. Any given depth of field still has one (very thin) bit of maximum sharpness, and the rest is just less sharp. Which is what you see when you look close. Eyelash sharp, the pupil less so. That has to do with the way the AF works within the boundaries of the focus point as well; exact focus will be on the nearest point of contrast, and that is what you see, even at f5.6.

            • …still depends way more on focal length and subject distance than resolution, even if you’re pixel peeping.

              Although I’ll admit, ƒ1.8 to ƒ2 isn’t really much of a difference. Might not be noticeable, depending on the (surprise!) focal length and subject distance.

              And if there were a difference to be hidden, it would be more noticeable on a higher resolution camera, since you’d have more information from which to discern the difference.

          • Spy Black

            Read Micah’s reply.

    • lord eels

      No. What are you crazy? Beyond the 2/3 stop of light, the 1.4 nikkors (sans 50mm) have a very specific rendering. Sounds like you are taking things for granted. Rent the 85mm 1.8g and see for yourself. Yes it is sharp as hell, but it’s a zombie lens with sandpaper-eyeball bokeh and shit color (compared to the 1.4g, of course). It is VERY obvious.. The 24mm 1.4g is one of the all time epic nikkors. Don’t listen to pixel peeping idiots who look at wide angle images at 100% and 36mp. They just want to show off forum vocabulary like some low end Lloyd Chambers wanking in a Zeiss booth peep show.

      Listen friend, you have some very special glass. Do not take it for granted. I shoot the exact same lens line up, but I also have a 24-70 2.8g on a set of d4 cameras with over 200k clicks on each. I would never sell my 24g or 85 1.4g. Not even if newer versions came out. I love those lenses and as long as they function I will remain in love.

      • Yeah, I’ve loved that glass since the minute I got it and don’t like the idea of selling, so appreciate the feedback. I’ve also been considering getting the 24-70 2.8 again, I had it for about a year back in ’08 (along with the 14-24) but sold them to get the primes – it was an either/or at the time. I’ve become a bit of a prime lens snob since then, but I loved almost every shot that came off that lens and it sure would be conveinant at times (formal group shots, etc.)

        • lord eels

          I’m also a prime snob. given the choice I will always prefer a fast prime especially if I can easily anticipate what is going to happen before me. however there are times when I really have no idea, in those times I used to just slap a 35mm on and move fast (my 70-200 is pretty much always on the other body). that works pretty well most of the time. but it is certainly useful to have 24mm and 70mm in the same lens especially for weddings/pj work. absolutely a painful trade off there, IQ, light, and size in exchange for AF performance and convenience. the 24-70 is also a very fragile lens. it’s probably my least favorite current lens, but to me its a must have. unfortunately you will end up using the 35mm 1.4g a good bit less as a result if you buy a 24-70. which is a shame, because that is one hell of a nikkor.

    • Michiel953

      The D750 (in a shop) did feel a bit unbalanced with the 35/1.4G (also 600 grs) on it. I’m sure one could get used to the feel though. And waste losing those 1.4 primes (I’ve got the 24, 35, 58 and 85 on the 800E, and I love all of them).

      Hope this was helpful.

  • Global

    I feel like Nikon has this pattern — release a very expensive “OK” pro f/1.4 lens with 9 aperture blades that’s really really slow and totally lacks sharpness at f/1.4 (or is full of aberrations). And then once its confident that all of their loyal fans have bought one, it immediately releases an f/1.8 lens that is actually much, much faster, just as good (sometimes better), definitely sharper earlier on, and yet has slightly worse bokeh (probably in part to a 7 aperture blade instead of 9).

    Not sure if that can hold up as wide as 20mm or as tele as 135mm. Those will be f/1.8 (maybe f/2 for the 135mm) regardless. The discount version will probably end up being a 20/2.8?

    And I’m actually hoping they will make some PANCAKE (not really, but reasonably thin) lenses for once. Don’t care of they are f/2.8 primes. But every single one of Nikons new primes are needlessly gigantic (such as the 50mm and 58mm, where half of these lenses are just a bunch of stupid plastic sticking out front). I realize the Sigma 50mm Art is a telescope by comparison — but we KNOW for a fact that an 50 f/1.8 and f/1.4 can be made tiny and skinny by Nikon. Yet they’ve stopped making our gear manageable. They keep making it bigger. If Nikon could make skinny f/2.8s, or even f/3/3.5 whatever, while retaining and even sharpening image quality…. that would be wonderful. All of Nikon’s flashes, all of their lenses keep getting bigger and fatter in a world where gear is supposed to be getting smaller.

  • Aldo

    For my line of work I’m in need of a superwide prime (non fisheye) for 20 ‘cool’ photos that would complement an event shoot. The 20mm almost qualifies but it isnt wide enough. 16mm would be ideal.

    • lorenzo

      How about the 14mm f/2.8, quite heavy but takes great shots.
      Will it be for DX or FX?

      • Aldo

        FX…. it seems nice. Isn’t it a bit pricey though? It would see very minimum use during events… that’s why I don’t wanna break the bank.

        • Eric Calabros

          You gonna have crappy corners with these 14mm primes anyway. There is also Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8. Nikon 16-35 alternative but with f/2.8. Amazon is now selling it at $640

    • D600 Owner

      Rokinon 14mm

      • Aldo

        how would you rate it as far as sharpness goes?

        • amaas

          A good copy is the second best prime you can get in F mount at that focal length (the best is the Zeiss 15/2.8, but you can buy 2 14-24’s for the cost of it)

        • A bit of sample variation on that one. A good one is bloody sharp, but the corners are a bit too dark for my taste. I passed on it.

    • Spy Black

      I agree with D600 Owner. Yes, you’ll have to manually focus, but keep it stopped down and use the focus aid. The focus aid is actually not that accurate with superwides, but you should be in proper focus if you’re down 2-3 stops. You can rent one out from LensRentals so you can see firsthand if this will work for you:

      • Aldo

        Some of these ‘cool’ shots would be taken indoors… which means I would need to shoot wide open. Manual focus doesn’t turn me down… How do you think this lens performs wide open (sharpness wise)? Renting it isn’t a bad idea… I may do that.

        • Why shoot “wide open” indoors? Action? If it’s for interiors there this new thing called a tripod that works pretty good! 🙂

          • nwcs

            If you’re shooting events or weddings a tripod is usually out of the question.

            • Yes, for sure, that’s why the rhetorical question “Why shoot “wide open” indoors? Action?”

          • Aldo

            My shooting style is mostly handheld. Tripod.. of curse it’s always ideal, but could be rather inconvenient.

        • Spy Black

          I saw some shots taken outdoors on a bright sunny day that showed some spherical chromatic aberration at f/1.4, similar to the 35mm f/1.4 Samyang I had. When shot in the shade or indoors it wasn’t an issue, only in bright sun. That and it has mustache distortion which may or may not show up in a shot. It’s a really sharp lens and has virtually zero chromatic aberration.

          Rent one out and see if it works for you.

      • Michiel953

        If you have 36MP at your disposal even with a 20 you’ll see exactly where you missed exact focus.

        • Spy Black

          Actually, I’ve seen it at the 16 meg res of my D5100. No need to go there. 😉

    • Sigma 12-24mm is a good option.

      • Aldo

        I had the sigma prime 14mm 2.8 and I thought it was too soft… Do you think the 12-24 is sharper?

        • D600 Owner

          14 f2.8 is much sharper. The Sigma being a. a zoom. and b. 12mm hurts its sharpness. The 14mm Rokinon is known to be incredibly sharp. It’s only “flaw” is that it has a little more distortion that some ultrawides (which can give it a more stretched look). I do not own the 14mm, but I have used it before and have considered purchasing it on a few occasions. Looking at the raw files from my D600 I thought it was fairly sharp. I currently own an 18-35D lens, which I LOVE. It isn’t quite as wide, but goes in to 35 making it a great zoom range for walking around (if you like a wider view). If you want a lot of indoors shots the 14mm will be superior to the 12-24 for sure.

        • I use the Sigma 10-20mm on my D300s and it’s excellent. It’s sharp from f/4.5 to about f/16 and flare is minimal. I’d assume the 12-24 would be fine.

    • Ian Lindo

      Would renting a 14-24 Nikkor be possible?

      • Aldo

        the 14-24 is phenomenal… but there I wouldn’t buy it for the use that it’s gonna see..

        • Ian Lindo

          Right, that’s why I said renting ;P

  • Ben

    This is great news. A dx 24mm would be ideal though!

  • saywhatuwill

    NOOOOOOO! I paid good money for a 24mm lens that was faster than f/2.8. Now this one will most likely be about $600. Sigh.

  • Well I thought the new Sigma 24mm f1.4 was gonna be a no-brainer. Now this!

    I’ll go out and buy the best 24mm at my f8 landscapes, even if I have to drag around a ridiculous, overweight f1.4 aperture. That Sigma 35 Art lens is so sweet it’s worth its weight and if their 24 is as good that’ll be the one, now matter what it weighs.

    • Is this also a minimum 16 aperture? That’s a limitation of the new 20mm Nikon, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see the same here.

  • Read the FAQ

    While these new 1.8 lenses are good optically (and also smaller), I kind of wish they were built a little better. I’d pay extra for a more robust feeling lens with less plastic. The new lenses kind of feel like toys compared to most all of the previous Nikkor lenses. I’m also curious about the internal motors and how long they’ll last. For sure, current materials and manufacturing (and in China) have kept the costs down and one argument is that they are not as expensive to replace if they do break. But personally I just like having something not so cheesy/cheap feeling. But maybe that’s just me…..?

    • Spy Black

      Think of them as paper towels. You use them for a bit, then toss them. We’re in the age of landfill overdrive. We’re not going to be much longer on earth anway. Just buy it, use it, and toss it….

    • HF

      No, I like the plastics use. Lens is lighter, probably cheaper and if you scratch along a rock by accident the black coating will be damaged. Happened to my 56/1.2 of Fuji, all metal build, but every scratch etc. looks awful.

      • rt-photography

        not me. give me the build of the what lenses were when nikon care and didnt skimp to recoup their losses from their factory flood.

        14mm 2.8D
        85 1.4D
        105 2DC
        135 2DC
        180 2.8D
        200 4 micro D

        so keep your cheap plastic garbage lens with cheap hood and plastic filter threading and hood threading. Ill take the tank built lenses from above anyday.

        weird how sigma art lenses are getting better in build quality but nikon is going down to very cheap build now. very ironic.

        • Captain Megaton

          Don’t confuse light with fragile.

          • rt-photography

            god forbid. carbon fiber and plastic composite/polymers come to mind. but these new plastic primes look good, but are not of quality to how I see it.

            nikon is skimping. plastic mounts on lenses. cheap plastic hood, plastic filter threads. its as clear as can be that nikon is skimping because those metal lenses above in the list costed them a lot of money to make. metal costs a lot of money. a lot ore time to manufacture. plastic? just molds and assembly. metal have to be drilled and finished before use. metals need to be powder coated, like the hoods. just greed. trying to recoup huge losses from floods in the factory.

            $1700 85 1.4g plastic/hood/threads/hood thread
            $1700 58 1.4g plastic/hood/threads/hood thread

            • Ken Elliott

              Greed? Doubtful. Take a look at what it costs to manufacture those components in metal and you’ll see the reason. Nikon simply has a price target they need to hit to have enough sales to pay the cost of tooling. Generally, good design engineers want to create the best design they can, within the limitations of their budget.

        • Other than the 85 and 28-70, my opinion is that all the new versions (where they exist!) are optically superior in every way.

          And I can say with confidence that I have bounced both new and old versions of some of these, and the metal bodied ones don’t take impact as well as the plastic body ones. Bent metal only LOOKS better. Doesn’t actually function any better than cracked plastic.

          • rt-photography

            I dont believe you for a millisecond. you have no credibility in my eyes.

            ” that I have bounced both new and old versions of SOME of these”

            from the “SOME” in your statement above, you had 3 lenses (at least of the D AND three G at least because some is more than two and at least 3) youve own/ed and all had such extreme impact that they bend (D) and that variable G lenses you now own had the same extreme impact and suffered very little damage.

            if you said my 85 1.4d fell once and it got bent and my 50 1.8g got a hard hit and it didnt do a thing to it, then id say sure, thats possible. but since I have own/ed both the 85 1.8D and the 1.4D (stolen) and even the 1.4 AIS and I own both and they are built better than any plastic prime made by nikon today.

            but youre saying that you have/had versions of the metal ones in the list I gave above and now you have the plastic versions and the metal D versions had such hard impact that the metal bent and the G versions also suffered such impact and they took the impact much better?

            you have no credibility with what you just say and anyone reading your statement can see its just bullshit.

            ask any person who is a pro or enthusiast, how many lenses theyve had in their life that fell or had such extreme impact to their lenses and the answer MIGHT be 2 at MOST.people look after there gear. so for you 6 lenses AT LEAST had falls or hits that bent the lenses.

            Im a pro wedding photog and people elbow me every wedding. never did a lens fall or get such an impact that it bent any of my lenses, metal or plastic.

            I am dismissing what you say above and my statement is still true. metal is better than the cheap plastic primes offered today.

            • I dont believe you for a millisecond. you have no credibility in my eyes. -one random person on the internet to another

              Thank you for the laugh!

              Metal bends, and doesn’t come back. Simple, incontrovertible fact.

              The 85/1.8D that you mention (and that I still own) is plastic bodied, with metal innards. Doesn’t belong on your metal list. It seems like you’re ragging on a bunch of new Nikon G lenses you haven’t owned or used. (full disclosure, I’ve rented more than I’ve owned, but I’ve only dropped lenses I’ve owned.)

              G vs. D is irrelevant, since neither is consistently metal or plastic bodied. My 70-200G is very metal and doesn’t bounce well. Neither did my 17-55G (the outer metal body bent, while the flimsy plastic inner tube–which always worried me–was totally fine). Although, I’m sure the filter thread on the latter is quite flimsy.

              And I’m not suggesting what I’m saying is a rule–I busted the filter ring of my first 50/1.4D. And it was never repairable (although it did continue to work just while looking hideous–try that with bent metal!)

              But I’ve learned not to fear plastic as much as I used to. From experience.

              As professional, I DO look after my gear. But by sheer exposure (pun intended) one exposes themself to mishaps that are beyond their control. The more work you do, the riskier it is. You never know when you’re going to catch your foot on that cable the DJ forgot to tack down (or one of the guests in heels does when you’re back is turned snapping someone else’s picture). I pride myself on being a ninja, but–shit happens. I certainly don’t throw them a the ground in the name of science. But I am probably more adventurous than most.

              I really liked my 180/2.8. It’s built about the same as the 105/135DC lenses. If you dropped a 105DC and a 105VR macro lens on concrete, which do you think is more likely to survive?

              I’m sure we both agree that such a thing is to be avoided at all costs. BUT…that’s not the disagreement. My disagreement above is with the notion that metal bodied lenses are inherently more durable, and the plastic ones are weaker.

              Additionally, if you check my statement above, you’ll see that I qualified what I said about optical quality! Nikon doesn’t make any new version of the DC lenses nor 200 micro. I stand by the following:

              14 2.8D < 14-24 optically–build is arguable, since they're different lenses

              28 1.4D < 24/1.4G if you don't mind the FL difference. If you do, then there's no 28/1.4 replacement. YET.

              85 1.4D a new version that doesn’t exist

              135 2DC > a new version that doesn’t exist

              180 2.8D a new version that doesn’t exist

              17-35 AFS 2870 AFS 80-200 AFS are all optically inferior to the 14-24/24-70/70-200II. (although the difference between the midrange zoom there is a tossup to sample variation).

              That’s not to say that any of the older lenses are bad per se. But the newer ones aren’t exactly dogs, and optically are all a step up.

              Yes, I am a destroyer of lenses, but I’m not exactly bragging. That’s just how things went. When you travel and when you take risks, thing can break. Also, I’m ashamed I’ve given that much money to Nikon’s service department.

              But now that we’ve blown a bunch of hot air, where are the pics to back any of this up?

    • rt-photography

      NOPE. not only u. they are cheaply made for sure. cheap plastic. stingy in quality. im saying all along. cheap hoods, plastic filter thread and hood threading and slow silent wave motor. higher prices and performance isnt such an improvement.

      I wanted to upgrade my 85 1.8D to the G. I almost did with the “lens only” sale but couldnt for two main reasons. build quality is crap compared to my D lens (metal lens hood) it even weighs less than the D (with an added SWM inside) and the extremely slow af motor.

      it is about 2/3 a stop sharper at open aperture till around f/4. meaning to get the same sharpness in the D I have to close the perture another 2/3 stop to get the same sharpness. but with such slow AF and losing the chance for it to catch the subject, its a moot point.

      I think the sigma 24mm will be a winner. the nikon will be $700 or so and the sigma will be $200 and 1.4 aperture. and a much better performer.

      • Aldo

        You may be right on the build quality… but as far as performance goes… the G series are more oriented towards higher mp count sensors. eg. a D lens won’t resolve the same detail on a d810 as a G lens would.

        • rt-photography

          you didnt read my comment when I said its better than the D. the D is no slouch though and for now I will stay with the D because I cant stand that cheapp plastic build on that lens. the D also feels better quality. dense and feels tough vs the hollow and cheap toy plastic the G feels.

          I will wait for the sigma art when they decide to laucnh it. patience is the key. the reason why I wanted the G was the straight bokeh edges vs the round of the G. but the lens feels so cheap to touch. like holding the 24-85 G

          • Aldo

            Fair enough… btw I shoot with the d610/d300s not the d800

            • rt-photography

              You had the d800, no? U had a problem with the af on the left side, no?

            • Aldo

              I did have the d800… no big issues really. I took it for cleaning and they told me they were going to replace it… at which point I ‘downgraded’ to a d600 ( later replaced by nikon to a d610).

      • HF

        Sorry, but the 1.8G is stellar and much better than the 1.8D. It focuses fast enough for us (we have no problems tracking kids or couples) and I like the low weight. I don’t care whether it’s plastic, as long as it performs. I have the ART series, too, very heavy with great performance, but use the 50/1.8g when travelling light with great results. Considering that people always compare lens size and weight to mirrorless products, the G series is very competitive.

        • rt-photography

          of course its great. I was going to buy it when it was selling for $400. but for me the cheap build and slow AF was enough to deter me. I used the lens many times. Id rather use my D for lightning fast AF. and its no slouch.

          the 50 1.8g is a nice lens as well. the 1.4g is horribly slow.

          dont care for weight. not an issue for me.

          • Captain Megaton

            The screw in metal lens hood on the AF85/1.8D is a PITA though. And the lens is plastic anyway, just a different kind of plastic than the G models.

            • rt-photography

              How is the hood a pita? I never take mine off? lens caps sits inside just fine. you can use the 62mm inside or a 77 on the edge. true its plastic. but its better made. its heavier (without hoods) and it doesnt even have the SWM inside. and even the reproduction ration isnt so great. you would think they could get it down to 1:6 or 5. they give you one thing but skimp on another. in every way there are more negatives about it (for me) than pluses. but im just waiting patiently for the sigma 85 art. for now the D is doing its job well. for me the slight improvement in IQ is really what I want. because the D is an excellent lens. I basically want it for the round bokeh render vs the straight edged on the D.

    • amaas

      The plastic shells are actually tougher than metal and will absob damage without effect that will permanently damage the metal shell lenses (and yes, I’m talking shells, the internal construction is almost identical between the f1.8’s and the f1.4’s)

      The only advantage to metal shells is haptics. They feel more solid even if they aren’t in actuality

      • rt-photography

        did you do tests to verify this or is this from what you read, heard, or just personal opinion? because plastics break and crack as well. and heat and outdoor elements wear out the oil in the plastics which makes it brittle. so to me, if you didnt do a test, your statement is just false. metal is more expensive to make then plastic and to me nikon skimped on quality. when I pay $1700 for an 85 1.4g lens, it better built like the abrams tank, inside and out. im sure when theyll release the 85 ART, itll be made much better than the nikon version.

        • amaas

          Materials Science actually. Plastic materials are well, plastic (which actually refers to their ability to bend and return to their original form, not the material they’re made of). This makes appropriately spec’d plastics superior at taking impact damage than steel or aluminum. Metals are generally as good or better for structural use, but that’s not the need of most lens shells. That means the sort of thermoplastic polycarbonate materials that Nikon uses in their better plastic lens barrels, or the carbon fibre-impregnated version used in the D750 and D5300 shells, not cheap polystyrene like the 18-55’s use.

          • Ken Elliott

            ^^— THIS. Thank you, sir.

            Just for the record, I had both the 85 f/1.4 D and G lenses. I kept the G and sold the D. I really like the idea of an external polycarbonate “bumper” protecting the metal structure. I think it’s pretty darn good engineering.

          • Spy Black

            I wonder if plastics may be problematic in extreme cold conditions however. I guess by now that may be worked out as well.

            • nwcs

              You don’t hear of lenses (or plastics) spontaneously shattering in the antarctic or arctic. Both materials are good for certain things. Personally I prefer a well engineered plastic to metal for lenses.

            • amaas

              Metals already are, for a number of reasons. Plastics actually do better in those conditions due to lower rates of thermal expansion vs metals.

            • FredBear

              And also ‘warm to the touch’ because of lower thermal conductivity than metals.

            • Spy Black

              Metal lenses have been in use for a LONG time in those conditions, so I would say not. I’m sure by now plastic lenses are not an issue either.

          • FredBear

            The metals deform on impact rather than return to their original dimensions like TPs do. ‘Plastics’ are better than metals in most applications except above their Tg where they can – and do – deform under stress.

          • rt-photography

            you didnt answer my question above.

            “did you do tests to verify this or is this from what you read, heard, or just personal opinion?”

            because unless you know what the plastics are made of or did tests to verify, your opinion is just your opinion.

            but look around the net and the same comment is everywhere (in reviews)and its the same. cheaply made lenses. and you can see it. cheap plastic hoods. cheap plastic bodies, cheap plastic hood thread and slow SWM. oh, and higher prices.

            its the reason im now only looking to Sigma art lenses for their 24 1.4. they upped their quality. build and IQ and nikon has lowered their build quality.

            • amaas

              Actually I did answer your question. The answers you proposed are all incorrect.

              This is basic materials science, a course many engineers (such as myself) are quite familiar with. I’m familiar enough with the materials in question to know why the statement you made is incorrect.

              Many people make comments about ‘cheap plastic lenses’ without understanding the difference between an actual cheap plastic lens (like the 18-55) and the advanced composites used in the higher end lenses which are actually very strong and superior to metal as barrel materials for a number of reasons.

              I said nothing about this being Nikon-specific. high-end thermoplastics are better as lens barrels from all makers, be it Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Sigma or Tamron.

              Oh, and Nikon is steadily rolling out their carbon fibre-infused thermoplastic higher and higher in their camera line, the D750 is the latest camera to get it. It doesn’t go higher yet because all too many people think a high-end camera needs a metal shell (a metal frame and CF-infused thermoplastic, if designed correctly, is more robust)

  • That’s great news. The f/1.8 line is the best thing Nikon’s done in a while besides the D750 and D810. Smaller, lighter, less expensive and IQ that in
    practical comparisons shows negligible differences. The 24mm is an important addition.

  • ML66

    mmm… rather see a 17mm PC-E

  • Nikon User

    24mm f1.8 DX lens Nikon will ask for 1200 US at least. So forget it.

    35mm f1.8 DX will still be the future for another 10 years for Nikon’s DX users.

    • amaas

      No way the 24 is going to be more money than the FX 20/1.8.

      I’d expect $3-400 for a DX one, if FX it will cost midway between the 28 and 20.

      • Captain Megaton

        That would peg it at $750. Tempting but I’d want the 35/1.8 first, and the 20/1.8 second, before this one. (FX is a given, Nikon is pretty much done with DX.)

        • amaas

          FX isn’t a given. Nikon has promised some DX love and this would be the single quickest way to give some love.

          I personally shoot both FX and DX, but I’m willing to give up FX, but not DX.

          • Captain Megaton

            There’s nothing stopping you using this FX24/1.8 lens (and I say again, it will be FX – bank on it) lens on a DX camera to get 35mm eq. What you won’t see is a DX16/1.8 to get effective FL on APSC. For that you need mirrorless and must go talk to Fuji. Which, in a nutshell, why ASPC dSLRs are a sinking ship these days for anyone but telephoto users: your wide angle options suck. (Though at least Pentax users have the excellent DA15/4.)

            • amaas

              The issue between FX and DX is pricing. A DX version would be around half the price.

              As I find 24mm an awkward length on FX, but very usable on DX, at the likely $800 price I’ll buy a 20/1.8 instead. However at a likely sub-$400 price for DX, I’d buy both the 24/1.8 and the 20/1.8

              Nikon would sell bucketloads of 24/1.8DX’s at $400 or less. They’ll sell significantly less FX’s, if only because of the price.

    • nwcs

      Nikon may ask for $1200 but it would be seriously overpriced. The Fuji 23 f1.4 which is faster and excellent quality is $900 ($700 with rebate right now). Same DX size. Hard to see them charging 30% more just because it’s Nikon and with a slower lens.

      If the lens exists, it would likely be a 24 f1.8 FX which likely would be around $800.

  • chris

    Are we getting the 135 1.8 next?

    • Captain Megaton

      That would be a pretty big puppy.

  • Peter

    Now I´ll pray every day that they won´t stop at 85mm at the long end. Let there be a 1.8/135mm, please!

    • Xam

      Amen to that

    • amaas

      105 first. It’s been missing for a long time.

      • Peter

        I am totalfine withe my Micro Nikkor 2.8/105mm and the DC 2.0/105mm. But I do understand your point.

        • Peter

          The autocorrection is killing me…

  • Ali Navaie

    This is welcoming addition.

  • DafOwen

    Quite keen to get a wide prime.
    Can’t really justify prices of the 1.4 so currently considering:
    Nikon : 20mm, 28mm, 35mm 1.8
    Sigma 35mm 1.4

    This is just going to widen the dilema….
    Think I may avoid 35mm as not as wide as I’d like.

    • Michiel953

      24, 35, 50 (58!), 85. Not unusual at all. If you really want the 20, the 24 seems superfluous. 20, 28, 50?

      • Pat Mann

        20-35-85 makes a great travel kit

  • EnPassant

    Is this rumor from a reliable source?

    We are after all still waiting for lenses like 300mm f/4 VR and a new Fisheye(-zoom?)!

    It is easy enough to figure out Nikon will some day release a 24mm f/1.8 lens. But that doesn’t mean it is the next prime lens coming.

    While it would be five years since the release of the 24mm f/1.4 lens we just got a Nikon 20mm f/1.8 lens that just started sell. Would Nikon announce a close competitor just after a few months?

    After the release of the 28mm f/1.8 it took almost two years before we saw the 35mm f/1.8 lens. Unless Nikon is changing their release pattern for some reason I don’t think we will see a 24mm f/1.8 FX lens until 2016.

    A more likely candidate is the 135mm f/1.8 (VR?), as well as the lenses mentioned above.

    Another possibility is a 10mm FX prime as an answer to the rumored Canon 11-24mm f/4 FF zoom. Development of such a prime could also be made in tandem with a super wide PC-E lens, maybe 16mm?, competing with Canon’s 17mm TS lens.

    But a 10mm prime may not come already next year.

    We are also expecting regular upgrades of the super tele lenses. However those pro lenses are upgraded regulary and released when ready so which is coming next we will just see. New teleconverters with same upgrade as TC-14E III should also be in the works, but maybe for later release.

    DX users may hope for a 16-XXmm f/4 zoom or W/A primes. But what they will get is propably another upgrade of a kit-zoom. This time a smaller version of the 55-200 VR lens, similar to the new 18-55 VRII. Nikon should also be working on their own version of Canon’s well received, compact and affordable super wide 10-18mm zoom.

    The 10-24mm lens is just too big and expensive for the typical 3X00 and 5X00 customer, which is why it sold less than the old 12-24mm f/4 zoom despite longer time on the market. But if Nikon is ready with such a lens already 2015 remains to be seen.

    Nikon 1 users already know a micro lens is expected. Maybe some zoom as well. What is missing is an AW version of the 6.7-13mm lens.

    Will 2015 be the year Nikon finally will release a serious mirrorless DX camera and compact prime lenses? We can hope so. But it is uncertain if Nikon is ready for such a big step already next year.

    As to cameras we expect an advanced DX camera. But will it be a D7100 or D300 replacement. I think it will be the former in shape similar to the D750. If the shutter and mirror are fast enough 7.5 fps should be possible with current Expeed processor. Maybe they somehow can tweak it to make that magical 8 fps rate. But more than that would propable need a new version of the processor. Name should following Nikons logic be D7200. Although considering the well reception of D750 and big changes it may well be D7500 and give Nikon reason to raise the price just as they did with the D750.

    Possible FX cameras next year are a Df2 and a small FX camera in shape of D5X00 body (Named D500?) to keep pushing buyers to FX and reduce the leaking to Sony A7.

    • Yes

      • Wow! That must be among the top-most ‘short-answer-to-a-long-question’ you must have done so far!! 😉

        So, the Yes is to answer the very first question about reliability of the source?

        So, if this rumour is from a reliable source, and you mention the upcoming DX camera again here for whatever reason. So this means the earlier ‘new’ (30% reliable) source who gave you the specs of the D9300 / D7200 earlier this month is confirmed / supported by this reliable source who also says a DX camera is coming soon? 😀 :D.. hmm? hmm?

  • ZoetMB

    I think there were five Nikon lenses planned, but not released. If you look at the U.S. model #’s, you can see where some #’s were skipped. There should have been a #2194 sometime between October 2010 and February 2011, a #2209 between March and October 2013, a #2212 between Aug 2013 and Feb 2014 and a #2218 around now (all are in-stock dates, not announce dates). The last 4-digit # Nikon used was 2219 for the TC-14EIII.

    With the advent of the 20mm 1.8, Nikon has now switched to a 5-digit number, in this case 20051.

    We can only guess what lenses Nikon was planning. Imagine how many fewer complaints there would have been if those were quality DX lenses that weren’t 18-whatever zooms.

  • Michael Choong

    What about 135mm f1.8? That’s what I need

  • John Starr

    I’m not one to complain, but for the love of god! When are we gonna get a 300mm f/4 G VR!!! That was on the horizon over a year ago! Come on Nikon, please!! Haha.

  • Jimmy

    Fcuk this shit, Iwannit reversed – gimme a redone 28/1.4!

  • Michaelius

    Still waiting for my wide DX only prime


    I need this. Hope it doesn’t have heavy distortion

  • Diego

    Please nikon make a version DX!

  • Reilly Diefenbach

    More good news. I might have to collect them all :^)

  • Coola

    I have noticed that the 24mm f2.8D is running out of stock in a few places (amazon and B&H). Is it possible that nikon is stopping production of this classic lens?

  • mhammon

    Any update on when/if this lens will be available?

  • Back to top