Nikon Introduces 18-300mm/f3.5-5.6 DX AF-S VR and 24-85mm/3.5-4.5 AF-S VR

[ShunCheung]

<p>Perhaps to nobody’s surprise, Nikon is introducing two new AF-S lenses with VR:</p>

<ul>

<li>The 18-300mm/f3.5-5.6 DX AF-S VR is a very extreme super zoom, more like the combination of the existing 18-200mm DX and 28-300mm (FX), with a whopping 16.7x zoom range. Back on March 26, Nikon Spain had already leaked the specifications for this lens: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00aBr4">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aBr4</a> This lens can focus down to only 1.48 feet/0.45 meter; that is almost in the macro range with a maximum reproduction ratio of 1:3.2x.</li>

<li>The 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S VR convers the full FX frame. It is like the “economy model” of the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S or the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR with a more limited zoom range. Back in the early 2000's, there was a 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S that was fairly popular; Nikon is now brining that lens back with VR added.</li>

</ul>

<p><strong>Both lenses will be available around 28 June, 2012. The 18-300mm DX AF-S VR has a suggested retail price of US$999.95 and the 24-85mm AF-S VR $599.95.</strong><br>

Both of these lenses have a metal lens mount with true AF-S; that is, there is an M/A vs. M switch so that while it is in the AF mode, you can manually override the focusing without switching the lens to M (manual focus) first. Both have 3 ashperic elements and ED elements (3 ED on the 18-300 and 1 ED on the 24-85), Nikon Super-Integrated Coating (SIC) but no nano coating. The 18-300 has an 9-blade aperture diaphragm while the 24-85 has 7 blades. The 18-300 uses 77mm filters and the 24-85 72mm.</p>

<p>Similar to the 18-200 DX version 2 and 28-300, the new 18-300mm DX lens has a lock to lock the lens to its minimum focal length (18mm) to prevent zoom creep, which was a problem that a lot of people complained about on the original 18-200 DX version 1.</P>

 

<P>

The following product images are supplied by Nikon. Copyright Nikon Inc.</p>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15913673-lg.jpg" alt="" /> <br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15913674-lg.jpg" alt="" /></center>

[ShunCheung]

<ul>

<li>18-300 DX news on Nikon's web site: <a href="http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0614_lens_03.htm">http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0614_lens_03.htm</a></li>

<li>24-85 AF-S VR news on Nikon's web site: <a href="http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0614_lens_02.htm">http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0614_lens_02.htm</a></li>

</ul>

<p>Additionally, the total number of Nikkor interchangeable lenses have reached the 70 million mark (including Nikon 1 mirrorless lenses): <a href="http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0614_nikkor_01.htm">http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0614_nikkor_01.htm</a></p>

<BR>

 

<p>Nikon USA Links:</p>

<ul>

<li>18-300 DX: <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2196/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-300mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR.html">http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2196/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-300mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR.html</a></li>

<li>24-85: <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2204/AF-S-NIKKOR-24-85mm-f%252F3.5-4.5G-ED-VR.html">http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2204/AF-S-NIKKOR-24-85mm-f%252F3.5-4.5G-ED-VR.html</a></li>

</ul>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>That 24-85 would be a nice match for a more compact FX body should Nikon choose to make one. Much smaller and less expensive than 24-120/4 VR. I wonder whether it's an optical improvement vs. the physically similar-looking discontinued non-VR AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5 IF ED.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Well, it has (new 24-85) two more asph elements, compared to the older version (16/11, 3 asph, 1 ED vs 15/12, 1 asph, 1 ED).<br>

It`s just a bit thicker (72 vs 67mm front thread), and a bit longer. It`s still very light and compact despite of the VR. At a first sight it looks the same. Construction must be very close.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Now, if they'd done AF-S & VR on the AF 24-85mm f2.8-4 and kept the 1:2 macro, I'd buy one.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>24-85VR probably will fit me like a glove... I quite need an FX replacement for the 16-85VR, and the 24-120VR is a tad expensive to my taste (mostly shoot primes, so the zoom does not have to be top notch everything).... Eagerly awaiting tests and streetprices on this new one.</p>

[richard_sheen]

<p>Ahhhhhhh the 18-300 really caught up my appetite...77mm filter and 0.45m focus range sounds like the ideal walkaround lens for my D7000 after I upgrade to a D800E, although I'm wondering if the actual focal of the lens when zoomed to 300mm focused to 0.45m really is 300mm, since the 70-200 is renowned for its "shrinking" focal when aimed at close targets(approx 148mm when focused at subejcts within 10 meters)</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I don't believe that it will focus to 45cm @ 300mm. Lens spec says max repro 0.32x.</p>

<p>To my understanding, those are not compatible facts... it must 'Shrink' to almost nothing!!</p>

<p>Real 300mm @ 45cm would be the most awesome macro EVER for bugs and beasties..... Sadly it can't be true :-(</p>

<p>Min Focus of 45cm from the sensor-plane @ 300mm would be a working distance of about 125mm.... 5 inches!</p>

<p><br />I checked out the Spanish LEAK and still don't believe 45cm @300mm!</p>

<p>My 300mm f4 AF-S closest focus is 1.45M with a repro of 0.27x.. go figure!</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Think on the effective aperture a 300mm f5.6 could be at 0.45m.; I think it will be shortened.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>+1 Jose !!!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Nikon's MTF for the new 24-85 VR are comparable to 24-120/4 or slightly better (especially at the long end, but then it's a 120mm vs. 85mm comparison so we will have to see how they compare at equal focal lengths, also f/4 vs. f/4.5). This is very good news as the new lens is offered at a much lower price yet offers what appears to be similar image quality, or slightly better. Personally I felt the 24-120/4 is a good, but not great lens, and priced quite high, but many people have use it and are happy with it. Still I think there is a big market for the 24-85 and it helps people adopt FX by reducing the cost of admission together with the new 28/1.8, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8.</p>

<p>Now, what Nikon needs to do, in my opinion, is offer new, affordable but high quality lenses in the medium telephoto segment, both zoom and prime. The very high quality fast telephoto lenses (with the exception of 135/2 which could use AF-S and optical improvements) are in good shape, but there is nothing between the VR 70-300 and VR 70-200/2.8 II (a big gap IMO). Many people would like a 70-200/4; high quality yet more portable. The 180/2.8 would benefit from AF-S and reduced LoCA, perhaps VR (I would use this lens a lot more if modernized), and the 300/4 AF-S would benefit from an improved tripod collar (perhaps the one used in the 70-200 II would be a good design with its removeable foot) and VR. All these lenses would be reasonably big sellers I think, as far as high end lenses go. I talked about this to a camera store employee who was knowledgeable (and seemed to be an experienced photographer) and he said that Nikon probably thinks that if someone wants that long (i.e. 300mm) and has high quality expectations, they will also want wide apertures as often the need for long is coupled with need for motion stopping and background separation. I don't disagree but there is a case to be made for portability and mobility and thanks to the high ISO capability improvements, probably now f/4 can be used for many applications which required f/2.8 in the past. I always liked the optical quality of the 300/4, even wide open. At Roland Vink's Nikon lens serial number database it seems the 300/4 AF-S hasn't outsold the 300/2.8 AF-S models by much and this suggests that Nikon may make more money from the f/2.8, which would explain their reluctance to update the 300/4. While it is optically a great lens I think its useability in the field, and when traveling, would greatly benefit from VR.</p>

<p>Anyway to summarize what I wanted to say is that the 24-85 VR appears to be a nice addition to the FX lineup and will probably sell well at that price. I hope Nikon's focus will move to telephotos next and keep the reasonable price level instead of adopting the dramatic price increases of recently introduced Canon lenses.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I think they might have been ahead to make the 24-85 a constant f4 and increased filter size to 77mm. That's more the standard size. I hate having different sized filters. Yes, I know I could use a step ring, but then you generally can't use the very critical lens hood.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>18-300 mm sounds like doctor's prescription needed to cure the NAS. ..:)</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm wondering if the actual focal of the lens when zoomed to 300mm focused to 0.45m really is 300mm, since the 70-200 is renowned for its "shrinking" focal when aimed at close targets(approx 148mm when focused at subejcts within 10 meters)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sure the focal length changes at close focus, but this is not an issue. you step, or lean, in just a teeny bit. problem solved. I've heard about this issue with zooms for years, and can't figure out why it's an issue...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think they might have been ahead to make the 24-85 a constant f4 and increased filter size to 77mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, they could have. And then the price point would be at least $200 or $300 higher. Probably not what they were after.</p>

<p>I think an affordable midrange zoom betrays the imminent arrival of a $2000-or-under FX camera, replacing either the D300 or D700 (or both).</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>The 200mm f4 macro has an almost identical min focus of 0.50m and manages 1x or life size. </p>

<p>If the new 18-300mm at the <strong>same</strong> 'close focus' of 0.50m (@300mm), manages 0.32x ........that's some shrinkage!</p>

<p>Peter H, not such as <em>issue, </em>as much an indication of the complexity of such a long zoom range monster and the effect on true focal length.</p>

<p>I wonder if the achievable 0.32x is 'located' at the 300mm end? My guess is not.</p>

<p>+1 on the new bodies! :-)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Mike, please keep in mind once again that focal length of any lens is always measured at infinity. This 18-300 zoom is definitely nowhere close to 300mm when you focus down to 0.45 meter. The 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR 2 has those "focus breathing" issues and was discussed to no end.</p>

<p>Currently the 18-200 DX verion 2 is sold around $850. With this 18-300 DX at $1000, the old lens seems to be redundant, but the 18-200 DX seems to be considerably smaller; at least the filter is smaller. So perhaps there is room for both on the market.</p>

[richard_sheen]

<p>Well, 0.45m @ 300mm sure seems a little unbelieveable...But I guess I'll think on the brighter side, we have a single lens that covers a range from 18mm to 300mm with a 77mm sized filter! Though I'm a little worried on the image quality side, better not expect it to be too great.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>For a single, symmetric lens it is impossible. A 300mm lens theoretically need 1.20 meters for its minimum focus distance, that is at 1:1.</p>

<p>In the same conditions, if the minimum focus distance is 0.45meters, the lens have to be a 112.5mm... if the reproduction ratio is 0.32x, the resulting focal lenght could be around 100mm.</p>

<p>It could happen that the minimum focus distance is not at 300mm (well, on the 18-200 it is<em>,</em> at all zoom settings). Anyway, I think at 1:3 it doesn`t matter at all if it is reached at 100, 200 or 300. The issue is at the intermediate distances.</p>

<p>I have always had the idea that this lenses are irreplaceable for those who like long trips and use to ask for 4x6" prints.</p>

[john_hinkey]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2294844">Andrew Gilchrist</a><a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 14, 2012; 12:35 a.m.</p>

 

<p>That 24-85 would be a nice match for a more compact FX body should Nikon choose to make one. Much smaller and less expensive than 24-120/4 VR. I wonder whether it's an optical <a id="itxthook1" href="../nikon-camera-forum/00aV9s" rel="nofollow">improvement</a> vs. the physically similar-looking discontinued non-VR AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5 IF ED.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Well, the MTF curves appear to show that it does have better performance than the discontinued 24-85/3.5-4.5 AFS, which I do use on my D700. I use it for a general walk around lens or for hiking/backpacking when I think wider will be more important than tele. How much it improves stopped down will be anyone's guess. VR will be a welcome addition. I've already placed an order for one and hope to have a side-by-side comparison when I get it (and who knows when that will be).</p>

<p>When I get a D800 (the D600 is maybe not the camera for me) I'll do the heretical thing ans put this lowly consumer FX lens on it, just as I've been doing with the previous version on my D700 and get perfectly wonderful images.</p>

 

[mark_drutz]

<p>I checked Nikon's website for the weight of the 18-300. It's 29.3 oz. Weight is very important to me. My D3100 with my Sigma 18-200 II OS HSM together weigh 33 oz. If I need 300mm I have my light weight and very sharp 55-300 VR so I think I'll pass.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I checked Nikon's website for the weight of the 18-300. It's 29.3 oz.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have the 28-300mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR, which is an FX lens and weights over 28 ounces; that lens also uses 77mm filters and is not compact at all. Therefore, this new 18-300mm DX is actually a bit heavier but also a bit cheaper.</p>

[hugh_sakols]

<p>I was just about to pull the trigger on a Nikon 24-70 2.8. However, I'd prefer a smaller f4 lens that still shines. I'll be curious how it performs on a d800. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Hugh, of course there is another alternative: 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR. That is a constant f4 zoom. The new lens is a slight variable from f3.5 to 4.5.</p>

<p>I am quite happy with the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR on the D800, but in the range they overlap, the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S is definitely the "better" lens. As a 5x zoom, the 24-120 has more optical compromises.</p>

[hugh_sakols]

<p>Good point Shun. I just want to make sure I pick a lens that will maximize what a d800 can do and I want something that is compact for hiking. I guess I can't have it all. <br>

PS<br>

I'm on my second day of sitting with my mom at Stanford Hospital and have too much time to obsess over glass. </p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I really like the 24-85 VR. If the D600 becomes real at a $1500 price point, I could see these two coupling to make a great FX package. I'm very interested :-)</p>