Nikon 10-18mm f/4 G ED N

[jpeyton]

Text

That's a mighty impressive pair of Photoshopped images if those are fake.

Interestingly, there is no "DX" marking on the lens. If it's really FX, that would set some kind of record, no? Sigma makes a 12-24mm rectilinear FX zoom, which is the widest on the market right now. Nikon already makes a 12-24mm f/4 DX zoom.

People have been asking Nikon for f/4 FX zooms for a long time now.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I'd prefer a FF ultrawide with f/2.8. Or even a DX ultrawide at f/2.8 that's weathersealed. f/2.8 telezoom weathersealed? Check. f/2.8 normal zoom weathersealed? Check. f/2.8 ultrawide weathersealed? Nope.

 

[Deadtrees]

If it's FX lens, that really is something!

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
I'd prefer a FF ultrawide with f/2.8. Or even a DX ultrawide at f/2.8 that's weathersealed. f/2.8 telezoom weathersealed? Check. f/2.8 normal zoom weathersealed? Check. f/2.8 ultrawide weathersealed? Nope.

Nikon doesn't have any sort of competitor for Canon's 16-35 f/2.8? As much of a hot seller as it is, that's kinda surprising.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
f/2.8 ultrawide weathersealed? Nope.

Isn't that what the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 is?

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
I'd prefer a FF ultrawide with f/2.8. Or even a DX ultrawide at f/2.8 that's weathersealed. f/2.8 telezoom weathersealed? Check. f/2.8 normal zoom weathersealed? Check. f/2.8 ultrawide weathersealed? Nope.

Nikon doesn't have any sort of competitor for Canon's 16-35 f/2.8? As much of a hot seller as it is, that's kinda surprising.

That's one of the Nikon 'king' lenses, as some people call them. The 'three kings' traditionally contains a wide zoom, a standard zoom, and a telephoto zoom; the defining characteristic is a large constant aperture. Canon and Nikon both make these lenses because they are the workhorse lenses for photojournalists.

The kings tend to go by generation.
Gen1 (mid-1990's):
- wideangle: AF 20-35mm f/2.8D (1993)
- standard: AF 35-70mm f/2.8D (1992)
- telephoto: AF 80-200mm f/2.8D (1996)

Gen2 (late-1990's):
- wideangle: AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D (1999)
- standard: AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8D (1999)
- telephoto: AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8D (1998)

Gen3 (current):
- wideangle: AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G (2007)
- standard: AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G (2007)
- telephoto: AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR (2003)

Some consider the AF-S 200-400mm f/4 VR to be a fourth king, but I would lump that in with the other telephoto primes as an exotic (I've only seen one once, mounted to an F5 of all things).

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
f/2.8 ultrawide weathersealed? Nope.

Isn't that what the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 is?

True. But it's a tad long for APS-C cameras. Certainly not in the same league as 11-16mm and the like.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
I'd prefer a FF ultrawide with f/2.8. Or even a DX ultrawide at f/2.8 that's weathersealed. f/2.8 telezoom weathersealed? Check. f/2.8 normal zoom weathersealed? Check. f/2.8 ultrawide weathersealed? Nope.

The Tokina 11-16 is the only f/2.8 UWA for crop-sensor cameras as far as I know.
Neither the Canon 10-22 or Nikon 12-24 are weather-sealed (or f/2.8 for that matter).
You've got the 11-16, so no need to complain as long as you keep it out of the shower


But wow, this new Nikon lens is very impressive if it's FF compatible.

This would be a new world record, both for the widest rectilinear DSLR lens and the fastest. The only other lens that even comes close to the zoom range of this is the Sigma 12-24 f/4-5.6 (for FF).

Of course, with specs like 10-18mm and f/4 constant aperture, I'd venture to say that this Nikon will cost at least $2000.