Rumor: Nikon to Announce a 35mm f/1.8G Full-Frame Lens at CES


Nikon already makes a 35mm f/1.8G DX lens but the equivalent isn’t available for its full-frame cameras, at least not yet. At this point, if you want a 35mm FX lens for your Nikon, you’re stuck spending $1,600+ on the f/1.4, but that might all change in a couple of weeks at CES.

According to Nikon Rumors, the Japanese camera company has a 35mm f/1.8G FX lens primed for announcement at the trade show that starts January 7th. Chances are the announcement will go live on the first day, when most major announcements are made, so be sure to check back then for further details if this rumor ends up panning out.

NR haven’t gotten their hands on any pricing or availability info just yet, but we’re guessing it’ll be somewhere between $500 (the amount you’ll pay for the 85mm f/1.8G) and $700. Any more and people will probably opt to grab Sigma’s $900 35mm f/1.4 instead.

(via Nikon Rumors)

Image credits: Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX by Michele M.F.

  • frod

    Why would FX users grab a DX zoom? I would expect the price to fall between the 28mm and 50mm F/1.8G lenses.

  • Sean Lucky

    Why would people move into the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 if they have a full frame camera? And if they have a crop camera, then wouldn’t they just get the DX lens?

  • fast eddie

    “Any more and people will probably opt to grab Sigma’s $800 18-35mm f/1.8 instead.”

    That’s not a real alternative for FX, that lens is for APS-C sensors.

  • Trent Levitt

    Get the old 35mm f/2 D. Awesome lens.

  • AQ

    But Sigma’s 18-35 1.8 is a DX lens

  • DLCade

    Sorry folks, had a brain fart. Meant to say the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and somehow got the 18-35mm f/1.8 in my head. It’s been fixed.

  • DLCade

    Sorry folks, I had a brain fart. I meant to say the $900 Sigma 35mm f/1.4 but I had the 18-35mm f/1.8 on the brain. Thanks to everyone that pointed out the mistake! It’s been fixed :)

  • fast eddie

    I plan on getting the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. If I wanted an FX 35mm lens from Nikon, I’d get the f/2 D, as mentioned above. $1,600 for the 35mm 1.4 G is craaaaaaazy.

  • SAS


  • JReagan

    Why would it be more expensive than the 85 1.8g? I would assume it would fall somewhere between the 50 1.8g and the 85 1.8g. If they decide to charge $700 for it I will just stick to using the 35 1.8 DX lens on my FX and crop my images, the vignetting isn’t so bad that I would drop $700 to get rid of it.

  • bob cooley

    It’s an ‘okay’ lens – I’ve had 2 copies of it over the last 15 or so years.
    If you are shooting on DX, its pretty good,; but on Full Frame sensors, its pretty soft in the corners with a lot of vignetting.

    The whole point of an ultrafast lens is the ability to use it wide open either for shooting in less light or for extremely shallow depth of field; this lens is only a adequate performer wide open on FX sensors, and with sensors that need a lot of resolving power anything over 24mp) its an under-performer.

    It’s not a horrible lens, but its long overdue for an upgrade, and AF-S would be a welcome addition (faster focus).

    The one real beauty of the 35 f/2 is the size – hopefully the new 1.8 will be able to retain some of the smaller form factor…

  • Will Mederski

    I don’t really understand the attraction of the AF-S (S-wave) lenses.
    They’re build quality is seems less than the earlier models, Auto-Focus is slower, and they tend to be twice the price, or more, than the D / non-S models they replace.

    Maybe for sports? Or folks that are constantly focusing, then tweaking focus?
    But then they are noticeably slower to focus in the first place…

  • Andy Umbo

    Nikon could insure it’s survival by just building 24mm, and 35mm f/2.8 “G” series lenses, with an APS-C only 16mm f/2.8 “G” series thrown in…I know photographers that finally dumped their Nikon stuff and changed to Canon just to get small wide simple primes in the f/2.8 format. Nikon, quit messing around with all this other crap until you complete a decent “G” series lens line. Those ‘shaft-drive’ auto-focus lenses in the “D” series, are really old and marginal tech, and you’re STILL making them and offering them, but no “G’s”.

  • DX = entry/mid-level mom gear

    most DX people don’t buy multiple lenses. FX people do, that’s why we get the lenses. just because you are cheap and dreaming doesn’t mean nikon should do what you say. and lol at you canon comment. Serious aps-c prime shooters have been on Pentax for years, all 200 of them, lol. you see how well having small aps-c primes did Pentax. shut your mouth you cheap idiot.

  • templebox

    Not every af-s lens is faster zoom, the the 50 1.4D and 1.8D focus faster on most bodies than the AF-S equivalents

  • bob cooley

    Fair enough, I’d still like to see a better optical performer, though.

  • Andy Umbo

    This person obviously doesn’t know anything about professional photography. Plenty of well known sports photographers using APS-C to get the additional bump in focal length. BTW, Canon outsells Nikon to professional photographers 16 to 1. Pentax, altho a fine camera, isn’t even in the running for professional usage. Your ‘flame’ language is a nice gauge of your IQ. Delightful!

  • Tiny

    DX is an idiot, not Umbo. Pros have been using APS-C for years, especially for travel, and a lot are changing over to M4/3rd’s. Tell all the mag photographers that have been using the Nikon D300s for years that they’re not professionals…

  • Jake

    As a non-professional DX shooter who uses Nikon because of their availability and quality, and has multiple lenses because I don’t make money from photography and therefor don’t want to invest thousands of dollars on pro gear, but still wants to use my SLR to its maximum capability, I say to you “shut up.”

  • DX = childs play

    you are cheap, you get what you pay for. photography is not for cheap/poor people. i bet you have a drawer full of bower adapter lenses. stink lol in your face.

  • Spiders in my Urethra

    It’s not just the focusing. The AF-S designs have better contrast and edge sharpness than their predecessors across the board. As well, I’ve noticed smoother bokeh (both 50s and both 85s), greater flare resistance (18-35) and more consistent quality control.

  • Jake

    Well enjoy the Ferarri I’m sure you drive and…oh actually, you’re seriously not even worth an argument.

  • Photobro

    I dont understand this, whats the point? I have a 400$ 50 1.4 on on my Canon right now. Its amazing btw. I would be really mad if I was a Nikon shooter right now

  • dfgdsg

    the Canon EF50 1.4 is 400$. DX or FX it sucks to be a Nikon shotter at all in the 50 primes i guess. The Canon 50 1.2 is god like as well. How good is Nikons 50 1.2? Oh nvm they dont have one.

  • ownedyoubtch

    show me a link to your portfolio

  • affr

    Yeah… Nikon does.. i own one. It’s a 1981 lens though, and kind of expensive. 50mm 1.2 AIS.

  • affr

    don’t understand the ego..

  • affr

    totally.. (i’ve got that Sigma, and it’s.. yeah.. )

  • Eldorado

    Sigma 35mm 1.4 is a FX lens, the sharpest lens right now on the market. Sigma 18-35 1.8 is DX lens. She did not mention that one

  • Sean Lucky

    If you read the rest of the comments you’ll see that the article originally did mention the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8. I believe it was a typo that has since been fixed.

  • flightofbooks

    you don’t understand the difference between 50mm and 35mm? ok.

  • flightofbooks

    Petapixel’s writers once again prove they have no idea what they’re talking about, forgetting that Nikon has had an fx compatible 35mm f2.0 in their catalog for 25 years. It currently sells for around $360.