Previous news story    Next news story

Nikon announces development of three 1 Nikkor lenses

By dpreview staff on Oct 24, 2012 at 11:06 GMT

Nikon has announced that it is developing three additional lenses for its 1 System mirrorless cameras. The 32mm f/1.2 will offer a classic short telephoto 'portrait' option, equivalent to an 86mm lens on the 35mm full frame format. The 6.7-13mm f/3.5-5.6 VR is an image-stabilized, 18-35mm-equivalent wideangle zoom. Finally the 10-100mm f/4-5.6 superzoom will offer a similar 27-270mm-equivalent range to Nikon's existing 1 System powerzoom, but in a smaller package with a mechanical zoom ring. Full specifications, price and release date are yet to be revealed.  


Press release:

Nikon Developing Three New 1 NIKKOR Lenses

Nikon 1 Nikkor 10-100mm f/4-5.6, 32mm f/1.2, and 6.7-13mm f/3.5-5.6

London, UK, 24th October 2012 Nikon today announced the development of three new 1 NIKKOR lenses to further expand the line-up of options for the Nikon 1 compact system cameras.

The new lenses being developed are a 32mm*1 medium-telephoto fixed focal length lens with a fast maximum aperture of f/1.2 optimal for portraits exhibiting significant background blur or bokeh; a vibration-reduction (VR) equipped 6.7-13mm*2 f/3.5-5.6 ultra-wide-angle zoom lens that is the first 1 NIKKOR lens to offer a 100° angle of view; and a compact and lightweight 10x zoom lens covering the 10-100mm*3 range of focal lengths with maximum apertures of f/4-5.6, making it a lens that is convenient and portable enough to take anywhere.

Jordi Brinkman, Product Manager, Nikon 1 Compact System Cameras, Nikon Europe says: “The Nikon 1 is now the biggest selling system in its category in Europe*4 and the compact nature of the 1 NIKKOR lenses is a key part of the Nikon 1 advantage – portability, power, speed and quality. The development of these three new lenses will be strongly welcomed within the Nikon 1 community.”

The current 1 NIKKOR line-up consists of the 1 NIKKOR VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom lens released last year; the 1 NIKKOR VR 30-110mm f/3.8-5.6 compact telephoto zoom lens; the 1 NIKKOR 10mm f/2.8 slim wide-angle fixed focal length lens; the 1 NIKKOR VR 10-100mm f/4.5-5.6 PD-ZOOM lens equipped with a power drive mechanism and recommended for movie recording; the 1 NIKKOR 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 2.5x normal zoom lens; and the 1 NIKKOR 18.5mm f/1.8 fixed focal length lens with fast maximum aperture. The addition of the three new lenses will bring the total lineup to nine.

Nikon will continue to develop lenses that make the most of the capabilities and performance offered by the Nikon 1 system.

An on-sale date, suggested retail price and further specifications will be announced by Nikon Corporation at a later date.


*1 Equivalent to 86.4mm in 35-mm [135]format
*2 Equivalent to 18-35mm in 35-mm [135] format
*3 Equivalent to 27-270mm in 35-mm [135] format
*4 GfK market research identified NIKON 1 the best-selling compact camera system in Europe for 2012 YTD.

Comments

Total comments: 76
JP Scherrer
By JP Scherrer (Jan 1, 2013)

Since I bought the Nikon J1 and the V1, I've been waiting for a "real street-shooting" wide-angle lens ! Now, when will Nikon put that 6.7-13mm. on the shelves ???

0 upvotes
lightpainterx
By lightpainterx (Dec 9, 2012)

The 1 system's main advantages are compactness and uses that would benefit from maximizing depth of field for example macro and long telephoto work. Therefore a longer telephoto lens and a lifesize or greater than lifesize macro would make strong additions to the lens lineup.

0 upvotes
garyknrd
By garyknrd (Nov 4, 2012)

As a Canon shooter I am ready to take the plunge with Nikon. Canon is stagnant in the sensor department and Nikon and Sony are kicking it big time.
I am going to wait one more year for lenses and one more camera update. Then I am there.
Great job, Nikon

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 2, 2013)

why would you want to downgrade from apsc to this?

0 upvotes
Slabs
By Slabs (Oct 30, 2012)

Hey, as a keen bird & wildlife photographer, all I need to take the plunge to one of the compact system cameras, is a fairly decent zoom lens with a reasonable range of ~35 to 600mm (35mm equivalent) or thereabouts.
Is that too much to ask?
In the same vein, why haven't the 3rd party manufacturers like Sigma & Tamron not come to the party yet?

0 upvotes
Dodi73
By Dodi73 (Oct 26, 2012)

Hmmm
I think they should come out not only with primes but - given the compact size - also with a fast zoom (think of a 9-36 f/2.8 VR or a 9-50 f/4 VR): those would sell a lot. I think the camera might also have a very good potential but please, don't couple it again with those f/3.5-5.6 zooms again !!! Here lenses are compact enough not to bother about lens size! (not if Nikon expects people to mount on V2 also huge FF prime lenses and zooms, I mean)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Oct 27, 2012)

you call CX 9-36 f/2.8 a fast zoom? then what will you call a FX 25-98 f/7.6? they are exactly the same lens only in different expressions.

I would like to have more than 20x superzooms at less than f/2.0 F-numbers (f/5.6 equiv.).

0 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (Oct 27, 2012)

Hmm...let's see..aperture measurements only effect depth of field in yabokkie's on crack world.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Oct 27, 2012)

nothing is left behind. looking at the output image, everything affected by aperture, you name it, are exactly the same at the same apture (or equivalent F-number).

0 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (Oct 31, 2012)

A functional measurement for the maximum amount light expressed as an 'f' value for a lens is the same and not dependent on sensor size. The effects on depth of field is different depending on sensor size.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Oct 25, 2012)

Okay, SOLD. I'll buy all three of these lame offerings for 300 bucks total. Deal, Nikon?

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 26, 2013)

Keep dreaming. And you know they are lame how, exactly?

Besides, name some other f1.2 portrait lenses for MILCs. Cricket, cricket...

0 upvotes
rtogog
By rtogog (Oct 25, 2012)

I like to hear Nikon try to be consistent to develop lens for their Nikon 1 series. The main problem, they can not make small (compact) lenses for this kind of camera. It is a bit annoying, their sensor is smaller than APS.C or M4/3 series, but their lenses size are not much difference.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
xtoph
By xtoph (Oct 24, 2012)

If they produced a fast and small 12mm lens for this system i would buy in--at this point it offers some impressive capabilities. F/1.4 or even 1.8 would be enough, though it would be really impressive to make something faster.

A 50-equivalent would also be nice of course, but then you would also need something like a 28 equivalent. Simpler to split the difference... Or just go all-in and make the three. Okay, that isnt likely.

0 upvotes
kwengca
By kwengca (Oct 25, 2012)

They recently came out with a 50mm equiv. It's a 18.5mm f1.8 for 187 buckos. It'll be released the first of the nov.

0 upvotes
JohnCarolan
By JohnCarolan (Oct 25, 2012)

Agree a fast 12mm 1 series lens would be a nice option.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Oct 25, 2012)

35/2 is a popular standard prime for 35mm format.
for Nikon 1, a 12/0.73 should be able to do the same.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Oct 25, 2012)

Nikon 1-series lenses make Micro 4/3 lenses seem like the cat's miaw.

0 upvotes
Zeissone
By Zeissone (Oct 24, 2012)

Will Zeiss ever produce any lenses for this strange format ? Think not.

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Oct 25, 2012)

probably not, but i heard leica and hasselblad will do it

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Oct 25, 2012)

whatever the format, Zeiss simply cannot compete with Japanese.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Oct 24, 2012)

for Nikon 1, the lens factor is 30/11. multiply this factor with both
the focal length and F-number and you get 35mm format equivalent.
- 27.3-273mm f/10.9-15.3
- 87.3mm f/3.3
- 18.3-35.5mm f/9.5-15.3

1 upvote
zkz5
By zkz5 (Oct 24, 2012)

Depends on which full frame camera you're talking about. They do not all have 2.7 stops better high ISO performance.

0 upvotes
kwengca
By kwengca (Oct 25, 2012)

@zkz5 What does that have to do with anything?

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Oct 25, 2012)

Some people claim that the noise difference between two cameras is proportional to their sensor size, and therefore, equally different f stops on each camera are effectively the same.

i.e. you can increase the larger camera's ISO by that amount and get the same result with the correspondingly slower f stop.

0 upvotes
Bart Hickman
By Bart Hickman (Oct 25, 2012)

Nikon's full frame cameras are about 3 stops better ISO, so it works out about right. The DR difference is also about 3 stops.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Oct 25, 2012)

there is nothing to do with the sensor, the calculation is purely a lens one. though the sensor does affect the final output but that's totally another part of the story.

0 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Oct 25, 2012)

Well exposure wise the f-stops you gave are much darker.

0 upvotes
Bart Hickman
By Bart Hickman (Oct 26, 2012)

zkz5, only if you set the two cameras to the same ISO, but ISO also must be scaled with sensor size to get a comparable picture. The whole point of a judging the value of a lens is to determine at what shutter speed do I achieve a particular level of noise. A FF camera at F/8 has the same low light capabilities as, say, an m43 camera at F/4. DOF is the same. noise is the same (ISO on FF is 4x higher). Shutter speed is the same. DR is the same. Diffraction is the same. Everything is the same. This is why F-number and F/L must *both* be scaled when you're making a judgement on the comparative value proposition between two cameras with different sensor sizes.

It's also why, IMO, it's incredibly misleading when reviewers compare the 70-200 F/2.8 on FF to the 35-100 F/2.8 on m43 as though they are somehow equivalent. The former lens is in a completely different (and much higher) league in terms of capabilities.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
zkz5
By zkz5 (Oct 26, 2012)

Bart, here's some samples right off of DPR, N1 vs the current full frame Nikons:

N1 ISO 1600 vs FF ISO 6400:
http://imgur.com/QVTkx

N1 ISO 1600 vs FF ISO 12800:
http://imgur.com/8VVIE

To me the N1 looks slightly cleaner when they're at 12800 and cleaner than the D800 when it is at 6400.

The full frame cameras are clearly better, but I'm not seeing a clear cut difference based on sensor size.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Oct 27, 2012)

btw, ISO scales square-lens-factor.
CX's lens factor is 30/11, then
ISO 1600 * (30/11)^2 = 11900 (about s/a 12800)
the calculation is perfect for perfect sensors.

some error for real-world sensors but not much.
most errors come from two sources
(1) makers cook (NR) the images differently
(2) people don't know how to compare.

0 upvotes
Bart Hickman
By Bart Hickman (Oct 27, 2012)

zkz5, you have to normalize for the difference in resolution (in this case, that means low pass filter and shrink the D800 image.) Basically, you must compare where they two cameras have equal amounts of detail. Going from the dpreview comparison, it's easy to argue the D800 has more detail at 12800 than the V1 has at 1600. This also agrees with the DxO ISO scores which show around 3 stops difference.

0 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Oct 27, 2012)

I don't know exactly how I should do that low pass filter, but I scaled down the D800 to the same resolution as the V1/J1 sample, and this is what I came up with:

http://i.imgur.com/jbMNj.jpg

0 upvotes
Bart Hickman
By Bart Hickman (Oct 28, 2012)

I used Adobe Camera Raw and converted images from each so the amount of NR would be comparable, then used Photoshop to downsize them (which does some LPF--although not quite perfect). They're incredibly close IMO, but I think the V1 image is slightly better and this would correspond to the fact we're expecting a 2.7 stop difference. I think this illustrates my point, give or take. Of course the DxO results are more scientific and agree with this analysis. Don't forget the D800 is still crippled by having to throw away information for the sake of this comparison.

The left is the V1, right is the D800
http://bhimages.zenfolio.com/img/s4/v64/p1225773258.jpg

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Oct 29, 2012)

What do you mean so the amount of NR would be comparable? Both of the images in mine have noticeable color noise where as there's basically none in either of yours. I take it you did NR in software where as the samples I used had none.

Even still, looking at the black areas in yours I see significantly more brightness noise in the D800 sample.

I know DxO says that, I just don't see actual images that do.

0 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Oct 29, 2012)

Also, DXOMark claims the best medium format camera in their database (IQ180) has worse high ISO performance than even older APS-C cameras like the Nikon D90. If ISO scales according to sensor size in any way, why isn't the IQ180's score far ahead of the D90?

0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Oct 24, 2012)

I look forward to the wide angle zoom, but still want a 18mm f/1.8 normal lens.
The new 10-100 is a lot smaller, but lacks VR. It should hit the streets with a much lower price.

0 upvotes
Retzius
By Retzius (Oct 24, 2012)

I find it amazing and sickening that Nikon already has three fast primes for the unproven 1 system and 12 years later we only have one for Nikon's best selling DX system that basically keeps the company afloat.

4 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Oct 24, 2012)

There are 2 dedicated DX primes of which one is gold ringed: 35mm and 10.5mm. For any longer focal lengths (50mm and 85mm) it makes no sense to make a dedicated DX prime as the FX version will work better and they are pretty small to begin with.

Basically you can use the following inexpensive, compact primes on a DX system:
- 10.5mm f/2.8
- 28mm f/1.8
- 35mm f/1.8
- 50mm f/1.4
- 85mm f/1.8

And we should be seeing a 24mm or wider DX prime released together with the next batch of DX cameras.

2 upvotes
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (Oct 24, 2012)

Well Nikon have been on something of a roll recently - look at the stupid mistakes Canon (my fav brand) has been making for ages - you've got a really good point - but clearly Nikon see the (c**p) 1 series as a cash cow and haven't yet given up on it....everyone makes mistakes !

1 upvote
Matthew Jardine Photography
By Matthew Jardine Photography (Oct 24, 2012)

Mike99999, I hope you're right about the 24mm DX prime - I have been waiting for that one for years! Any details? Probably f/2 or f/2.8?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Oct 27, 2012)

an FX 35/2 equivalent on DX will be 24/1.3. it may be a bit more expensive because of the back-focus, which is not an issue for NEX or EF-M.

I would like to pay 400 some US for a DX 24/1.4,
or I can just use (better a new) 35/2 on D800.

0 upvotes
facedodge
By facedodge (Oct 24, 2012)

According to this depth of field calculator,(http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) the 32 f/1.2 will have a dof of .77 Feet.

This is equivalent to an 85mm lens on full frame set to f/3.2 which has a dof of .78 feet. (At f2.8 the dof is .7 feet)

This is still very good and should be produce excellent results... Especially in low light as the advantage of f/1.2 is maintained in terms of exposure/shutter speed.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Oct 24, 2012)

Nikon 1 is 2.7x crop, so 32/1.2 about equal to 85/3.2 as you state, much easier to figure out just by multiplying the f/stop by the crop factor though. Lets hope they price it accordingly :)

1 upvote
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Oct 24, 2012)

What is the subject distance?
It's true that this lens gives f3.2 FF equiv.
Which IMHO when used for half body portraits will give a distracting half blurred background. Better use it to headshot people.

0 upvotes
Nerval
By Nerval (Oct 24, 2012)

Hum... No, you don't multiply the f number by the crop factor...

A 50 mm 1.2 FF lens would make a 75 mm 1.2 aps-c lens and a 100 mm 1.2 four thirds lens... equivalent to the FF (135 format).

So this 32 mm f 1.2 would simply offer the same angle of view as an 85mm, but f1.2 is and remains 1.2, If you need 1/125 of a second for an exposure on FF with a 85mm wide open (at 1.2), then you will need the same obturation time with the 32mm.

Only the depth of field (area in focus) will be more important for the 1 32mm lens than for the FF 85 mm lens... As facedodge wrote you would need to close the aperture to 3.2 to get the same DOF on FF.

Don't really care for technics but Viking79 post seemed misleading.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Marc Rogoff
By Marc Rogoff (Oct 24, 2012)

Depends how well it shoots wide open...how sharp and how much drop off...?

0 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (Oct 24, 2012)

Nerval wrote: "Only the depth of field (area in focus) will be more important for the 1 32mm lens than for the FF 85 mm lens... As facedodge wrote you would need to close the aperture to 3.2 to get the same DOF on FF."

Not sure what your argument is, since it is precisely the DOF that facedodge and viking79 were talking about and not the angle of view. Here is the first line from OP's (facedodge) post:
"According to this depth of field calculator[...]".

3 upvotes
LKJ
By LKJ (Oct 24, 2012)

Nerval: F1.2 has the same shutter speed regardless of format only because different formats have different gain on their sensors. If you set the ISO on the FF camera so that it is still 1/125 at f3.2 you'll get the same amount of image noise, all other things being equal.

That's what people mean when they say the aperture should be multiplied as well.

1 upvote
Rooru S
By Rooru S (Oct 26, 2012)

Ok Nerval. Facedodge was talking about DOF equivalent. Light transmission is the same, all we agree but DOF changes as we change sensor size.

0 upvotes
Nerval
By Nerval (Nov 30, 2012)

Yeah I just said because I thought it was misleading. I did not understand clearly if he was talking about DOF...

Weird as it may be I already met people thinking that f2 in FF was equal to f2.8 in APSC they multiplied not only the focal length but the transmission as well...

Transmission wise it is the same. It has nothing ado with sensor gain. At best with sensor size (the mount and flange distance obviously would require bigger piece of glass) but still 1.2 is 1.2 if you put a light meter behind the lens you'll get the same reading (for a given area of proportionate size on the focal plane given the flange)

So that's it that was no argument, just the statement seemed, to me, unclear.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Oct 24, 2012)

Nikon 1 system will be attractive with compact and fast fixed lenses. But...Only 32/1.2 is interesting...

2 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Oct 24, 2012)

Great they just announced the development of future lenses for a camera system that has already been abandoned. The 1 series cameras were just a test bed for their newer AF systems. They never intended for the format to succeed because the real money is in their DSLRs.

I doubt we will ever actually see these lenses hit the shelves. Nikon will can the format before then.

2 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (Oct 24, 2012)

You're a marketing genius. lol

Comment edited 8 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
CollBaxter
By CollBaxter (Oct 24, 2012)

Caning = New body release ? Ieeeeeeesh

0 upvotes
Griffo 155
By Griffo 155 (Oct 24, 2012)

This is exciting news with the additions to the series 1 lens Stable... The 6.7-13mm has caught my eye!

Why all the negative comments...

2 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (Oct 24, 2012)

"Why all the negative comments..."

Let's see, if Nikon announced the development for their FF line of the following lenses:

27 - 270 mm f/11-15
18 - 35 mm f/9.5 - 15

Would you find them exciting?

8 upvotes
vtinitus
By vtinitus (Oct 24, 2012)

Well, autofocus-capable max f11 lenses might at least be intersting from a design point of view ;)

0 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Oct 24, 2012)

"Let's see, if Nikon announced the development for their FF line of the following lenses:

27 - 270 mm f/11-15
18 - 35 mm f/9.5 - 15"

And they did nothing of the sort.

0 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Oct 24, 2012)

Could have sworn I posted an image comparison here about this equivalence nonsense... oh well, you can't dispute actual photos so just bang on the "Flag as inappropriate" link until it goes away.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Oct 27, 2012)

> they did nothing of the sort.

they do everything exactly the same.
you can see it in all the photo's,
you can prove it using basic physics, and
you cannot break it becasue it's the law of the God/nature.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Oct 24, 2012)

The new 10-100 is without image stabilization! Are they planning to add IBIS in the future bodies or what? How useful this 270 mm equivalent at f/5.6 at best without any IS, and with inferior Aptina 1" high ISO?

0 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (Oct 24, 2012)

Probably just a cheap kit lens.

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Oct 24, 2012)

It does start to look like they're planning to add IBIS...

0 upvotes
Apteryx6
By Apteryx6 (Oct 24, 2012)

How useful is their 300mm f4 without VR?

In the 1 system they already had a 10-100mm with VR (and power zoom) and a 30-110 with VR amongst their initial 4 lenses. I was wondering why they were introdicing another 10-100mm lens, but now it is clear - it is for anyone who wants to reduce weight and cost to an absolute minimum while maximising IQ (for a 10X zoom) and lens durability and is prepared to sacrifice VR to do it

0 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Oct 24, 2012)

So...will the 32 f/1.2 priced like a FF 85 1.2?

4 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (Oct 24, 2012)

Of course not.

2 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Oct 24, 2012)

Hope so...
IF Olympus made it, it'll definitely be priced as a 85mm 1.2 LOL
But regardless, this lens will be very expensive.

2 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Oct 24, 2012)

I expect it to be priced similarly to the 28mm f/1.8 with nano coating or the 85mm f/1.8. Somewhere around $600 would be my guess.

1 upvote
Mattoid
By Mattoid (Oct 24, 2012)

Announcing the DEVELOPMENT? Anyone can do that! They don't even have to release them for the statement to be true. I can personally announce today that I am developing a medium format compact camera with a 16-800mm f1.0 stabilized zoom lens that weighs only 150g and fits in a shirt pocket.

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Oct 24, 2012)

What you're missing here, perhaps, is that Nikon won't announce the development of a lens they don't fully intend to deliver. Conceptually this announcement isn't so different to the lens 'roadmaps' offered by other manufacturers.

7 upvotes
Archer66
By Archer66 (Oct 25, 2012)

I thought that DPR does not post development announcements.
Andy, does "Because at the moment it's a development announcement only." sound familiar ?

0 upvotes
bibi0012
By bibi0012 (Nov 18, 2012)

I am glad to hear what Nikon plans for 1 system. I don't like to guess what Nikon will offer next and be disappointed.

0 upvotes
whtchocla7e
By whtchocla7e (Oct 24, 2012)

Bravo Nikon. The world needs more useless zooms..

2 upvotes
Bjorn_L
By Bjorn_L (Oct 24, 2012)

Those are not useless on the 1-series. That system has very few lenses unless you use the adapter to attach conventional DX & FX lenses to it. The 6.7-13mm is the ONLY wide angle avaialble for the system. The 10-100 I guess is smaller and more suited to that size body. And the 32mm f/1.2 is not a zoom but a prime.

11 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Oct 24, 2012)

not useless. less usable it is, but more portable.

1 upvote
Total comments: 76