Nikon Auto focus Query

[Killwilly]

Whilst looking to purchase my first DSLR, I have read lots of reviews for most of the top brands of cameras, including, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Sony. None of the Nikon cameras below the D80 has a built-in AF motor. I have two questions, a) is this a problem and b) does it mean that lenses will be expensive?

[DHA]

Depends on what lenses you buy, the newer lenses won't be an issue but some older lenses will be. Also some of the cheaper lenses won't auto focus. The 50mm f1.8 from Nikon for example. It's not a pain if you don't mind focussing manually but with such a narrow depth of field it is difficult to get right as a newbie to SLRs. I have a D90 and my mrs has a D40, I prefer being able to auto focus with any lens.

I'm not sure if the same applies to non Nikon lenses, like Tamron or Sigma, as I haven't any experience of those. Hope that helps a bit.

[grumpy bear]

I dont think it is a case of more expensive. Higher price generally means better glass. Some of the better glass is older and will not operate without the internal AF motor. It will restrict the range of lenses you can use. I would agree with the other response I think it is worth paying the extra money for and with it comes the other features that you may not feel are important at moment but probably will be.

If you dont weant Video (I dont and never will) a secondhand D80 is a good starting point and the D300 is superb. I have two D300's and use them in all weathers. I shoot motorsport and a bit of event, portrait and weddings.

[andy-xr]

If you want AF to work on say a D40/60 with Sigma lenses you need the HSM versions

AF-S lenses are cheaper now than they used to be, even with currency fluctations taken into account. The problem is the obvious targets being the really cheap ones (55-200 @ £150) arent all that good

[RobDickinson]

Most new consumer level and expensive pro lenses (tho not some primes) will be fine.

Older consumer lenses and a lot of new or older primes wont AF.

The cheap 'nifty fifty' wont, though theres a more than decent 35mmf1.8 that will thats not too much money.

And forget about focusing manualy with the fast primes without changing the focus screen.

[Simpo Two]

Have a look at the list of Nikon-fit lenses at www.warehouseexpress.com/category/basecategory.asp... (I chose this because it's clear and comprehensive)

The lenses that will autofocus with the D40, D40x and D60 are designated 'AF-S' if Nikon and 'HSM' if by Sigma. Not sure about the other makes.

[VxDuncan]

If you see yourself only owning one lens other than the kit lens, probably not an issue, not worth the extra. If it's likely you will start buying a few other lenses, like a fast 50mm, a long prime of a fisheye, then it's probably worth considering the D90 (with is a far better camera in many other ways.

I have seven lenses - only three of them have built in AF motors - would have probably cost another £500 or so to get those with built in AF motors.

[Killwilly]

Thanks guys for you replies. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If in the future I wanted to get extra lenses, it would be better to get a camera at the offset with a built-in AF motor. I did read somewhere that if the camera and the lens both had AF motors, one could be damaged if not disabled when in use.

[Felters]

Not true.

I have a D80 and a collection of AF-S and AF lenses. Just whack 'em on the front and off you go. My camera is now near 100k exposures and has had countless lens changes. Still works fine...

[beano500]

Watcha gonna want to photograph then?

If you are shooting stuff where you'd benefit from AF-S lenses anyway, I'd start compiling your dream lens list adn then see if you haven't chosen all AF-S anyway. No big deal.

Personally I think it's a bit cheap of Nikon to be manufacturing a market by ditching the old lens screwdriver, but they do otehr Cruddy stuff like mixing SD and CF cards through the range, making battery choices harder et cetera for anyone wanting to make a progression, or even wanting a couple of bodies.

VxDuncan said:

If you see yourself only owning one lens other than the kit lens, probably not an issue, not worth the extra. If it's likely you will start buying a few other lenses, like a fast 50mm, a long prime of a fisheye, then it's probably worth considering the D90 (with is a far better camera in many other ways.

I have seven lenses - only three of them have built in AF motors - would have probably cost another £500 or so to get those with built in AF motors.

Got to agree - and I think my lens line up must be similar in numbers and type to you Duncan.

I can tell you that on something liek a D70, you would notice the difference between AF and AF-S in terms of speed, hunting et cetera. But if you go up to the Dx00 or Dy camera level, they're not so sluggish in old steam-powered-screwdrive-mode anyway.

One thing that's a real winner is, for example a 70mm-200mm or a 105mm Micro, the AF-S lets you just override the auto focus with the beautiful clutch mechanism built into the lens, or the handily placed focus lock buttons (especially the 70-200 and, I believe, all the big teles) which make them an absolute ergonomic dream to handle.... so go try and get your mits on one before you buy!

[Simpo Two]

Killwilly said:

If in the future I wanted to get extra lenses, it would be better to get a camera at the offset with a built-in AF motor. I did read somewhere that if the camera and the lens both had AF motors, one could be damaged if not disabled when in use.

News to me, and I've shot 70,000 frames where both camera and lens have motors. I prefer AF-S lenses because they focus much faster than the screw drive type - and I suspect use less battery power.

If you want to future-proof and be free to use any lens, then the D80 would seem a worthy step. Alternatively, good second-hand D200 bodies are about £500 on eBay.