«

"Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On 4 Nov 2006 10:31:28 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "tomm42"
> <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> I don't know if it's real or not, but anything is possible.
>>>
>>> And since most users who would buy a deficient D40, are not interested
>>> in buying a lot of lenses. Chances are good they would use the 18-55
>>> kit lense only which is AF-S. Some might want a cheap telephoto zoom
>>> like the 55-200 which is also AF-S, and would likely be offered in a
>>> two-lense kit like the D50.
>>>
>>> That would cover their needs and be inexpensive, which is the audience
>>> where the D40 would seem to be targeted.
>>
>>Yes all Nikon kit lenses are AF-S, saves a lot of money not putting a
>>motor and screw drive mechanism in the camera. But it also cuts using
>>some of Nikon's best lenses, the macros, 80-200, 180 f2.8 for starters.
>
> Limits you on the wide end as well. I opted for the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 DX
> AF vs the Nikon AF-S at considerably greater expense.
> --
> Ed Ruf ()
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html

I have the Tokina 12-24mm also. I use it on my D200, and it is a sweet lens
for half the price of Nikon's.

Bill Crocker

tomm42 wrote:
>> This is a beginner's DSLR. Most of Nikon's consumer lenses are AF-S,
>> and Sigma and Tamron make compatible lenses. But most of the people
>> who buy a camera like this will buy one lens only. They will never
>> change lenses again.
>
> This is what Nikon is thinking, most D40 owners will buy the 18-55 and
> maybe the 55-200, both lower grade lenses. This is to separate the
> camera lines. Want to use the 60 micro, get a D80, I would expect the
> D40 to have a porro-mirror viewfinder anyway, which is crap for macro.
> If you want a cheap body buy a D50 while you can (still have the
> mirror viewfinder though).
>
> Tom

If I were to get a D40, I would want the 18 - 200mm IS. I would never
buya lens without IS again. On the other hand, the D80 does look nice!

David

In article <>,
Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:

> JR <> writes:
> > Yes it is to save money with no motor in the body, use the motor in the
> > lens....You can get just about every good lens Nikon makes in an AF-S
> > version
>
> What?! How about the good old 50/1.8? 60mm Micro? 180/2.8? These
> are lenses that a D40 buyer could very well want. But even the newest
> and fanciest lenses are not always AFS, e.g. the 80-400 VR.

All those are primes....most if not all interested in this camera would
want zooms...they are coming from P&S and want more flexibility....If
you are more serious about photography, you get a D80. Thats the line
Nikon has drawn in the sand....Also with the new 105 VR macro lens out,
it looks like Nikon will start reworking their primes, so you may very
well see AFS primes very soon.

JR

JR <> writes:
> > > Yes it is to save money with no motor in the body, use the motor in the
> > > lens....You can get just about every good lens Nikon makes in an AF-S
> > > version
> >
> > What?! How about the good old 50/1.8? 60mm Micro? 180/2.8? These
> > are lenses that a D40 buyer could very well want. But even the newest
> > and fanciest lenses are not always AFS, e.g. the 80-400 VR.
>
> All those are primes....most if not all interested in this camera would
> want zooms...they are coming from P&S and want more flexibility....

But in that case it's not about the "good" lenses, it's about the
consumer ones. For example, The 70-300 G is not AFS.

> If you are more serious about photography, you get a D80. Thats the
> line Nikon has drawn in the sand....

I think I'd go for the D50. Yeah the D80's viewfinder and LCD are
nicer but I can't see paying 2x as much for that.

> Also with the new 105 VR macro lens out, it looks like Nikon will
> start reworking their primes, so you may very well see AFS primes
> very soon.

Interesting. A 50/1.4 AF-S VR would be quite nice.

In article <>,
Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:

> JR <> writes:
> > > > Yes it is to save money with no motor in the body, use the motor in the
> > > > lens....You can get just about every good lens Nikon makes in an AF-S
> > > > version
> > >
> > > What?! How about the good old 50/1.8? 60mm Micro? 180/2.8? These
> > > are lenses that a D40 buyer could very well want. But even the newest
> > > and fanciest lenses are not always AFS, e.g. the 80-400 VR.
> >
> > All those are primes....most if not all interested in this camera would
> > want zooms...they are coming from P&S and want more flexibility....
>
> But in that case it's not about the "good" lenses, it's about the
> consumer ones. For example, The 70-300 G is not AFS.

If this AF-S only feature is true, then I suspect that the 70-300 G will
be updated with AF-S shortly, if not when they announce the D40.

tomm42 wrote:
> > This is a beginner's DSLR. Most of Nikon's consumer lenses are AF-S,
> > and Sigma and Tamron make compatible lenses. But most of the people who
> > buy a camera like this will buy one lens only. They will never change
> > lenses again.
>
> This is what Nikon is thinking, most D40 owners will buy the 18-55 and
> maybe the 55-200, both lower grade lenses. This is to separate the
> camera lines. Want to use the 60 micro, get a D80, I would expect the
> D40 to have a porro-mirror viewfinder anyway, which is crap for macro.
> If you want a cheap body buy a D50 while you can (still have the mirror
> viewfinder though).

I am not buying the idea of the D40 being the D50 replacement. I
suspect we will have the D50 around for awhile longer. Heck, we still
have the D70s around.

"THO" <> wrote in message
news:tho-...
>
>> But in that case it's not about the "good" lenses, it's about the
>> consumer ones. For example, The 70-300 G is not AFS.
>
> If this AF-S only feature is true, then I suspect that the 70-300 G
> will
> be updated with AF-S shortly, if not when they announce the D40.

The 70-300 is not the lense D40 users would be interested in buying.
They would be looking at the cheaper 55-200 lense as it has what they
need.

However, a few might want more, and Nikon has already announced the
model to compete against a similar offering from Canon:

http://www.nikonimaging.com/global/p...g_if/index.htm

If the MTF charts on that page are representative of the final
product, then it will perform better than the 70-300 G or ED lenses,
as well as the Canon version with IS.

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 16:20:04 -0500, THO <>
wrote:

>In article <>,
> Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
>
>> JR <> writes:
>> > > > Yes it is to save money with no motor in the body, use the motor in the
>> > > > lens....You can get just about every good lens Nikon makes in an AF-S
>> > > > version
>> > >
>> > > What?! How about the good old 50/1.8? 60mm Micro? 180/2.8? These
>> > > are lenses that a D40 buyer could very well want. But even the newest
>> > > and fanciest lenses are not always AFS, e.g. the 80-400 VR.
>> >
>> > All those are primes....most if not all interested in this camera would
>> > want zooms...they are coming from P&S and want more flexibility....
>>
>> But in that case it's not about the "good" lenses, it's about the
>> consumer ones. For example, The 70-300 G is not AFS.
>
>If this AF-S only feature is true, then I suspect that the 70-300 G will
>be updated with AF-S shortly, if not when they announce the D40.

You are way behind. The updated it when they announced the D80. We now
(should be in stores this month) the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm
f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED.
http://nikonimaging.com/global/produ...g_if/index.htm

Peter

"Bill" <> writes:
> The 70-300 is not the lense D40 users would be interested in
> buying. They would be looking at the cheaper 55-200 lense as it has
> what they need.

The 55-200 costs more than the 70-300 G, not less.

> However, a few might want more, and Nikon has already announced the
> model to compete against a similar offering from Canon:
>
> http://www.nikonimaging.com/global/p...g_if/index.htm

This replaces the 70-300 ED and is more than 2x as expensive as the G
version. It's still in the general class of consumer lenses but I'd
have to say it's not in the entry level category like the 70-300 G.

In article < om>,
cjcampbell <> wrote:
>I am not buying the idea of the D40 being the D50 replacement. I
>suspect we will have the D50 around for awhile longer. Heck, we still
>have the D70s around.

There is good chance that the D70s are around because Nikon already
produced them (or planned the production) before the D80 was announced.

But given how competitive that market segment is, there is good chance
that Nikon will also bring out a D60 to fill the gap between the D40 and
the D80.

After all, it is no longer about the cost of the sensor. It is about the
cost of the camera. And Nikon has plenty of experience tuning consumer
SLRs to a particular price point.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency