Question about Nikon lenses

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:34:42 -0400, wrote:
: On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 18:37:55 -0400, PeterN
: wrote:
:
: On 3/27/2011 4:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:
: On 2011-03-27 12:31:41 -0700, Bruce said:
:
: Savageduck wrote:
: On 2011-03-27 09:07:32 -0700, me said:
: On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:12:26 +0100, Bruce
: wrote:
:
: However, autofocus may or may not be available depending on the body
: and the type of lens. Some of the older, cheaper DSLR bodies such as
: the D40, D40X, D50, D60 and D70 will only offer AF if the lens is
: "AF-S" with the Silent Wave motor as those bodies lack the in-body
: focusing motor and "screwdriver" mechanical connection to lenses.
:
:
: I guess I better stop using my Tokina non-AF-S AT-X124 pro DX 12-24mm
: F4 with my old D70. Who knew it wasn't supposed to work.
:
: Bruce got that one wrong.
: The D70 (I still have mine along with my D300s) meets the same
: requirements as the newer Prosumer/Pro Nikon DSLR's.
:
:
: My apologies. I intended to research the D70 (and the D50) but got
: sidetracked, Later, I clicked on "Send" without remembering that the
: research still needed doing.
:
: As so often with Nikon lens (in)compatibility, there appears to be no
: logical basis for it. I recall being extremely annoyed when Nikon
: introduced the N80/F80 35mm SLR whose metering system was deliberately
: made to be incompatible with manual focus Nikkors. At least it was
: clear why Nikon wanted to do that - it deterred N80/F80 buyers from
: using perfectly good older lenses, and encouraging them to buy new AF
: lenses instead.
:
: But why on earth would Nikon make the D40, D40X and D60 *without*
: focusing motors, and the D50 and D70 *with* them? This lack of
: consistency just doesn't make sense.
:
: $$
:
:
: And $ is a hundred times better than cents.
:
: Now that makes sense.
:
: Cute. Actually made me chuckle.

Do we henceforth address you as "Chuck"?

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 16:56:30 -0500, nospam wrote:
: In article , Bruce
: wrote:
:
: But why on earth would Nikon make the D40, D40X and D60 *without*
: focusing motors, and the D50 and D70 *with* them? This lack of
: consistency just doesn't make sense.
:
: the d40, d40x and d60 all came after the d50 and d70. nikon removed the
: motor and made the camera smaller and less expensive, which was why it
: was a *huge* success. the d40 was the first of the series, so it had a
: lower number than the previous model, the d50. the only weird one was
: the d60, but they hadn't begun the new numbering system yet.
:
: most low end buyers don't buy lenses other than the 1 or 2 kit lenses
: that came with the camera and are highly unlikely to have old lenses
: kicking around, so having a motor is a total waste. why include what
: won't be used?
:
: it makes a lot of sense.

The notion of an in-camera focussing motor has always bothered me a bit.
Modern lenses are often judged by the speed with which they reach their
optimum focus, and it seems to me that the rather complicated linkage between
the lens and an in-camera motor would make the system inherently slower than
if the motor were in the lens. Is that concern valid? To put it another way,
did Canon make the right decision from the beginning, despite the increased
cost and weight of a lens with its own motor?

Bob

On 2011-03-27 07:36:58 -0400, said:

Afternoon folks.

I am a Canon user. Flame me if you must, praise if you feel the need.
I like it and I believe it's 90% the photographer and 10% everything
else.

My question for the group, and yes, I am looking for instant
gratification here in a vain effort to reduce my research time....

My long time friend has a Nikon n90s. Very nice little camera and does
very nice traditional film work!

However being what it is, for good or bsd, digital is here and the
wave of the present. She is wanting to move to a digital SLR and
wanted to know several things that, as a Canon user I could not
answer:

1. Can the lenses from her n90s be used on any of the Nikon digital
SLR bodies?

2. What kind of value does the n90s in pristine condition hold?
(OK, This one is really lazy of me and I WILL do the
obligatory google)

Thanks in advance to those that help and to those that want to
flame....

I bought a Nikon D5000 just a year ago and back compatibility with my
Non AI Nikon F lenses was important. The D5000 will do that, though in
manual mode only of course. Some Digital Nikons won't, and it doesn't
matter whether we are talking APS-C (DX) format or full frame format.
the best information I have found for Nikon compatibility is at Ken
Rockwell's site: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm
--
Michael

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

The notion of an in-camera focussing motor has always bothered me a bit.
Modern lenses are often judged by the speed with which they reach their
optimum focus, and it seems to me that the rather complicated linkage between
the lens and an in-camera motor would make the system inherently slower than
if the motor were in the lens. Is that concern valid? To put it another way,
did Canon make the right decision from the beginning, despite the increased
cost and weight of a lens with its own motor?

canon had no choice. their breech mount was not well designed and
limited them in moving forward. they had to ditch it.

as for speed, generally a built in motor is faster but not all built in
motors are created the same. nikon/canon use either an ultrasonic motor
(silent wave/usm) or a micromotor on the less expensive lenses. the
former is usually much faster and quieter, and with full time manual
override. the micromotor needs to be disengaged for manual focus.

In article 2011032900123296686-adunc79617@mypacksnet, Michael
wrote:

I bought a Nikon D5000 just a year ago and back compatibility with my
Non AI Nikon F lenses was important. The D5000 will do that, though in
manual mode only of course. Some Digital Nikons won't, and it doesn't
matter whether we are talking APS-C (DX) format or full frame format.
the best information I have found for Nikon compatibility is at Ken
Rockwell's site: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

a much better resource and without the bull**** lies ken is known for
is by thom hogan:

http://www.bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm

"Robert Coe" wrote in
...

................................................. ...

Does a sensor make sense? Does a censor make cents? Does a senser make
scents?

Does a diner pay for his dinner in dinars?

Bob


Dinna think she was going to make it, Captain!
(I love this game.....)

In article , Bruce
wrote:

Robert Coe wrote:
The notion of an in-camera focussing motor has always bothered me a bit.
Modern lenses are often judged by the speed with which they reach their
optimum focus, and it seems to me that the rather complicated linkage between
the lens and an in-camera motor would make the system inherently slower than
if the motor were in the lens. Is that concern valid? To put it another way,
did Canon make the right decision from the beginning, despite the increased
cost and weight of a lens with its own motor?

Canon made the right decision, but that decision was only available to
the company because the world's premier manufacturer of suitable
motors was ... Canon.

The company also held all the key patents and wasn't going to license
the technology cheaply to any competitor, especially Nikon. That's
why Nikon's "Silent Wave" motors - a.k.a. "USM" - made the company's
AF-S lenses so expensive. Canon made good money out of every Nikon
AF-S lens of that era.

nonsense. nikon didn't pay canon licensing fees. in fact, nikon had
built in motors before canon did, with the f3af. nikon af-s came out
shortly after canon usm did, much too soon for patents to expire.

As soon as the patents expired, Nikon was able to make AF-S lenses
much more cheaply. Even entry-level kit Nikkors are now equipped with
"Silent Wave" motors. The huge reduction in costs means that some
entry-level Nikon bodies are no longer equipped with in-body AF motors
and the "screwdriver drive" to the lens.

nope. entry level nikon lenses do *not* have silent wave motors, they
have micromotors which are cheaper and slower. same with canon.

the reason entry level nikon bodies don't have motors is because
there's simply no need for it. all popular lenses have built in motors
and entry level buyers rarely buy more than 1 lens anyway.

It is true that in-body AF motors tend to be slower than in-lens USM
or Silent Wave motors. But Nikon spent a lot of money developing the
classic technology to achieve optimum performance. Many of Nikon's
lenses with screwdriver drive give AF performance so fast and accurate
that it would surprise fans of in-lens motors.

yes that's true. some screwdriver lenses focus faster than some af-s
lenses. it all depends.

Indeed, quite a few of Nikon's currently listed lenses still use the
screwdriver drive. Their AF performance is mostly very good*.
However, they are comparatively noisy when focusing.

[*with the notable exception of the glacially slow 80-400mm VR lens,
which accounts for its slow sales and large remaining stocks]

very slow.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:36:58 -0400, wrote:


Afternoon folks.

I am a Canon user. Flame me if you must, praise if you feel the need.
I like it and I believe it's 90% the photographer and 10% everything
else.

My question for the group, and yes, I am looking for instant
gratification here in a vain effort to reduce my research time....

My long time friend has a Nikon n90s. Very nice little camera and does
very nice traditional film work!

However being what it is, for good or bsd, digital is here and the
wave of the present. She is wanting to move to a digital SLR and
wanted to know several things that, as a Canon user I could not
answer:

1. Can the lenses from her n90s be used on any of the Nikon digital
SLR bodies?

2. What kind of value does the n90s in pristine condition hold?
(OK, This one is really lazy of me and I WILL do the
obligatory google)

Thanks in advance to those that help and to those that want to
flame....

Wow! Thank you ALL for a ream of great information. I appreciate it
all!