So Nikon has released a budget body and has no budget lenses that are fully compatible. Interesting marketing move.
Adam Maas wrote: > That's a major issue. While all but one DX lens is AF-S (The 10.5mm fisheye > isn't), the only low-budget lenses that are AF-S are the 18-55's and the > 55-200. Because the lowest-end of the film Nikons have never supported AF-S, > all the other low-budget lenses are screwdriver AF, even 3rd party lenses. > > If you want an AF-S telezoom, your cheapest options after the 55-200 are the > Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM or the Nikon 70-300 VR, neither of which are below > $600USD and the latter is widely available. > > -Adam > > > > > > Boris Liberman wrote: > >> I am not a Nikonian, but how many lenses are there with AF motor in >> the lens compared to grand total number of Nikon lenses that could be >> mounted on this camera? >> >> This is not a trolling question, merely my curiosity. >> >> On 11/16/06, Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06111603nikond40handsonpreview.asp >>> >>> Dario >>> >> > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
