>I've noticed that the Sigma is a bit longer in the autofocus dept. It >was too tempting though...a sigma for $250.00 or the Nikon for >$800.00. I'm curious though, I thought canons did the focusing on the >body whilst the nikons had the focusing built into the lenses? If >that's the case, why would the sigmas be slower on canons?
No, it's on the lens with the Canon, always has been. They pioneered a lot of the autofocus technology in fact, such as the USM (ultra-sonic motor) for very fast, quite AF. I believe it was actually the earlier Nikons that had focus on the camera. --- Mary Jo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:223389 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
