Well, they do have the two 18-55's and the 55-200. But nothing else. And the 70-300G is a better deal than the 55-200 (cheaper, more range, similar performance, but unusable as a MF lens due to having the worst focus ring ever put on a lens).
-Adam P. J. Alling wrote: > 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
