But you get my drift. Adam Maas wrote: > 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
