> I know the D40 uses new fangled motorised lenses, but I am not sure which
> lense, other than Nikon lenses, will be compatible and include autofocus.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Is this true?
I found this in an archived message, and if accurate it means that
you have to make sure that you consider only Sigma's hsm lenses. As
for what "hsm" means, my guess is "high speed motor".
> From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
> Subject: Re: Question about lens...
> Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 12:36:39 -0700
> Message-ID: <020520071236399292%nospam@nospam.invalid>
. . .
> i tried the sigma 18-200 at the sigma booth at a trade show a while
> ago. it is bigger than the nikon, it doesn't have sigma hsm focusing
> (so it won't autofocus on a nikon d40/d40x),
darkroommike - 28 May 2007 15:36 GMT
I think it's Hyper Sonic Motor just means the motor is in
the lens and doesn't rely on the motor in other Nikon bodies.
darkroommike
>> I know the D40 uses new fangled motorised lenses, but I am not sure which
>> lense, other than Nikon lenses, will be compatible and include autofocus.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>> ago. it is bigger than the nikon, it doesn't have sigma hsm focusing
>> (so it won't autofocus on a nikon d40/d40x),
ASAAR - 28 May 2007 16:02 GMT
> I think it's Hyper Sonic Motor just means the motor is in
> the lens and doesn't rely on the motor in other Nikon bodies.
Well, yes, and thanks for pointing out that hsm doesn't literally
stand for "high speed motor", although it may well allow faster
focusing that those that use the DSLR's motor to focus. And while
some might prefer some types of motors to others, the fact that a
lens has a motor of any type should mean that it will allow AF to
work with the D40/D40x.
> I bought a D40 awhile ago and I'm extremely pleased :D
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Is this true?
is anything a salesperson says true? :)
the only lenses that will autofocus are nikon afs and sigma hsm lenses
(and for some reason, the sigma 80-400os which is not hsm).
here's a list:
<http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=21699045>
in the range you are looking, there are the following lenses:
nikon 70-200vr/2.8
nikon 70-300vr/4-5.6
nikon 55-200vr/4-5.6
nikon 55-200/4-5.6
sigma 120-300/2.8
sigma 70-200/2.8 macro
sigma 100-300/4
i highly suggest getting a lens with stabilization, and the 55-200vr is
quite inexpensive - around $250. the non-stabilized version of the
55-200 is only $80 or so cheaper, and stabilization is well worth the
$80 difference. for more money, the 70-300vr is longer and the
70-200vr has a constant f/2.8 aperture.
there are also rumours of several new nikon lenses being announced
sometime soon. it is reasonable to expect that they'll all be afs
lenses and will autofocus with the d40/d40x. of course, it is not
(yet) known when (or if) the rumour is true and what it might include.
Plebism - 27 May 2007 09:22 GMT
>> I bought a D40 awhile ago and I'm extremely pleased :D
>>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> $80 difference. for more money, the 70-300vr is longer and the
> 70-200vr has a constant f/2.8 aperture.
Thanks for that, I have found a Nikon 55-200 non VR for £110 but as you say
.. the VR is more expensive .... around £180.
Is it really worth the extra money ..... you mean better image results?
Simon
Moro Grubb of Little Delving - 27 May 2007 16:06 GMT
> Thanks for that, I have found a Nikon 55-200 non VR for £110 but as you
> say .. the VR is more expensive .... around £180.
>
> Is it really worth the extra money ..... you mean better image results?
>
> Simon
Absolutely, definitely and most emphatically, yes. :-)
/M
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 27 May 2007 21:41 GMT
>Thanks for that, I have found a Nikon 55-200 non VR for £110 but as you say
>.. the VR is more expensive .... around £180.
>
>Is it really worth the extra money ..... you mean better image results?
Only YOU can answer this question. You need to ask yourself given what
subjects you wish to photograph in what conditions would image
stabilization be useful? Think about low light situations with stationary
subjects.

Signature
Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com)
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
Plebism - 28 May 2007 11:09 GMT
>>Thanks for that, I have found a Nikon 55-200 non VR for £110 but as you
>>say
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> stabilization be useful? Think about low light situations with stationary
> subjects.
This is a valid point ... as if the VR is purely image stablising then thats
quite a chunk for 80 quid more (about $150)
I think Ill wait for the time being ... im on my hols in July and that is
when I need the lens for
Thanks
Simon
louise - 29 May 2007 04:18 GMT
>>> I bought a D40 awhile ago and I'm extremely pleased :D
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>
> Simon
YES - and you can shoot at slower speeds, counting on the VR
to compensate - my expeirence is that it usually does.
Louise
louise - 29 May 2007 04:17 GMT
>> I bought a D40 awhile ago and I'm extremely pleased :D
>>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> lenses and will autofocus with the d40/d40x. of course, it is not
> (yet) known when (or if) the rumour is true and what it might include.
I second this - I've been very happy with the 55 - 200 VR
lens - it is sharp, it is easy to zoom, comfortable to hold
etc. I'm using it on the D40X
Louise