 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / May 2008D40 / Sigma lense question(s)
Has anyone had experience with a Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC used with a Nikon D40? Specifically, does this lense have built in autofocus motor and will it focus sufficiently fast on a D40? Also, what are the differences in the various Nikon models D300, D70, D80, D40 etc with respect to autofocus, are all the autofocus motors in the lenses? Maybe there is web ref on this. Thanks - Lou > Has anyone had experience with a Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC used with a > Nikon D40? > Specifically, does this lense have built in autofocus motor and will it > focus sufficiently fast on a D40? The 18-125mm F3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM has the autofocus motor. How fast it is on a D40 I can't say, but it will autofocus. This is a new lens, and I'm not sure if it's available yet. The earlier version will not autofocus with the D40, as far as I know. > Also, what are the differences in the various Nikon models D300, D70, > D80, D40 etc with respect to autofocus, are all the autofocus motors in > the lenses? Maybe there is web ref on this. The D40, D40x, and D60 do not have an autofocus motor in the body of the camera, and require a motor in the lens to autofocus. All other Nikon digital SLRs have an autofocus motor in the camera and will autofocus with any AF lens. Nikon lenses designated AF-S and AF-I have an autofocus motor in the lens. AF-I is an older design. Sigma lenses designated HSM have an autofocus motor. I don't know of any other third party lenses with autofocus motors, but there may be some out there now. Great info, thanks very much! >> Has anyone had experience with a Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC used with a >> Nikon D40? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > autofocus motor. I don't know of any other third party lenses with > autofocus motors, but there may be some out there now. In article <a3582d40-6266-42b2-b419-e25b02c2dbe3@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > Nikon lenses designated AF-S and AF-I have an autofocus motor in the > lens. AF-I is an older design. Sigma lenses designated HSM have an > autofocus motor. I don't know of any other third party lenses with > autofocus motors, but there may be some out there now. tamron has a few lenses with built-in motors, and there are a couple of sigma lenses that have a motor but not an hsm motor, so they'll still autofocus. there's a list on sigma's website of what's compatible. >Nikon lenses designated AF-S and AF-I have an autofocus motor in the >lens. AF-I is an older design. Sigma lenses designated HSM have an >autofocus motor. I don't know of any other third party lenses with >autofocus motors, but there may be some out there now. What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of putting the motor in the lense?  SignatureThese are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam. >> Nikon lenses designated AF-S and AF-I have an autofocus motor in the >> lens. AF-I is an older design. Sigma lenses designated HSM have an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of putting the > motor in the lense? Quieter, faster, and you can make the body smaller & cheaper without a motor & screw drive mechanism. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam > > What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of putting the > > motor in the lense? > > Quieter, faster, and you can make the body smaller & cheaper without a > motor & screw drive mechanism. on the other hand, one motor in the camera and just gears in the lens can be less expensive. it's all tradeoffs. >>> Nikon lenses designated AF-S and AF-I have an autofocus motor in the >>> lens. AF-I is an older design. Sigma lenses designated HSM have an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Quieter, faster, and you can make the body smaller & cheaper without a > motor & screw drive mechanism. Downside: bigger and heavier. PDM >>>> Nikon lenses designated AF-S and AF-I have an autofocus motor in >>>> the lens. AF-I is an older design. Sigma lenses designated HSM [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > PDM Here are a couple of examples from the Nikon range: Nikon 18-55mm 205g, 70 x 74mm Nikon 55-200mm - 255g, 68 x 79mm These are not big or heavy lenses, even if there are some extra grams of focus motor in there.... David On May 6, 1:40 am, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.neither- this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote: > > Downside: bigger and heavier. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > These are not big or heavy lenses, even if there are some extra grams of > focus motor in there.... It's hard to find direct comparisons between AF-S and AF lenses, but for what it's worth, the AF-S 60mm f/2.8G ED is a little bit lighter than the AF version, though longer: AF Micro- NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8D - 440g, 70x74.5mm AF-S Micro- NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED - 425g, 73x89mm Despite the apparent similarity, these lenses are different optical designs, so they may not be strictly comparable. But it does seem that putting an autofocus motor in the lens doesn't necessarily make for a significantly larger and heavier lens. On May 6, 1:40 am, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.neither- this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote: > PDM wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > These are not big or heavy lenses, even if there are some extra grams of > focus motor in there.... It's hard to find direct comparisons between AF-S and AF lenses, but for what it's worth, the AF-S 60mm f/2.8G ED is a little bit lighter than the AF version, though longer: AF Micro- NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8D - 440g, 70x74.5mm AF-S Micro- NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED - 425g, 73x89mm Despite the apparent similarity, these lenses are different optical designs, so they may not be strictly comparable. But it does seem that putting an autofocus motor in the lens doesn't necessarily make for a significantly larger and heavier lens. <end quote> Yes-with today's technology, which makes many things possible. Even the best science fiction author couldn't predict the internet, mobile phones, optical drives and everything we have today.... SignatureTzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr > On May 6, 1:40 am, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.neither- > this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > best science fiction author couldn't predict the internet, mobile phones, > optical drives and everything we have today.... My 105 VR SWM lens is 729 grams. The discontinued non SWM version is 435 grams. The 70-200 SWM zoom is 1470 grams; a similar discontinued lens 70-210 is 375 grams. Although I agree it is difficult to compare older lenses with modern ones the SWM motor and VR adds size and weight. PDM >My 105 VR SWM lens is 729 grams. The discontinued non SWM version is 435 >grams. Are you using Nikon? The only AF-S 105mm lens Nikon makes is the AF-S VR 105mm F2.8 Micro, which Nikon says weighs 790 g. The previous version, without the motor or VR, was 632 g. >The 70-200 SWM zoom is 1470 grams; a similar discontinued lens 70-210 is 375 >grams. There is no similar 70-210. The 70-210 AF was a plastic bodied consumer lens, F4-5.6, and not at all comparable to the AF-S VR 70-200 F2.8. The nearest comparison would be the AF 80-200 F2.8, which weighs in at 1300 g. >Although I agree it is difficult to compare older lenses with modern ones >the SWM motor and VR adds size and weight. Most of the weight and size comes from the VR rather than the motor. >> The 70-200 SWM zoom is 1470 grams; a similar discontinued lens 70-210 is 375 >> grams. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > F2.8. The nearest comparison would be the AF 80-200 F2.8, which > weighs in at 1300 g. And has a simpler optical design (less elements/not fully IF) than the 70-200, which possibly explains some of the 130g weight difference. The more similar (optically to the 70-200) 80-200 AFS, weighs 1550g - 120g more than the 70-200. Perhaps VR reduces lens weight? > Are you using Nikon? The only AF-S 105mm lens Nikon makes is the AF-S > VR 105mm F2.8 Micro, which Nikon says weighs 790 g. The previous > version, without the motor or VR, was 632 g. Whoops! I mean't this lens; looked up the wrong one on my list. PDM |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.