Group: rec.photo.digital
Digital cameras, scanners, printers, software, PhotoCD.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to groupPost Subject:
D40 / 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
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
On May 5, 9:07 am, Lou Lipnickey <lou.lipnic...@pobox.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 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!
Mark Sieving wrote:
> On May 5, 9:07 am, Lou Lipnickey <lou.lipnic...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
Mark Sieving wrote:
> On May 5, 9:07 am, Lou Lipnickey <lou.lipnic...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
In article
<a3582d40-6266-42b2-b419-e25b02c2dbe3@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Mark Sieving <mark_sieving@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
<a3582d40-6266-42b2-b419-e25b02c2dbe3@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Mark Sieving <mark_sieving@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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?
--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
Hal Murray wrote:
>> 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?
Quieter, faster, and you can make the body smaller & cheaper without a
motor & screw drive mechanism.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to 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
>> 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?
Quieter, faster, and you can make the body smaller & cheaper without a
motor & screw drive mechanism.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
In article <ziITj.13881$V14.7369@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>, Paul Furman
<paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> > What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of putting the
> > motor in the lense?
>
> Quieter, faster, and you can make the body smaller & cheaper without a
> motor & screw drive mechanism.
on the other hand, one motor in the camera and just gears in the lens
can be less expensive. it's all tradeoffs.
<paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> > What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of putting the
> > motor in the lense?
>
> Quieter, faster, and you can make the body smaller & cheaper without a
> motor & screw drive mechanism.
on the other hand, one motor in the camera and just gears in the lens
can be less expensive. it's all tradeoffs.
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:ziITj.13881$V14.7369@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Hal Murray wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> Quieter, faster, and you can make the body smaller & cheaper without a
> motor & screw drive mechanism.
Downside: bigger and heavier.
PDM
PDM wrote:
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
> news:ziITj.13881$V14.7369@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Hal Murray wrote:
>>>> Nikon lenses designated AF-S and AF-I have an autofocus motor in
>>>> the lens. AF-I is an older design. Sigma lenses designated HSM
>>>> have an autofocus motor. I don't know of any other third party
>>>> lenses with autofocus motors, but there may be some out there now.
>>>
>>> What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of putting the
>>> motor in the lense?
>>
>> Quieter, faster, and you can make the body smaller & cheaper without
>> a motor & screw drive mechanism.
>
> Downside: bigger and heavier.
>
> PDM
Here are a couple of examples from the Nikon range:
Nikon 18-55mm 205g, 70 x 74mm
Nikon 55-200mm - 255g, 68 x 79mm
These are not big or heavy lenses, even if there are some extra grams of
focus motor in there....
David
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
> news:ziITj.13881$V14.7369@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Hal Murray wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>
>> Quieter, faster, and you can make the body smaller & cheaper without
>> a motor & screw drive mechanism.
>
> Downside: bigger and heavier.
>
> 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:
> PDM wrote:
>
> > Downside: bigger and heavier.
>
> 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....
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.
this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> PDM wrote:
>
> > Downside: bigger and heavier.
>
> 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....
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.
? "Mark Sieving" <mark_sieving@yahoo.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:e073ff36-1752-4eb8-85e8-9007e753a166@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On May 6, 1:40 am, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.neither-
this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> PDM wrote:
>
> > Downside: bigger and heavier.
>
> 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....
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....
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
"Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <noone@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:fvpvqg$qlt$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
>
> ? "Mark Sieving" <mark_sieving@yahoo.com> ?????? ??? ??????
> news:e073ff36-1752-4eb8-85e8-9007e753a166@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On May 6, 1:40 am, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.neither-
> this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>> PDM wrote:
>>
>> > Downside: bigger and heavier.
>>
>> 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....
>
> 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....
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
On Tue, 6 May 2008 22:10:32 +0100, "PDM" <pdcm99minus this
bit@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>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.
bit@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>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.
Mark Sieving wrote:
>> 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.
>
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?
>> 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.
>
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?
"Mark Sieving" <mark_sieving@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:trq124d2n7ce790l5s78nur3cvfhbpm92u@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 22:10:32 +0100, "PDM" <pdcm99minus this
> bit@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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
Next: WHAT IS ISLAM?
Previous: CHINA WHOLESALE CHEAP AF1 JORDAN 3 12 5 FUSION SHOES WHOLESALERS W-W-W.SNEA...
