AF-S lenses. Extra motor?

[Apurva Madia]

I sometimes wonder, more and more Nikkors now come with built in motor. Which

motor works when they are used with cameras like D300, D3, D200, D80 etc? And

why should owners of these cameras shell out extra for a lens motor when their

camera has one of its own?

[Matt Laur]

The motors built into the lenses are much faster, and much quieter. But then, I really like that my D200 can also drive the screw/geared AF on my older 'D' lenses. I see it as win/win, and would be mighty peeved if I was looking at D40/D60-ish situation, which would greatly reduce my choices of a lot of Nikkor and other excellent third-party lenses.

[hans_janssen]

Did you ever hear and see the D200 AF with a AF80-200 2.8 or a AFs 70-200 2.8 VR, if you saw it you know the answer: quiet and fast or slow and noisy.

The screwdriver is not coppled(or switched off) when it is pressed back into the camera mouth by a AFs/HSM lens,

[ilkka_nissila]

AF-S (motor in the lens) works better but takes a bit more space in the lens. It is faster, quieter, and hunts less since it has no slack. Manual focusing may be better or worse with AF-S lenses than AF lenses, depending on the specific lens. In AF-S lenses there is no mechanism for the body motor to focus the lens.

[arthuryeo]

I have not had any of my AF-S lenses die on me ... yet but I heard that AF-S lenses have shorter longevity than those without. I have no scientific data to prove it.

 

Having said this, I love the convenience of AF-S because, in general, their responsiveness is just more pleasing than non-AFS lenses. It's all about your application.

[jwallphoto]

AF-S kicks butt. I just went from D40 to D200, and I have a 105mm micro D-lens which is great, but with the D40 it had no AF ability. On the D200, the 105mm has no AF-S ability -- that is, no ability to manually change the focus while the AF is engaged. I'd gotten spoiled by being able to do that with my 300/4 AF-S, and it always seems weird to me when I try to do with the 105mm and can't.

[beno_t_marchal]

The in-lens motor take priority because it is faster and more efficient. Note also that the

body motor is a tiny portion of the cost of a D3/D300/D200 but, as a cost-cutting measure,

Nikon is now shipping entry-line cameras (D40 and the likes) that lacks the body motor --

pressumably on entry-line camera that motor was a more significant portion of the cost.

 

--ben

[tom_luongo1]

I lost a stepper motor on a 28-70/2.8. It would have been a $400 repair but Nikon fixed it under warranty a little more than 5 years after the original purchase date. I'm glad I was able to get a copy of my purchase receipt.

[tonybeach]

"...why should owners of these cameras shell out extra for a lens motor when their camera has one of its own?"

 

> Hi Apurva,

 

I see no difference in focusing speed between the Tokina 12-24/4 (which has no motor) and the Nikkor 17-35/2.8 (which has both a motor and is a stop faster). The Nikkor 50/1.8 is also lightning fast despite not having a motor. Larger screw driven zooms though start to feel clunky compared to their AF-S counterparts.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think the motor in the body takes quite a bit of space in the body. So that could be the reason they leave it out at the entry level.

[Apurva Madia]

Everyone for clearing some concepts!