No focus motor for D5100 means what?

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Frank missed a few, LOL...</p>

<ul>

<li>14mm f2.8, a hot 1,700 unit/year lens, about the same price as the much better performing 14-24mm f2.8, which flies out Nikon's doors about 20x faster, 30,000 units/year. (I used to have both. Guess which one I kept). </li>

<li>16mm f2.8 fisheye. A $999.95 lens that only makes sense on FF: D3, D3X, D700, or film.</li>

<li>18-35mm f3.5-4.5, a 10 year old lens designed as a cheap ultrawide for FF, but for a DX camera, one gets better performance from the smaller, lighter 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 VR at 1/5 the price. Maybe that's why the old screwdriver lens has sold 1,300 units/year since 2008, while the AF-S VR moves at 1.5 M units.</li>

<li>20mm f2.8. Mine's for sale, anyone interested? Fair warning, the 18-70mm and 17-55mm are better on DX, the 14-24mm and 17-35mm are better on FF.</li>

<li>24mm f2.8. See 20mm f2.8.</li>

<li>28mm f2.8. It's famous, for all the wrong reasons. (Although I sort of liked it as a normal on APS).</li>

<li>35mm f2.0, slower, larger, and twice the price of a higher performing DX 35mm f1.8.</li>

<li>50mm f1.4, although still in stock, one doubts it's actually still in production, seeing as there's also a AF-S version.</li>

<li>50mm f1.8, see 50mm 1.4</li>

<li>60mm f2.8 AF-D micro-Nikkor. See 50mm f1.4. Although I head that Nikon actually decided to launch the AF-S while there were an estimated 20,000 in distributor and dealer stock, causing no end of grief.</li>

<li>70-300mm f4-5.6. That niche sort of gets split between the more versatile (but more expensive) 55-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR and the 55-200mm f3.5-5.6 at the same price.</li>

<li>80-200mm f2.8 two ring. Well, it's cheaper than a 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR II...</li>

<li>85mm f1.8. <strong>A small, light portrait lens, 128mm f2.7 equivalent in terms of coverage and DOF, it's a little gem, and probably the only lens on this list that's actually a serious hole in the line.</strong></li>

<li>105mm f2.0 DC, a $1000+ "portrait lens" that is out of production, despite being listed on the Nikon "all lenses" page. At 157mm equivalent, a bit long and without purpose on a DX, anyway...</li>

<li>135mm f2.0 DC, see 105mm f2.0 DC.</li>

<li>200mm f4 micro-Nikkor. A low production, highly specialized $1729.95 lens. </li>

</ul>

<p>So, while Frank missed a lot of lenses, nothing here alters Shun's assertion that "essentially all" the Nikon line is AF-S. There is exactly one lens, the 85mm f1.8, that isn't an over $1000 specialty lens or is something that there's a better performing AF-S alternative in the same price range. I'm not sure if you add up the total unit sales of everything on this list, it amounts to 1%.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Joseph: Thank you for contributing; I must now apologise for ever having said more than "it's complicated" when it comes to speed of focus differences between bodies.<br />

<br />

I would still be interested to see some timings between different class bodies of the same generation, because I don't really see what there is about (say) a D7000's autofocus system that should make it any faster than a D5100 if they're both using an optimal (cross-sensor) focus point, but that's just because I'm curious. Maybe the D5100's system is genuinely older, or maybe it's deliberately crippled for market placement reasons. The D7000's autofocus is definitely <i>better</i>, however. For Alan's sake, I can state that my means of using the camera changed drastically between using a seven-point sensor (on an Eos 300D) to the 51-point sensor on the D700; more focus points can matter.<br />

<br />

Since I'm likely to refer back to this thread... Joseph: are you in a position to state the source of your expertise (or at least your information in this case)? I'm a software engineer working on embedded microprocessors and I spent an abortive period contemplating the robot wars scene; I know the basics of motor controllers and control protocols in general, but I've never waved an LA at a Nikon body and don't claim any specific knowledge. I get the impression you've done some reverse engineering - there are obviously a number of third party manufacturers using the F mount. Bruce has not stated why he is so sure of himself that voltage is irrelevant (so Bruce, this applies to you as well), but - other than not having been misled by one of your posts yet - whenever two people who claim to know their field are in disagreement, it's nice to distinguish the authority with which they speak.<br />

<br />

To pick up on "essentially all"... there are some <i>important</i> lenses that are screw-drive only. The 135 f/2 DC is one reason I switched from Canon, for example, and the 80-200 holds a significant market point. But I concur that the vast majority of lenses sold, and indeed desired, are likely to be AF-S.<br />

<br />

Thank you for the information - and Alan (and Shun) sorry for subverting the thread. I'll try not to elaborate on any details that could be swept under the carpet next time...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>essentially all Nikon AF lenses are AF-S lenses in these days</em>" - is it really ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is my fault that my wording wasn't very precise. What I meant was that all new AF lenses Nikon introduces are AF-S nowadays. The last screwdriver AF lenses were the 50mm/f1.8 AF-D and 10.5mm/f2.8 DX AF-D from 7, 8 years ago.</p>

<p>If you check Joseph's list, the 50mm/f1.8 AF-D, 50mm/f1.4 AF-D, 60mm/f2.8 AF-D macro, 70-300mm/f4-5.6 AF-D ... have all been superseded by AF-S versions. There should be little doubt that those lenses are effectively discontinued; only some old stock is remaining. The other remaining ones are pretty old AF lenses from about 20 years ago or more.</p>

<p>The real issue is that while Nikon has stopped introducing AF-D type screwdrive lenses, the likes of Tamron and Tokina have continued to do so. If you buy a D3100 or D5100, they will not AF with some fairly recent lenses such as Tokina's 11-16mm/f2.8.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>The real issue is that while Nikon has stopped introducing AF-D type screwdrive lenses, the likes of Tamron and Tokina have continued to do so. If you buy a D3100 or D5100, they will not AF with some fairly recent lenses such as Tokina's 11-16mm/f2.8.</blockquote>

 

<p>Indeed - my Sigma 8mm f/3.5 fish-eye is also screw-drive, to give another example. Since the third parties are usually trying to undercut Nikon's prices, I guess they may sometimes have to do so by omitting the in-lens motor - in several cases there's a price difference between the Nikon (screw drive) and Canon (integral motor) versions. And, of course, much of Nikon's older lens line are perfectly adequate and available cheaper screw-driven. Save money on the body, lose money on the lenses. This is true further up the range as well - only the higher-end bodies can meter with the very cheap (relatively) Nikon AI non-autofocus lenses, and the only current camera with full support for pre-AI lenses is the top-of-the-(film-)line F6 (with an adapted ring). Backward-compatibility is a premium feature. Which may not matter if you're happy with a small number of recent lenses.</p>

[shankart]

<p>OK, I am a little confused, would appreciate ff someone can clarify. I guess from the responses that the closest equivalent to 50mm 1.4D is the 50mm 1.8 AF-S, is that right? I have a D70, 50mm 1.4D is pretty much the only lens I use. 90% of my pictures are indoor available light with flash on slow speed sync (i am horrible with flash), I think I will miss the added larger aperture on the 1.4. What are my options?<br>

1. should I get a body that will take 1.4D, which is the cheapest body that will do it?<br>

2. should i just get the 5100 and use 1.8, is the new systems grain at high ISO low so that i don't have to have a larger aperture?</p>