Steve'sDigicams

Morag2 · Jan 1, 2007, 10:26 PM

What are the pro's and con's of these two cameras?

I have heard something negative about the D40's autofocus motor, what's wrong with it?

How does the low light performance compare?

What else is different?

Thanks all.

bugeyed · Jan 1, 2007, 11:22 PM

Morag2 wrote:

Quote:

I have heard something negative about the D40's autofocus motor, what's wrong with it?

Thanks all.

The problem with the D40 autofocus motor is that it doesn't exist! The D40 uses AF-s lenses that have the motor built in.

Morag2 · Jan 1, 2007, 11:33 PM

So does that mean only lenses that specifically say AF would work on the Nikon D40? Or would even some of those not work? (when it says a lens is AF, does that mean it has an Autofocus motor or that it's compatible with an Autofocus motor?)

rjseeney · Jan 2, 2007, 7:40 AM

Only AF-S lenses will autofocus with the D40. THose lenses are the 18-70, 18-55, 55-200, 18-135, 18-200, 105VR, and the 70-300VR. No third party lens will AF either, except the the few sigma HSM lenses. The good news is the available lenses cover most shooting situations. The bad news is aside from the first three listed, they are all over $300. Also none of the excellent bright prime lenses are on the list. Hopefully that will change in the future as Nikon adds more lenses to the AF-S line. Other lenses will work, just with no auto focus.

Redsquare · Feb 23, 2007, 2:06 PM

I suppose all the Af-s lenses are top quality though compared to Af, Surely buying and af-s means you are buying a better lens? I have the 55-200 and it handles most situations very well. it can take a while to focus when at 200mm but the finish pays off as the pics are as sharp as hell

rjseeney · Feb 23, 2007, 6:04 PM

They are all decent quality. The superzooms suffer from the typical issues (distortion), and none are exceptionally fast (f3.5 at max). The only one that can be considered pro level is the 105 vr, and it has a price tag to match. They will however suit most shooters in most situations.

gregm1948 · Feb 23, 2007, 7:18 PM

This brings up a question for me. I saw somewhere that someNikkor lenses are made of plastic, not glass. Is that true? If so, is that for cost reduction, weight reduction or a bit of both?

Greg

gregm1948 · Feb 23, 2007, 7:18 PM

Sorry, double post

Greg

labrat99 · Feb 23, 2007, 8:57 PM

For me the lack of a focusing motor in the body makes the D40 a non-starter. I've got four Nikkor AF lenses - two are AF-S and two aren't. The two that aren't AF-s are mounted on my D50 WAY more often than the AF-S lenses.

I think the D40 is a pretty sweet little camera, but it's not a suitable replacement for my D50. I'm sure Nikon left the focus motor out to save money and I know they'll sell a ton of these to people moving up from point and shoot cameras but as these people start to work on a lens collection the "AF-S or nothing" choice Nikon made places them in a bit of a bind. For example, the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 that I LOVE is not an AF-S lens. Slip that little (cheap) jewel on your D40 and guess what? No autofocusing! The next lens I want to buy is the 85mm 1.8 for portraits; I'm not sure but I don't think it's AF-S either. But I don't HAVE to know, if it's not it is still going to autofocus on my camera.

fastglass · Feb 23, 2007, 9:42 PM

What lens (lenses) are you interested in? If other than the few that will AF with the D40 (rjseeney's post) - the answer is D50.

If you are looking for a point & shoot approach SLR with a nice 2.5 lcd, & don't need Nikons fast lenses or prime lenses - then D40.

Best.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Jan 1, 2007, 10:26 PM	#1
Morag2 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 820	What are the pro's and con's of these two cameras? I have heard something negative about the D40's autofocus motor, what's wrong with it? How does the low light performance compare? What else is different? Thanks all.

Jan 1, 2007, 11:33 PM	#3
Morag2 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 820	So does that mean only lenses that specifically say AF would work on the Nikon D40? Or would even some of those not work? (when it says a lens is AF, does that mean it has an Autofocus motor or that it's compatible with an Autofocus motor?)

Jan 2, 2007, 7:40 AM	#4
rjseeney Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky Posts: 2,398	Only AF-S lenses will autofocus with the D40. THose lenses are the 18-70, 18-55, 55-200, 18-135, 18-200, 105VR, and the 70-300VR. No third party lens will AF either, except the the few sigma HSM lenses. The good news is the available lenses cover most shooting situations. The bad news is aside from the first three listed, they are all over $300. Also none of the excellent bright prime lenses are on the list. Hopefully that will change in the future as Nikon adds more lenses to the AF-S line. Other lenses will work, just with no auto focus.

Feb 23, 2007, 2:06 PM	#5
Redsquare Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 228	I suppose all the Af-s lenses are top quality though compared to Af, Surely buying and af-s means you are buying a better lens? I have the 55-200 and it handles most situations very well. it can take a while to focus when at 200mm but the finish pays off as the pics are as sharp as hell

Feb 23, 2007, 6:04 PM	#6
rjseeney Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky Posts: 2,398	They are all decent quality. The superzooms suffer from the typical issues (distortion), and none are exceptionally fast (f3.5 at max). The only one that can be considered pro level is the 105 vr, and it has a price tag to match. They will however suit most shooters in most situations.

Feb 23, 2007, 7:18 PM	#7
gregm1948 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 152	This brings up a question for me. I saw somewhere that someNikkor lenses are made of plastic, not glass. Is that true? If so, is that for cost reduction, weight reduction or a bit of both? Greg

Feb 23, 2007, 8:57 PM	#9
labrat99 Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 38	For me the lack of a focusing motor in the body makes the D40 a non-starter. I've got four Nikkor AF lenses - two are AF-S and two aren't. The two that aren't AF-s are mounted on my D50 WAY more often than the AF-S lenses. I think the D40 is a pretty sweet little camera, but it's not a suitable replacement for my D50. I'm sure Nikon left the focus motor out to save money and I know they'll sell a ton of these to people moving up from point and shoot cameras but as these people start to work on a lens collection the "AF-S or nothing" choice Nikon made places them in a bit of a bind. For example, the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 that I LOVE is not an AF-S lens. Slip that little (cheap) jewel on your D40 and guess what? No autofocusing! The next lens I want to buy is the 85mm 1.8 for portraits; I'm not sure but I don't think it's AF-S either. But I don't HAVE to know, if it's not it is still going to autofocus on my camera.

Feb 23, 2007, 9:42 PM	#10
fastglass Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 69	What lens (lenses) are you interested in? If other than the few that will AF with the D40 (rjseeney's post) - the answer is D50. If you are looking for a point & shoot approach SLR with a nice 2.5 lcd, & don't need Nikons fast lenses or prime lenses - then D40. Best.