1st post - 1st DSLR, No support for autofocus on a prime lens a DSLR deal breaker?

[Ivonna]

Opinions?

I've looked at Nikon, Canon, and Sony cameras at a couple of "big box stores" but couldn't really compare them all adequately for lack of batteries, lenses or current models. But, I pretty much decided I liked the size, features, feel, & price of the Nikon D60 10mp from what I did see. When I felt ready to buy, I went to a local camera shop to get the D60 with an 18-55 kit lens for ~550 USD, then possibly add either a prime or the 55-200VR & a flash to start out with. So, my total cost would be ~1000 USD for the big items. However, I was told I needed to focus manually if I bought a prime lens (no AF in that lens) & the next step up meant a thousand dollar body. Or, my other choice was buy the Canon XS. So, I went home to rethink my choices.

My hobbies include doing metal smithing, think jewelry-scale. I need to take photos of the small shiny stuff I make. So, I'm looking for a camera system that can handle taking pictures from less than a foot away, portraits, & landscapes. No need for high frame speed or long distance photos for me. I like a compact size, but will give that up if it means more features & room to grow as I gain skills. I'd like the option to AF or manually focus with any future lenses. I might use a tripod, but I won't carry one around. 10mp should be plenty. I'm on a Mac with just iPhoto - my old Elements 2.0 doesn't like the newest OS - eventually I'll need more software too. I'm starting with nothing, so I also want to consider Pentax or others, even though it may be more difficult to find locally.

What would you suggest for an alternate initial set-up that would match or exceed the equipment I was looking at without exceeding the costs? Please suggest a body, and one or two lenses to start out with, that might cover 80% of my needs if that seems at all realistic.

I want to have no equipment regrets, but that's hard when you're new. "Experience is what you get right after you needed it".

[Frog]

You can auto-focus with any lens that has afs...there's a motor in the lens itself.
I don't have a list in front of me but there are plenty of newer prime lenses with afs.
Sounds like you will be looking for macro primes and I hear good things about the Nikon 105 macro which comes in afs.
Some third party lenses also have motors built in to the lenses.....Sigma's have the hsm designation, not sure about the others.
You can also use extension tubes.
One thing I might say that for really close up detail, most photographers do manual focus anyway, or so I've been told.

edit.......You might also think about looking for a slightly used or refurbished D80 which will use non-afs nikon lenses and the price of them has dropped drastically since the d90 came out. I think they are discontinued. I've been using mine 2 1/2 years without a problem.

[Ivonna]

Thanks for the response Frog.

Yes, it requires the AF-S to autofocus. Looking through the B&H site - every time you see the red "see important note" it tells me the lens won't autofocus with a D40 or D60. That knocks out a lot of lenses. The Nikon 105 macro is 895. Saw the Sigma version but just AFD for 400. A 60mm f2.8 is 440 import, 470 usa, but is up to 540 if you go AFS. Save on camera, but eventually more than make up the price in lens costs. The D80 with the kit lens puts me at $900 new, I see a refurb body for 600, but I'd want to add a warranty to it.

The nice cheap 50mm f1.8 for 135 is not available in AFS, or so I was told at the shop. I would need to go to f1.4 for AFS and it's 485. With the lens cost savings, even the D90 starts to look more reasonable.

OK, now one more question for anyone who knows. So, some brands have put the AF motor & stabilization in the body. Doesn't that make more sense and bring the lens cost down? Is there a down side to that system?

[OldClicker]

Thanks for the response Frog.

Yes, it requires the AF-S to autofocus. Looking through the B&H site - every time you see the red "see important note" it tells me the lens won't autofocus with a D40 or D60. That knocks out a lot of lenses. The Nikon 105 macro is 895. Saw the Sigma version but just AFD for 400. A 60mm f2.8 is 440 import, 470 usa, but is up to 540 if you go AFS. Save on camera, but eventually more than make up the price in lens costs. The D80 with the kit lens puts me at $900 new, I see a refurb body for 600, but I'd want to add a warranty to it.

The nice cheap 50mm f1.8 for 135 is not available in AFS, or so I was told at the shop. I would need to go to f1.4 for AFS and it's 485. With the lens cost savings, even the D90 starts to look more reasonable.

OK, now one more question for anyone who knows. So, some brands have put the AF motor & stabilization in the body. Doesn't that make more sense and bring the lens cost down? Is there a down side to that system?

In-body image stabilization (IS): The lenses should be cheaper, but in my experience they are not. I think that the difference is that there are so many more used Nikon/Canon (in-lens IS) lenses out there than Sony/Olympus (in-body IS) that it drives down the prices of the in-lens IS lenses. Future??? - Conventional wisdom says that you will own many bodies over the years, but that a good lens will last decades. With in-lens IS improving every few years, will this still be true for those brands???

Nikon is the only one I know of that has current lenses that will not AF on some of their DSLR bodies. In-body/in-lens motor performance seems to vary by manufacturer/model. Cost seems to be set more on other factors.

TF

[Ultra Magnus]

In-body image stabilization (IS): The lenses should be cheaper, but in my experience they are not.

They are if you buy older lenses, but there you have to be careful.

Also true with fast primes. No one makes optically stabilized fast primes (macros too, afaik), the only way to get IS is w/ an in body system.

But, if you are doing a lot of macro work, chances are you are using a tripod anyway and in that case you are supposed to turn off the IS anyway, so you are back to square one.

Good luck... and imo, I'd take a Nikon D90 before a Canon XSi (or whatever they are up to now)...

BM

[Anbesol]

OK, now one more question for anyone who knows. So, some brands have put the AF motor & stabilization in the body. Doesn't that make more sense and bring the lens cost down? Is there a down side to that system?

Canon is the only one that puts the motor exclusively in the lens. Nikon, Sony and Pentax all have in-body motors, and also in-lens motors. In Sony, for example, SSM designates a lens with a motor built in, they are much faster and much more accurate, but also much more expensive - and for many uses, quite unneccesarily so. The two Nikons don't have the in-body AF motor, so it only works with Nikon lens with motors built in. If you plan on only getting those AFS lens, then its not a problem, but I personally think its a waste to cut AF out of such a huge range of lens. Only serves to restrict the system potential, and Nikon is the only company that does this to its customers though, so you'd be safe from this in any other system mount.

Sony and Olympus are also the only two companies who offer in-body stabilization.

[Ivonna]

Thanks to everyone for the great input! There is so much information to sort through when trying to choose a "system", especially when the lenses will marry you to the brand that is chosen. I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed by it. It also seems I've chosen to buy just when it's "out with the old and in with the new" spring season.

I think a mid-level camera rather than an entry level that will last me a few years with one or two good lenses to start with might be the better route to go? While I plan to do some macro stuff, it won't be more than 25% of my shots - these are hobbies for me and the primary goal is to have some fun with them. Hopefully, I'll make an informed choice and be happy with my camera for a number of years.

Since I might as well wait for the influx of new cameras just now hitting the shops, I decided to take a look at the Pentax & Olympus cameras - if I can find them. They are the only brands that seem to be either absent or hidden in the shops I've visited thus far. They both offer in-body stabilization, which might be nice. I had a Pentax 35mm slr some ages ago, along with a couple of off-brand lenses, that I gave to a relative back when I went to digital. I think there are a gazillion lenses still out there for it. Olympus - I had to look up what "four thirds lenses" were all about; sheesh, they even have firmware updates. Sony - I want to take a second look since I know more about them now. I'm in for a huge learning curve no matter what I end up with!

Thanks again. I really do appreciate all of you giving me your time.

[Franglais]

The "nice cheap prime lens with autofocus" for the D60 is the 35mm f1.8 AF-S DX (sorry to give the long-winded full name but you need to be sure you don't get the 35mm f2). People don't talk about the 35mm f1.8 because it's only just come on the market and it's pretty rare. It costs about $220

For a "portrait and jewelery lens" to go with the D60 look at the 60mm f2.8 Micro AF-S (not the non AF-S version). This is also fairly new. Costs about $520

Look closely at the red "important note" tabs on the B&H site - a lot of them are for DX lenses which cannot be used on cameras with the bigger sensor fitted in the D3, D3X and D700, but they can be used with the D60 because they are new and have AF-S.

[Ivonna]

The "nice cheap prime lens with autofocus" for the D60 is the 35mm f1.8 AF-S DX (sorry to give the long-winded full name but you need to be sure you don't get the 35mm f2). People don't talk about the 35mm f1.8 because it's only just come on the market and it's pretty rare. It costs about $220

Thanks Charles, you're the first to mention this one to me and I've now made the rounds of several camera shops. I will check it out and I'm all for "long-winded full names" so I get the correct lens. I have the 60mm on my Nikon "wish list" already!

This forum has been a great resource. I've been reading all sorts of posts from the past year. Now, if only someone could make up my mind for me ;)

[Franglais]

The 35mm f1.8 is really nice. It looks and feels great on the D60 (much better than the kit lens). I have it with me most of the time when I'm out travelling. I like the "standard 50mm view", neither wide-angle nor tele (the 35mm on a small sensor gives the same view as a 50mm on 24x36 film)

Here is my lightweight travelling kit -

Nikon D60 with 35mm
Nikon 18-200 VR
Tamron 11-18