in-body or in-lens AF?

[Franglais]

...
But there's a rumor going on that says that Nikon lenses are better (or the best).

Check out "Le Monde de la Photo" magazine for August/September. They test the "Expert" camera kits available, including my 16-85VR and the 18-105VR. The Nikons are clearly ahead of everybody

[Anbesol]

Check out "Le Monde de la Photo" magazine for August/September. They test the "Expert" camera kits available, including my 16-85VR and the 18-105VR. The Nikons are clearly ahead of everybody

Look also at the Sony 70-400G, or look at Canons 70-200 f/4L.

Saying "Brand Y has better lens then Brand Z" is an impossible generalization. There are a hundred types of lens at all lengths, and performance isn't so easily equated. A more reasonable conclusion to draw is "All current DSLR brands offer equipment that can satisfy the most picky photographers." Performance differences are give and take with them all, all also being very minor - even minuscule. The only few major differences are in function, not performance or quality. Its a pretty bogus way of recommending gear by saying 'this brand has better optics'.

*edit - understanding that the hype of a brand of optics is the misnomer and phantom quarter truth that deceptively drives sales. Take the newer Nikon commercials with Ashton Kutcher - their closing statement is 'Its lens makes it a Nikon'. But, they've said that for some of their cameras that have everyday, ordinary, run of the mill plain old lens. So, why do they say that? Because its true, or because its good market deception, without technically being legally false advertising? You tell me. If its so clear, it would be more clear then just for some obscure french photography magazine, right? They couldn't be the only ones who know this clear and apparent truth. right?