Built-in autofocus, Is that budget savvy?

[Sarmad]

People don't recommend Nikon D5xxx and D3xxx series to beginners because they lack built in autofocus motor, I want to know, Is that a thing which would save us some money? Because Non-autofocus cameras would need AF-S lens which would be a bit more expensive? Is there a huge price difference between simple lenses and AF-S lenses?
Plus I wanted to know that Is Autofocus a must-have feature? I think autofocus is only in videos? Is there any function of autofocus in Stills?

 

[MLeeK]

Either you spend the money on the better body, or you spend the money in the lenses. My choice would be to spend it on the better body. However if you just plain don't have the cash and HAVE to buy your camera right this second, then go with the D5000 series.

 

[480sparky43 43]

If your body has a focus motor, you can buy lenses that don't.

AF works for both stills and video. Unless you get an external mic for video, you'll end up recording sounds of the motor focusing.

 

[KmH]

People don't recommend Nikon D5xxx and D3xxx series to beginners because they lack built in autofocus motor, I want to know, Is that a thing which would save us some money? Because Non-autofocus cameras would need AF-S lens which would be a bit more expensive? Is there a huge price difference between simple lenses and AF-S lenses?
Plus I wanted to know that Is Autofocus a must-have feature? I think autofocus is only in videos? Is there any function of autofocus in Stills?

Actually most of Nikons AF lenses that do not have a focus motor in them, cost more than the consumer grade AF-S lenses that do have an AF motor that most D5xxx and D3xxx users would be interested in.
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/All-Lenses/index.page

 

[fjrabon]

well, it depends. The best lenses Nikon makes today are all AF-S anyway, so a focus motor isn't necessary at all if you are just buying new top of the line AF-S lenses. However, there are some true value gems of lenses that nikon makes that are AF. They arent quite as good as their updated AF-S versions, but they're probably 99% of the way. And they typically cost almost half the price of the more updated AF-S version.

Take for instance the nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF, you can usually find it for about $1000 new or $800 used. The nikon 70-200 f/2.8 is about $2400 new or about $2000 used (though you almost NEVER see this lens for sale used. People don't typically plunk down that kind of change for a lens that is still top of the line to turn around and sell it).

Now, the AF-S 70-200 has VR added in as well, which is part of the price difference, and the optics are maybe a smidgen better. However, it's fairly obvious that a big chunk of the change you are saving is due to it being an AF lens, instead of an AF-S lens. And since probably 90% of the usage for a 70-200 f/2.8 lens is sports, where you shoot at high enough shutter speeds to not need VR, the 80-200 f/2.8 can be an amazing value. This one lens was probably 50% of my impetus to upgrade my body to a D7000. I knew I was going to shoot sports, and I essentially upgraded my body and bought a lens that has served me just as well as the 70-200 VR would have, for the same exact price. It's almost like I got the D7000 free, compared to the price of the 70-200 VR.

 

[fjrabon]

Keith, are you comparing apples to apples though? Almost all the AF lenses that got a direct AF-S upgrade, the AF version is now much cheaper. Now, granted the newer AF versions typically got other goodies as well.

I think you're mostly comparing consumer grade AF-S to pro or semi-pro AF.

 

[fjrabon]

More or less direct upgrades from AF to AF-S:

50mm f/1.8: AF = $135; AF-S = $219
70-300mm f/4; AF = $172.95; AF-S (with VR) = $589.95
70-200mm f/2.8; (actually 80-200) AF = $1200; AF-S (with VR) = $2400

The only cases where I can find comparable AF lenses are more expensive than AF-S are when you're comparing a FX AF lens to a DX AF-S lens. It's a lot cheaper to make a lens when you only have to worry about the DX portion of the glass being sharp.

 

[pixmedic1 1]

Not to mention, if you get a body with a built in motor, you can pick up any AF or AF-D lens you run across cheap on ebay or craigslist and it will autofocus on your camera. you can also take advantage of older third party lenses that can be had at really good prices used. If you arent stuck on buying only the latest AF-S lenses, you could potentially save a TON of money on your lenses if you don't mind buying older glass. the newer glass might be a little better, but just remember, all these older lenses WERE the top of the line lenses at one point and people did just fine with them then, so theres no reason you cant do the same with them now. :mrgreen:

 

[fjrabon]

Not to mention, if you get a body with a built in motor, you can pick up any AF or AF-D lens you run across cheap on ebay or craigslist and it will autofocus on your camera. you can also take advantage of older third party lenses that can be had at really good prices used. If you arent stuck on buying only the latest AF-S lenses, you could potentially save a TON of money on your lenses if you don't mind buying older glass. the newer glass might be a little better, but just remember, all these older lenses WERE the top of the line lenses at one point and people did just fine with them then, so theres no reason you cant do the same with them now. :mrgreen:

Yep, being able to use AF glass really allows you to flesh out a lens collection with glass that you won't necessarily use a whole lot, but want for certain occasions. Take for instance the 28mm f/2.8. It's a super fun lens to own, but putting aside the fact that there isn't even really a comparable AF-S lens anyway, the thing is only $180-200 used. And they're relatively easy to find. If you want AF-S, you're forced to buy the 28mm f/1.8. Which is obviously a LOT faster, but costs $700, because A) it's AF-S and B) you can almost never find it used. For me $180 is okay to spend on a lens that I won't use a whole lot, that is just a cool lens to own. $700 is not.

 

[Solarflare]

To me, this discussion is completely moot and absurd.

There are very few AF lenses left who didnt got their optically improved AF-S version. None of which one wants to use on DX anyway.

All the really cheap DX lenses are AF-S anyway. No AF version available in the first place.

The only people who could still be interested in AF lenses are actually those who have a FX camera. And there isnt a single Nikon FX camera out there that doesnt have the AF motor.

So yeah, its a perfect non-issue.

If you are actually a beginner, just spend a bit more money for AF-S lenses so you get the newer, optically better, more silent and faster version.

Or get the D7000 or some used older camera with an AF motor, those are better cameras anyway.

 

[jake337]

To me, this discussion is completely moot and absurd.

There are very few AF lenses left who didnt got their optically improved AF-S version. None of which one wants to use on DX anyway.

All the really cheap DX lenses are AF-S anyway. No AF version available in the first place.

The only people who could still be interested in AF lenses are actually those who have a FX camera. And there isnt a single Nikon FX camera out there that doesnt have the AF motor.

So yeah, its a perfect non-issue.

If you are actually a beginner, just spend a bit more money for AF-S lenses so you get the newer, optically better, more silent and faster version.

Or get the D7000 or some used older camera with an AF motor, those are better cameras anyway.

Actually a lot of people interested in FX glass have DX bodies.

Especially nature photographers who want long(200mm+) and fast(f2, 2.8) can save large amounts of cash by going the used af-d or even manual focus route. Not that the manual focus route would matter in this discussion anyway besides that they would not meter on baby nikons.

 

[jake337]

To me, this discussion is completely moot and absurd.

There are very few AF lenses left who didnt got their optically improved AF-S version. None of which one wants to use on DX anyway.

All the really cheap DX lenses are AF-S anyway. No AF version available in the first place.

The only people who could still be interested in AF lenses are actually those who have a FX camera. And there isnt a single Nikon FX camera out there that doesnt have the AF motor.

So yeah, its a perfect non-issue.

If you are actually a beginner, just spend a bit more money for AF-S lenses so you get the newer, optically better, more silent and faster version.

Or get the D7000 or some used older camera with an AF motor, those are better cameras anyway.

The few that have not been upgraded may be game changers for some though...
14mm f2.8 af-d
18mm f2.8 af-d
20mm f2.8 af-d
45mm f2.8 af-d(pancake, this would be a sweet af-s lens)
50mm f1.2 ais
58mm f1.2 noct(they should really remake this lens in af-s)
105mm f2 af-d
135mm f2 af-d
180mm f2.8 af-d
400mm f3.5 ais(This would be a sweet consumer 400mm prime in af-s)

 

[Solarflare]

Err. Why do you list AI-S lenses ? AI and AI-S wont autofocus, no matter what.

The 14mm, 18mm, 20mm f/2.8 are pretty much obsolete thanks to the AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom which is optically just as good.

The 105mm and 135mm dont make much sense on DX. On FX these are still portrait lenses, on DX this range stops at about 90mm.

Also, what beginner wants a ***load of primes ? Somebody who only owns only a D3200 or D5100 or their precedessors ?

 

[jake337]

Err. Why do you list AI-S lenses ? AI and AI-S wont autofocus, no matter what.

The 14mm, 18mm, 20mm f/2.8 are pretty much obsolete thanks to the AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom which is optically just as good.

The 105mm and 135mm dont make much sense on DX. On FX these are still portrait lenses, on DX this range stops at about 90mm.

Also, what beginner wants a ***load of primes ? Somebody who only owns only a D3200 or D5100 or their precedessors ?

I only listed the AIS primes because they do not have an Af-d or AF-s successor.

Who's to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't have. I'm a beginner and I want all primes...

 

[pixmedic1 1]

Err. Why do you list AI-S lenses ? AI and AI-S wont autofocus, no matter what.

The 14mm, 18mm, 20mm f/2.8 are pretty much obsolete thanks to the AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom which is optically just as good.

The 105mm and 135mm dont make much sense on DX. On FX these are still portrait lenses, on DX this range stops at about 90mm.

Also, what beginner wants a ***load of primes ? Somebody who only owns only a D3200 or D5100 or their precedessors ?

Beginners that want the sharpest and fastest lenses want an ***load of primes.