Built-in autofocus, Is that budget savvy?

[KmH]

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.

There you go - "Now, granted the newer AF versions typically got other goodies as well."

 

[pixmedic1 1]

There you go - "Now, granted the newer AF versions typically got other goodies as well."

But the original question was whether or not getting a built in motor was budget savy..not whether af-s lenses were better. Seems pretty budget savy to me if you can do what you need with older AF glass on a camera with a built in motor.

 

[fjrabon]

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.

I own a DX camera, and there are a lot of AF lenses I'm interested in. Especially in the used market where AF lenses can be really cheap.

Again, you haven't even ever used any of the lenses you are even talking about, this is like a weekly thing for you. You talk down the optical quality of the older AF lenses, like it's some gargantuan difference. It's not. Many of the AF lenses run circles around your 35mm AF-S optically. FX glass on DX bodies is a pretty amazing thing.

I've used a lot of AF lenses, and some are still really good on a DX camera. The AF 50mm is cheap as dirt and is still really good. the wide primes are still really good and faster than the zoom you mentioned and cheaper. The 80-200 f/2.8 still performs really well, and is half the price of its AF-S upgrade. Like I said above, the amount of money you can save just from that one lens (80-200 f/2.8 AF), which a lot of pro sports dudes still use, by the way, pays for a D7000 by itself. I've saved easily a couple thousand dollars buying AF lenses over the updated AF-S counterparts. You save that much money on some of the less used lenses in your kit, so you can really pay the big money when you're buying your workhorse lens.

 

[pixmedic1 1]

Try buying a larger prime like the 300mm f/4 and see if going to the older AF lens doesnt save you some money. If you HAVE to have SWM and VR then yea..you dont have much choice. But optically the older lenses are just fine. Theres other reasons to get a better body besides the AF motor...dual command wheels, better build quality, top LCD screen, flash commander, available OEM grips. In the end though, its up to the buyer to do their research and buy what best suits their needs and budget...and not just listen to a bunch of schmo's on the internet telling them what is best for them.

 

[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.

There you go - "Now, granted the newer AF versions typically got other goodies as well."

Right, which I think was the point. When you're comparing FX to FX and DX to DX, the AF-S lenses are a little better in quality, have a couple of the newest features and are a lot more expensive. You originally stated AF-S lenses were cheaper, which I don't think is true. There are a lot more DX AF-S lenses than there are AF, so that skews things. But when you compare DX to DX and FX to FX, AF is way cheaper.

 

[Solarflare]

Hu ? I'm not aware that AF versions are much cheaper, unless we discuss used now.

And yes, if you want to get a lot of AF lenses, getting a D7000 / D90 / D300s / used D700 / etc might be worth it.

But do people who want something like that even want a D3200 or D5100 ? With no second command dial etc.