File :-(, x, )
Why no inexpensive fast AF-S prime for Nikon? mrogers !0oxbJ.IS4w
I love my D40. I think I made the right choice for my needs and budget, and I like much of what the Nikon SLR system has to offer. The one thing that I miss from not going with Canon though is that $75 50mm f/1.8 lens that pretty much every XTi owner seems to have. How is there not something comparable for Nikons? The Canon lens has an internal AF motor, just like Nikon AF-S lenses, so I'm sure someone could manufacture one for around the same cost. I just don't get why it hasn't happened yet. It's been what, almost two years since the first AF-S Nikon showed up? If not Nikon, then why not Tamron or Sigma make an affordable fast prime? Whoever does would make a killing, because most casual photographers (like me) can slip a ~$100 piece of glass past the wife a lot easier than a ~$400-$600 piece.

I just don't get why this huge hole in the Nikon lens lineup hasn't been filled -- if not by Nikon, then by someone else. Am I missing something? Does anyone know if such a lens is on the horizon?

(Please no comments telling me to buy the non-AF-S 50mm. No thank you.)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
you called?
>> Anonymous
>>162775
What this post is saying, OP, is that Sigma is coming out with a 50/1.4 that will work on your D40.
>> Anonymous
>>162779
Fuck me. I just looked at it up close. That's a 30/1.4 from Sigma, which will also work, and is out now.
>> Anonymous
your wife is dumb. just remind her where that money is coming from.
>> Anonymous
Neither the 30 nor the 50 are cheap by the standards OP said, though
>> Anonymous
>I think I made the right choice for my needs and budget,

Nope. D50 would've been better.

>slip a ~$100 piece of glass past the wife a lot easier than a ~$400-$600 piece.

She's your wife. Explain to her why this is important to you instead of trying to slip stuff past her. She's your wife, your partner, not your mom. You don't need to hide stuff you buy under the bed now.
>> Anonymous
>I think I made the right choice for my needs and budget,

D40 is never the right choice. D50 would have been a sound investment. You wouldn't be spending 200 dollars over for a 50 prime right now if you hadnt bought Nikon's crappiest body! Just look at that! Came back and bit you in the ass, didn't it?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Thing is, the D40 isn't targeted at the sort of people who want to buy fast prime lenses. It's targeted at the sort of people for whom the kit lens could be welded to the body for all they care. Nikon's feeling is that if you want to use all of the lens lineup, you should spend 2-3 times the money on a D80 instead.

And really, they're right. By leaving out the AF motor, they're saving a lot of money per camera body sold to someone who's never going to buy another lens, and it let them lower the body price low enough that they can sell a lot more D40s than they otherwise would have.

I'm sure they'll eventually update the rest of the AF line with in-body motors, but it'll probably be around the time they come out with a D80 replacement with no in-body motor. The money they'd make by selling 50/1.8s to D40 owners wouldn't make up for the money they'd lose by selling 50/1.8s with unnecessary AF motors to D80, D300, D3, and F6 owners.

As for why someone else hasn't come along to fill the niche: Sigma has the 30/1.4. That's their offering. They're not going to come out with a cheap 50/1.8 because their only market would be D40/D40x/D60 owners--Sigma makes its money by spreading development costs around with the same lens design mounting on Canon, Nikon, Sony, Four Thirds, etc. They're not going to make any money by selling a lens that Canon is selling for $75 and Nikon is selling for $85.

(They're coming out with a 50/1.4 because they can sell it for less than the Canon and Nikon 50/1.4s and still make a profit)
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>162786You don't need to hide stuff you buy under the bed now.

Unless it's going to be a surprise for her. I don't know, perhaps a new flail or vibe?
>> Anonymous
>>162797And really, they're right. By leaving out the AF motor, they're saving a lot of money per camera body sold to someone who's never going to buy another lens, and it let them lower the body price low enough that they can sell a lot more D40s than they otherwise would have.

They're right? How do you figure?

It sold for less than other companies' entry level cameras and yet Canon sells more of theirs.

More like massive failure on their part and fucking their customers.
>> mrogers !0oxbJ.IS4w
OK, so perhaps there's not as much demand as I thought. But like I said, that Canon lens sells really well among amateur shooters, so I don't see why the Nikon crowd would be much different. I suppose you're correct in pointing out that the % of Nikon's lineup that requires lens-based AF motors is pretty small right now (just the three models I think...D40, D40x, D60), but from what I've heard this is the beginning of a full-blown transition so that one day all Nikons will just use AF-S. Didn't Canon go through something similar at some point, a transition from body- to lens-based AF motors?

---

Different people work different ways. Of course my wife likes to see me happy, but we have other priorities too. We have long-term plans that we are saving for, and the money is both of ours, it's not "my" money, and we don't make major purchases without consulting each other. I'll stop there because that's not what this thread is about. Quit focusing on the words I chose; the point is that we're looking for an affordable AF-S prime.

Can we go back to talking about lenses now?
>> Anonymous
>>162800
Uh, care to provide some numbers to back that up?
>> Anonymous
>>162797

If that was true then how come Canon are selling the 50mm 1.8 and other lenses in huge numbers for their Rebel cameras?

Don't forget the fact that the biggest market by far is the budget ones. They dwarf all the rest in numbers and profit.
>> Anonymous
>>162806

I don't think anyone ever found reliable statistics but Canon has always been leading in sales for both digital cameras and DSLR.

So we're just extrapolating.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162800
>They're right? How do you figure? It sold for less than other companies' entry level cameras and yet Canon sells more of theirs. More like massive failure on their part and fucking their customers.
Canon had the highest overall DSLR marketshare before the D40. Nikon recently overtook them again.

I don't dispute your assertion that Canon's been selling more Rebels than Nikon's been selling D40s. So you know what that market share growth means? It means that the sort of users who are buying cheap Rebels on the Canon side are buying D80s on the Nikon side instead.
>> Anonymous
>>162817Nikon recently overtook them again.

No, that's only in Japan. Canon is leading worldwide.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1207604859.html

http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/04/02/canon-lost-digital-slr-market-share-to-nikon-in-2007-market-as-
a-whole-grew/
>> Anonymous
>>162817So you know what that market share growth means? It means that the sort of users who are buying cheap Rebels on the Canon side are buying D80s on the Nikon side instead.

Um, what? Why would someone interested in a cheap Rebel go buy a D80 at double the price?

It's more about the D300 and D3 owning shit up. What the hell are you smoking?
>> Anonymous
>>162814
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Nikon_maintains_DSLR_lead_over_Canon_news_128284.html
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9882670-39.html?tag=nefd.top

Canon's significantly behind in Japan while maintaining a slight lead worldwide, as Nikon's growth rate is more than double Canon's. Sounds like massive failure on Nikon's part and fucking their customers.

>>162813
Again, how exactly would you know the attach rate of nifty fifties to Rebels?
>> Anonymous
>>162819http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/04/02/canon-lost-digital-slr-market-share-to-nikon-in-2007-market-as-
a-whole-grew/

wow, people buy kodak cameras?

i guess it's a household name..

poor pentax ;_;
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162819
Maaan. That fucks up my argument. Ass.

Nevermind then.

>>162821
>Um, what? Why would someone interested in a cheap Rebel go buy a D80 at double the price?
Well, it's a moot point apparently, but the D80 is down to $850 with 18-55, which is actually cheaper than the Rebel XSi (at $900 with 18-55 IS)
>> Anonymous
>>162826
Your argument still stands. D40 = soccer mom camera so AF-S primes don't fucking matter, regardless of accurate sales figures (which nobody has coughed up).
>> Anonymous
>>162831

>> Canon sold 3.18 million SLRs last year to Nikon’s 2.98 million.

The D3 and D300 surge is accounted for in those numbers.

So uh, unless Canon is selling a whole lot more 1Ds/1D/5D/40Ds, there are more Rebels out there.
>> Anonymous
I almost fell for the D40.
D40/60/insert future ## can kiss my ass for not 100% nikon lens capability.

You made the wrong choice n00b.
>> Anonymous
>>162831

site is hard to navigate but here:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5170/top-selling-digital-slrs-for-january.html

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5245/top-selling-digital-slrs-for-february.html

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/3904/top-5-digital-slrs-for-january.html

some rankings for 2007 and 2008 not sure about the rest
>> Anonymous
>>162834
Well yeah, if Canon is number one it makes sense that there are more Rebels than D40's, but D40 still = soccer mom camera and doesn't matter if it's got AF or not.
>> Anonymous
>>162844

No, his argument was flawed.

How do you explain people buying the Rebel? They're the same people.
>> Anonymous
I love my D40 too, despite all the bashing they get here. But, they are what they are. Beware buying fast primes for them. Because of the way the focusing screen works on DSLR's and the fact that the D40 was not aimed at fast lens owners, it does not accurately represent DOF for wide open prime lenses. DOF in viewfinder will be big, but actual image taken will not be in focus unless your very lucky. This effect is very noticeable on my 50mm/1.8. Suposidly possible to buy a cat-eye type screen to 'fix' it.
>> Anonymous
every time i autofocus with my 50mm, i say a prayer for d40 users

god bless for taking it in stride and getting reamed by nikon
>> Anonymous
>>162890

elaborate please. This thread is now relevant to my interests.
>> Anonymous
>>162890
Yeah, I have that problem with my camera when attempting to focus manually.

I've read that a good work-around would be to install a split prism focusing screen onto your camera; dont need to buy a Katzeye "turn my SLR into a point and shoot" overpriced piece of shit.
>> Anonymous
http://www.jayandwanda.com/photography/dslr_man_focus/man_focus.html was posted here earlier and explains the problem well.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/365610@N21/discuss/72157603946437336/ is experience of a d40 owner changing screens.

http://www.focusingscreen.com/ is where to get some screens...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IjSPL584zg is a video of someone doing it...

hope urls post ok on here. </n00b>
>> Anonymous
uh

canon doesn't produce a usm 50 1.8, the 50 is DC driven.

I think the 1.4 is usm, but thats more expensive than $70 bucks.

Nikon has a cheap 50 as well, I don't see what the hell the problem is?
>> Anonymous
>It's been what, almost two years since the first AF-S Nikon showed up?

I love D40 owners. They think this stuff is all new high technology.

AF-S first came around in 96.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162911
>dont need to buy a Katzeye "turn my SLR into a point and shoot" overpriced piece of shit.
...
What exactly the hell do you think the Katzeye focusing screen does? Because I don't think it has any real relation to reality if you think it turns your camera into a P&S...
>> Anonymous
>>162984
It's not USM, but every EOS lens (with the exception of the manual focus tilt shift lenses, etc.) has a motor of some sort in the lens. The EOS system has no mechanical connection between the body and the lens; i.e. the computer in the body just tells a computer in the lens to make stuff in the lens do stuff.
>> Anonymous
>>162802
>Didn't Canon go through something similar at some point, a transition from body- to lens-based AF motors?

At some point? yes... in the 19fucking80s. Way to go Nikon.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>163069
Actually, no they didn't. Even the weird T80 with its AC (Hah!) lenses used in-lens AF.

What they did go through was a transition from a full manual-focus system (other than the one little dead-end attempt to add autofocus to FD) to a completely incompatible autofocus system.

It's still debatable whether Nikon's gradual transition from MF to AF is better. You're guaranteed that any EF lens will work on any EF camera, which is nice, but Nikon users can at least mount and to a certain extent use lenses all the way back to the 50s.
>> Anonymous
>>162984Nikon has a cheap 50 as well, I don't see what the hell the problem is?

because with Canon you can buy that cheap $80 lens and it will autofocus

and with Nikon, you can't unless you buy the more expensive body?
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
Honestly, photography is fucking expensive, almost as expensive as my other favorite thing, guns. I went with Nikon because I didn't have any lenses already, and the future of lenses is AF-S. I have no problems paying 1200$ for a 17-55 f2.8, or 400$ for a prime, I realized what I was getting into when I got a digital camera. Do I have that kind of money to spend on lenses all the time? Hell no, but that 17-55 is a pro lens, and god willing, I'm only going to buy it once(unless they finally put VR on it). I like my canon stuff too, but for digital, I felt Nikon has the edge. I love the fact that I can get a 50mm prime for 75$, but I'm a firm believer in "you get what you pay for" and paying 400$ for a 50mm doesn't really bother me.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>163203
>almost as expensive as my other favorite thing, guns.
I think appropriate use of your guns could probably bring down the price of cameras a bit... ;)
>> Nikon !!eX1E3IhZL8k
>>163207

LOL, and some 'unwanted' attention as well....
>> Anonymous
>>163203I went with Nikon because I didn't have any lenses already, and the future of lenses is AF-S.

Except the future with Canon was back in 1987. HALLELUJAH