>> |
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)
|