OT (On Topic ;-) - D40 officially introduced

[P. J. Alling]

But you get my drift.

Adam Maas wrote:
> Well, they do have the two 18-55's and the 55-200. But nothing else. And the 70-300G is a better deal than the 55-200 (cheaper, more range, similar performance, but unusable as a MF lens due to having the worst focus ring ever put on a lens).
>
> -Adam
>
>
> P. J. Alling wrote:
>   
>> So Nikon has released a budget body and has no budget lenses that are 
>> fully compatible.  Interesting marketing move.
>>
>> Adam Maas wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> That's a major issue. While all but one DX lens is AF-S (The 10.5mm fisheye isn't), the only low-budget lenses that are AF-S are the 18-55's and the 55-200. Because the lowest-end of the film Nikons have never supported AF-S, all the other low-budget lenses are screwdriver AF, even 3rd party lenses.
>>>
>>> If you want an AF-S telezoom, your cheapest options after the 55-200 are the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM or the Nikon 70-300 VR, neither of which are below $600USD and the latter is widely available.
>>>
>>> -Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Boris Liberman wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I am not a Nikonian, but how many lenses are there with AF motor in
>>>> the lens compared to grand total number of Nikon lenses that could be
>>>> mounted on this camera?
>>>>
>>>> This is not a trolling question, merely my curiosity.
>>>>
>>>> On 11/16/06, Dario Bonazza <d.bonazza at tin.it> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06111603nikond40handsonpreview.asp
>>>>>
>>>>> Dario
>>>>>      
>>>>>           
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>
>>>  
>>>       
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>