Ah, I see. a) My Nikon D5000 & D60 do not have the mechanical coupling pin b) But, I can clearly see the coupling hole for my D50
Here is a shot, taken by the D5000, of the D50 and D60 side by side:
True.
All my Nikon (Nikkor?) lenses are from Nikon camera kits at Costco.
So I wouldn't have any older lenses or cameras that don't 'know' about AF- S.
It seems I received two lenses with each of the three Nikon SLRs so I have six lenses, two of which are non AF-S, the rest are AF-S.
I concur. I had no idea where the motor was in any of my Nikon SLRs from Costco.
I now realize why my Nikon D50 is so much heavier than my Nikon D60 and D5000! And, why the lenses didn't work when I tried using them initially.
It wasn't common knowledge to me but I never did any research. Just like when I bought my BMW, I just 'assumed' it was designed well. (The BMW is a whole 'nother story because it breaks so much that I was forced to learn how to fix it.)
The Nikons broke but I didn't know how to fix them.
Now, with the new bayonet mounts on their way, I can at least fix the most common breakage of the lenses!
I got the point.
There are lenses that are not made by Nikon with 'will work' with the Nikon camera bodies that I have.
For my Nikon D60 and D5000, those non-Nikon lenses will need to have an internal motor in order to autofocus.
For my Nikon D50, any non-Nikon lenses don't need a motor to work with the autofocus.
Thanks!
Searching for the phrase "the world is flat" results in 43,400,000 hits. Is Google right or wrong? Is the world flat?
what does that have to do with what i said? nothing.
try to stay on topic, for once.
Just asking. You seem to think that Google can be right or wrong.
Google does not correct spelling errors. Google leads you to instances that resemble the word you typed, but it does not correct the spelling.
It's a bit like reading one of your posts. We can determine what you meant even if you did not write what you meant.
i never said that.
it can correct spelling and there's a way to disable it for those who prefer it to be off.
except that you seem to always come up with things i did not say or mean.
You said: "the proper word is compatible. in fact, if you google "nikon comparable lenses", google will show results for "nikon compatible lenses". maybe you should go tell google they're wrong."
Q.E.D.
google thinks your use of the word comparable is wrong (which it is), therefore it substituted the correct word when searching for that phrase.
as i said, they have a search quality team dedicated to stuff like that. go argue with them. i'm sure they'll get a big kick out you.
Actually they are wrong if they confuse "compatible" & "comparable". It seems their search engine didn't do too well at English 101. "compatible " and "comparable" have two very specific meanings and the results returned should actually have a mix of both, as some lenses would be "comparable, some compatible and some both.
For example the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VRII and the Canon
70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM are not compatible but they are certainly "comparable".Then there is the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM (available with both Canon and Nikon mount versions) can be described as comparable and compatible with both the Nikon or Canon, depending on version. Though I will concede that a proper comparison for any of these lenses can only be made on the same brand of body.
Also a properly worded Google search reveals that Google will indeed lead you to comparisons. <
Yup! Q.E.D.
Sad, isn't it?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.