auto focus motor in lens vs body?

[p1tse]

as i'm considering the nikon d90 which has auto focus motor in the body, what differences/ recommendation would it be if with similar lens, but one has auto focus and the other doesnt?

i.e. as my favourite lens on the sony is the tamron 28-75 f2.8, i see for nikon fit there is a motorised and non motorised version. (also how to tell the difference in these)?

[Bristolian]

Hi p1tse,

All Nikon lenses with motors built-in are designated AF-S or AF-I. With the D90 you can use both AF and AF-S/AF-I versions of lenses as the motor drive is in the camera. This gives a greater range of lenses to choose from compared to bodies like the D40/60/3000/5000 which have to have AF-S lenses to auto-focus.

I recently upgraded from the D40 to D80 and that was one of the major considerations for doing so.

HTH

[cowasaki]

Hi p1tse,

All Nikon lenses with motors built-in are designated AF-S or AF-I. With the D90 you can use both AF and AF-S/AF-I versions of lenses as the motor drive is in the camera. This gives a greater range of lenses to choose from compared to bodies like the D40/60/3000/5000 which have to have AF-S lenses to auto-focus.

I recently upgraded from the D40 to D80 and that was one of the major considerations for doing so.

HTH

I think it is whether to choose a motorised lens over a non motorised lens!

[cowasaki]

If you take the AFS 50mm f1.4G & AF 50mm f1.4D

AF is £50 cheaper
AF focuses quicker
AFS is quieter
AFS is apparently sharper in certain circs

I think you need to look at each lens pair specifically and then decide. At least you can make that decision now.

[p1tse]

thanks

that kind of makes sense. i have just read some classified blurbs where sellers are saying that the non motorised focuses quicker too and wanted to check it out, but not understanding why.

if i was to look at the tamron 28-75 f2.8 which would be the better option on the d90?

[Chaz Photos]

I can not understand why Nikon have put the motor in the camera?
This mean you are using the same motor over and over with every lens you have.
Put it in the lens and it will only get used for that lens.
Was it a way of getting Nikon users to buy only there lens? Guess the others soon caught on they can now make cheaper lens for Nikon
Don’t have this issue with Canon

[heidfirst]

I can not understand why Nikon have put the motor in the camera?
This mean you are using the same motor over and over with every lens you have.
do you really mean this?
If so I guess that you don't realise that this is the traditional way of doing AF with the lens being driven from the body.
Despite being used for only 1 lens in-lens motors seem to fail more often than in-body.

Put it in the lens and it will only get used for that lens.
Was it a way of getting Nikon users to buy only there lens? Guess the others soon caught on they can now make cheaper lens for Nikon
Don’t have this issue with Canon
Canon were probably the 1st to go to in-lens motor.
I admit to not being fully up on the ins & outs of all Canons but afaik some bodies still have in-body screw drive...

[david1701]

all canon since the 80's have been in lens AF which is why all lenses and bodies since the 80s are interchangable apart from a few ef-s lenses that are set up for smaller sensors

anywho massively off topic, in theory an in lens motor is better than in body as it should be faster and be set up for the lens it drives but tbh it comes down to reviews of the two as a pair and working out which is superior

[p1tse]

thanks

but if using a motorised lens on a auto focus body, which one takes primary focus?

[heidfirst]

anywho massively off topic, in theory an in lens motor is better than in body as it should be faster
I think that you'll find people can argue that depending upon motor strengths & gearing - about the only unequivocal thing is that in-lens tends to be quieter.

thanks

but if using a motorised lens on a auto focus body, which one takes primary focus?
the in-lens because that lens won't be able to be driven from the body motor - it's either/or.

[longlyogre]

For tamron 28-75, there is no big difference if you use D90. The focus process is not very long, and both motorised and no motor lens are drived by the camera body. You wont clearly realise the difference.

But for the tele-lens, such as 80-200 or 70-300, AF-S should be quicker than AF.

However, the main benefit that with motor on lens is that will be quieter than motor on body. Such as SWM or HSM. Besides, many people believe that AFS lens is more correct and reliable than other AF lens but I never really realise it.

[Chaz Photos]

I think that you'll find people can argue that depending upon motor strengths & gearing - about the only unequivocal thing is that in-lens tends to be quieter.


the in-lens because that lens won't be able to be driven from the body motor - it's either/or.

But any drive you have the less linkage you have the better.
Direct drive is the way to go; ask anyone who is in to Vinyl records and see what kind of turn table they have.
Linkage = loss of power also adds to wear

[heidfirst]

But any drive you have the less linkage you have the better.
Direct drive is the way to go; ask anyone who is in to Vinyl records and see what kind of turn table they have.
Linkage = loss of power also adds to wear
most high end audiophile turntables (LP12s, Xerxes, PTs etc. ) are belt driven & not direct drive.

[cowasaki]

most high end audiophile turntables (LP12s, Xerxes, PTs etc. ) are belt driven & not direct drive.

I had a Xerxes, it was great.... With a Linn arm and an ATF5 cartridge, blimey I can still remember them! Yes belt driven.

[Flash In The Pan]

If you try shooting with an Nikon 80-200 (with no af motor) and then switch to a 70-200 VR with the motor the difference in af speed is very noticeable

[cowasaki]

If you try shooting with an Nikon 80-200 (with no af motor) and then switch to a 70-200 VR with the motor the difference in af speed is very noticeable

I would love to be able to afford the 70-200 to try it :)

It is what I was saying earlier you cannot just say one is better than the other because some lenses WITH motors are slower whilst others are faster! The 80-200 is quite slow (without a motor) whilst the AF50mm f/1.4 is actually faster than my new AFS 50mm f/1.4

[heidfirst]

I had a Xerxes, it was great.... With a Linn arm and an ATF5 cartridge, blimey I can still remember them! Yes belt driven.
a man of taste - I've still got a Xerxes but it has a Rega RB300 & Audio Technica OC7 :)

as mentioned it's possible for some lenses with USM/HSM/SSM/ etc. etc. to be faster than others driven from the body but it's also possible for some body driven lenses to be faster than others with USM/HSM/SSM/ etc. - it's all down to individual combos of body & lens really.

In my experience in-lens AF motors tend to be quieter & often quicker for very minor focus adjustments but there are certainly some body driven lens that will either keep up with or beat them end to end.

[photon]

With Nikkor's in-lens Silent Wave Motor, or Sigma's Hyper Sonic Motor, you benefit from manual focus override.

The Tamron 17-50 is said to be slower to focus, in the second version equipped with a motor.

[p1tse]

The Tamron 17-50 is said to be slower to focus, in the second version equipped with a motor.

really

as if i change to nikon i'll look for a tamron 28-75 f2.8 version, but i see there is a motorised and non motorised version too on this

[photon]

Here's a comparison of the two 17-50s: http://www.photomalaysia.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44106

Bear in mind that the earlier version can become hard to find.