Gene51 wrote:
As Don stated, AF-D no motor in the lens, AF-S has a silent wave motor, and there are AF-I lenses that have a motor but the old-school noisy one that is generally slower and less accurate.
AF-I and AF-D generally have an aperture ring. AF-S lenses can be designated as G lenses, which lack an aperture ring, but do transmit distance data for 3D Matrix metering systems.
Nearly all higher level bodies, currently the D7000 series on up, have internal focus drives. and can use either AF-D, AF-I or AF-S lenses, G or non G. The entry level bodies, like the 3000 and 5000 series require lenses with built in motors.
As Don stated, AF-D no motor in the lens, AF-S has... (
show quote)
Gene, Thank you for the specifics. I probably should have told all at the outset. I have a D5300 body accompanied by:
Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1:1.8 G
Nikon DX VR AF-S Nikkor18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 G
Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8 G
Nikon DX VR AF-S Nikkor 18-140 mm 1:3.5-5.6 G
and a soon to arrive 55-300mm f4-5.6 which I presume to be the same set of specs.
According to the Nikon website, most of these should work on an F series body (the Df being one I have studied). If I follow your explanation correctly, all these have focusing motors. So I have to assume that if the Df or any other "pro series" full frame model has a focusing motor, it must override or work with the lens to achieve automatic focusing. I further assume that some of the higher weight of the Df, for example, has to come from integrating the focusing motor in the body.
Thank you all. I'm getting there. There is just a bewildering array of Nikon models. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to help.
Re: Nikon D5300 and Nikon Df. I thought that D lenses each has their own focusing motors and that "F" bodies have a focusing motor in the body, so none is in "F" lenses. If this is true, then what does an "F" body do with a D lens focus motor. Nikon says that D lenses can, in many cases, be used in an "F" body. I appreciate your help in educating me.
Dan Mc wrote:
Years ago, in a class, I recall using "Xylene" to clean then 'scopes. Not sure exactly what it was, but it cleaned quick and easy and no residue. It did have the aroma of lighter fluid though.
Xylene is another aromatic hydrocarbon solvent. However AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, it is a powerful solvent and could damage some plastics and cements used in lenses. Also, it evaporates slowly so it will not work as well as methanol or VMP Naptha (aka lighter fluid kind of). I've use Xylene to degrease firearm parts but NEVER lenses or delicate equipment. It too is an inhalation hazard.
Basil wrote:
Even though I'm a Canon guy, I actually like the looks of Nikon cameras better.
As a beginner, I started with the Nikon FM and loved the look and feel. Always performed spot on and I wish the Df were closer in simplicity and weight, but I guess that's a long shot given all the digital stuff (and battery power) that has to take place in a DSLR. But I think the FM is what Nikon is aiming for with the Df.
I have had over 10 years experience on E-Bay without problems. However, their fee structure seems to have increased over the past few years and it can get costly. On the up side, the site reaches a very high number of buyers so I guess that's why they can charge like they do. Then you can get dinged a little further by PayPal. Just a cost of doing business. However, after doing a few listings, it seems a lot less difficult.
Erik_H wrote:
This is a camera gun mount! :lol:
pointing a gun at a live subject is a NO!! NO!! NO!! That's how folks die from "unloaded" guns.
I have read both of the blogs referenced in this thread about DX vs. FX. One item that seems to be missing other than the reference to the weight of camera bodies is weight of lenses. Am I correct in assuming (in Nikon Systems) that DX lenses carry their own focusing motors in the lens and that FX lenses rely on a focusing motor in the camera body? Following this logic, FX lenses with the same aperture range and focal length should be lighter in an FX lens due to the absence of a focusing motor in the lens. Sorry if this is a dumb question. Life seemed simpler in my old 35mm world.
balticvid wrote:
I would only trust a cleaner with the Leica or Ziess
name on it. Who makes the lens pens?
Mine came with my Leupold scope, but the maker is not specified. Just has a Leupold name on it.
chickenfish wrote:
First, I'm new to the group and want to say I enjoy reading all the posts.
I have a question about Lens Pen. I don't have a problem with a dirty camera lens but do have another optical device that I need to clean (binoculars). I have used the brush end of Lens Pens for quite a long time, but my question concerns the other end which is described as a "carbon cleaning compound." Although it's advertised as being completely safe for even coated optics, I'm not sure I want to try to clean optics with a carbon cleaning compound. Does anyone have any experience with this, or should I just use a quality moist lens cleaning wipe?
Thanks in advance for any advice.
First, I'm new to the group and want to say I enjo... (
show quote)
Often, Leupold rifle scopes come with lens pens. These feature a soft brush on one end and a carbon cleaner on the other. I have used them more often on scopes than camera lenses without problems. However the carbon cleaner is shaped and intuitively seems to require the absence of any grit or particulate matter before use. If the brush can't move it then wet lens tissue might be better.
dandi wrote:
I have it and use it all the time on DX Nikon camera. Compact, very sharp, fast and not expensive, I wish all lenses were like that.
Do you and do most users have this lens on a D series body and not a FF body? Will it work on an FF body?
Capture48 wrote:
In my opinion filters for protection are a SLR thing, left over from non-digital age. With the lens coatings manufactures use these days, it just does not make sense to put a cheep piece of glass in front of my good glass. But these filter makers have to try to sell them to stay in business, so they sell them as if they were a condom. If you are careful you don't need protection, and lens hoods offer just as much protection as a filter
if not more. Bonus, they come with your lenses.
Have you or has anyone tested the filters by taking pictures with and without the UV filter installed?
Interesting at the Golan is the view to the Kibbitzum below. You can see why Israel would not give it up. The Golan is a perfect artillery placement to fire on the Jews in the valley. Lots of war relics dotting the area when I was there.
We went to Israel in 2011 and it is fascinating. I did not feel uncomfortable, especially seeing so many folks armed to the teeth. I'm a marksman so I don't mind seeing M-16 carrying soldiers boarding the bus or armed civilians accompanying school children visiting the headwaters of the Jordan. We did have to change busses and tour guides when crossing into Bethlehem. Places to included besides Jerusalem, if you can, include the sea of Galilee, the Golan Heights so you can appreciate why Israel will not cede that area to Lebanon, Masada and the Dead Sea. Our tour guide at the Golan was an ex Mossad so he lot's of interesting stories. A tour guide is essential. Please excuse some of my spelling errors.