Jeezus you are as dense as lead. They work, but they won't autofocus. That's it. That's my point. That's all I ever said. The chart says it, you say it, apparently MT Shooter even says it -- so what's your point?

Okay, I give up. You say yourself that you own AF-D lenses, but they work fine with your D800 and D7100. OF COURSE THEY DO! AF-D lenses are fully compatible with both cameras. Try to autofocus one of your AF-D lenses on a D40 -- which was all I ever tried to say -- and let me know how it works for you. This site is clearly the "cult of MT Shooter", and no one is really smart enough to pay attention to what is being said. I have better things to do with my time. I'm going to stick to Nikonians and NikonCafe in the future, where real photographers seem to have no problem understanding basic concepts.

In which case it is not an AF-D lens, but an AF-S or an AF-I lens. This whole ridiculous discussion -- which has veered so far from the OP's original question that I suspect we've driven him into hiding -- is over whether a "D" (for distance, no Disagreement there) ANYWHERE in name of the lens makes it a D-type lens. I maintain (as does Alan, and Nikon, apparently, along with DxO, PhotographyLife, DPReview and countless other sources), that AF-S lenses are AF-S lenses, and AF-I lenses are AF-I lenses, and AF-D lenses are AF-D lenses -- whereas you prefer to call them all AF-D lenses, if they have a D anywhere in the name.

I concede that the quote about the distinction regarding E type lenses was confusing. The point is, and always has been, that an AF-D lens will not autofocus on the old D40 body. Am I right or wrong? That's all I've been trying to say from the start. The "D" in the lenses you referenced in your first post refers to the transmission of distance information from camera to lens (and I think we agree about that as well). Where you go wrong is in referring to these lenses as "D-type" lenses. I am talking about the type of lenses that require a screw drive to auto focus; for example, the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D and the AF NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4D IF, that I mentioned in my original post. These lenses will not autofocus on the old D40 body. Am I right or wrong?

No, they aren't D-mount, they are D-type. All Nikon SLR lenses are F-mount, throughout all the various iterations. I thought that was made clear early on . . . The same link you provided clearly references "AF-D" lenses, which is what we are both talking about. The link you are referring to also clearly indicated that the Df camera is unique in that it can use all the different types of lenses, which is NOT true for every other Nikon camera. The page you provided makes that clear -- perhaps you need to pay more attention to details, which is what this whole foolish discussion is about.

The only point I've been trying to make is that the D-type lenses will not auto focus on all Nikon cameras, because they lack an internal focusing motor and rely on a screw drive in the camera body. If the camera body doesn't have that, and the ones I've mentioned previously don't, then those lenses won't be able to auto focus with those bodies. I challenge anyone to find any authority that says otherwise. In fact, here is Nikon's own chart from the same site you provided that says the same thing:

https://www.nikonusa.com/Images/Learn-Explore/Photography-Techniques/2011/Which-Nikkor-is-Right-for-You/Media/NIKKOR-lens-compatibility-chart.pdf

The AF lenses listed are the same ones I'm talking about. The chart lists those camera models which have "Limited Compatibility† Can only be used as a manual focus lens. No AF."

As for my credentials and why I don't believe MT Shooter (and it's only in regard to this one simple issue) -- because I've personally owned the exact cameras and lenses that I'm talking about, as a working pro for the last 15 years. I don't claim to be an expert from reading Rockwell's site (in fact, I have't looked at his site for years before today) and I also provided three other more authoritative sources; did you bother to read those? Otherwise, it seems you are quick to criticize someone who has the facts (but who you don't know) simply in favor of someone you feel you do know, but who doesn't have the correct facts.

E lenses came later in time, after the D lenses. The point being, cameras that were made specifically to use the E lenses (D40, D3300, etc) cannot auto-focus with a D lens. They can still use the lenses, they just can't autofocus. This admittedly has nothing to do with the OP's question; rather, it goes to correcting the misinformation that Mt Shooter provided.

I know they both exist, but they are different lenses. That was my point.

You are an idiot. I'm not a KR pundit, but sometimes even his simplistic site provides good information. If you don't like his site, try:

http://photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/index.html

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/nikonfmount/lens2.htm
From that site:

"E: Electronic Diaphragm
The new electronic diaphragm "E" lenses only work on Nikons introduced since about 2007. They work perfectly on all FX cameras.

YES: As of January 2018, electronic diaphragm "E" lenses work only on the D5, D4, D4s, D3, D3s, D3P, D3x, Df, D850, D810, D800/e, D750, D700, D610, D600, D500, D300, D300s, D7000, D7100, D7200, D7500, D5600, D5500, D5300, D5200, D5100, D5000, D3400, D3300, D3200, D3100, Nikon 1 J1, J2, J3, J4 with FT-1, Nikon 1 V1, V2, V3 with FT-1, and Nikon 1 S1, S2 with FT-1.

NO: These new "E" diaphragm lenses will not work on the D1 or D2 series, D100, D200, D90, D80, D70 series, D60, D50, D40 series, or the D3000, and will not work on any 35mm camera. The diaphragm will stay wide-open, which may or may not be a problem for you. In the case of tele lenses like the 200-500mm f/5.6E, this isn't much of a problem because we usually shoot long lenses wide-open, in which case the E lenses are compatible with everything. If you don't mind shooting wide-open; even on a 1959 Nikon F you can focus manually and shoot wide open except if it's an AF-P lens."

or of course you can check:

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/index.page

Moreover, I have not only researched this, I actually OWN the two Nikkor lenses I've described, along with more than a dozen more, and have owned and used other lenses -- including D-series lenses -- in the past. I have also owned the Nikon D40x camera (and a D70, D80, D2H, D2Hs, D300, D3, D3s, D700, D4, D4s, D5 and D850 -- and I still have the last five cameras) and know these two lenses wouldn't work with the D40 from first hand experience. I've been a professional photographer for more than 15 years, not just a fan boy whose mouth exceeds his knowledge. Most people come here looking for information, but you just want to have an argument. Hopefully others will be able to pick up good information from the resources I've listed, and ignore an abusive troll like you. As far as this topic is concerned, I'm done.

I did read your post, and was trying to be polite. It is in fact you who do not know what you are talking about. Read this information carefully. https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

That's actually not completely accurate. While I don't know about the newer D3000x and D5000x cameras, I do know from personal experience that older entry level cameras (such as the Nikon D40) would not auto-focus with D-series lenses, because the D-Series lenses needed a screw-drive to actuate the autofocus mechanism, and the older entry level Nikons lacked the screw drive. They only worked with newer, AF-S lenses that had their own motors. However, the D-series lenses I'm referring to are designated as "AF-D", such as the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D and the AF NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4D IF. The AF-S 17-35mm F2.8D is not a D-series lens, but rather an S-series lens. None of the lenses you list are D-series lenses.

The D500 wasn't included in the original group, but Nikon just released an update for it today.

Although I'm a Nikon shooter, I specialize in high school sports, and have shot lots of lacrosse games. I concur with the suggestions above. I had a 300mm 2.8 for a while, which I often used with a 1.4x teleconverter, until I acquired a 400mm 2.8. Never looked back. A monopod is an absolute necessity. I use two bodies, and have a 70-200 on the second body.

Standing near the corner of the field (but far enough up to be looking into the goal), the 70-200 is great for the near end of the field. You'll still want to crop the images shot with a 400mm at the farthest end of the field, unless you add a teleconverter. However, I've found that I can use the 400mm without a teleconvertor to shoot the opposite side of the near end of the field, as well as for 'sportrait' shots (focusing on just one player) that fill the frame. As Shutterbug57 said, it's a great lens, and if you rent one, it will spoil you and put a hole in your wallet.

I have both lenses. I use the 28-300 when I travel for its 'all in one' ability, but as others have said, it is both large and heavy, and it's not the sharpest lens in my bag by far. But it is far from what I'd call bad. Its kind of like a saying about tires -- "long lasting, great handling, cheap: you can only have two at any one time." The same is true of lenses. If this were as sharp as my recently acquired 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR (an amazing lens btw, especially when paired with my D5), then the 28-300 would no doubt be even heavier and more expensive.

Ultimately it comes down to what you want. If you want the sharpest lens possible, then this isn't the one for you (get the 70-200 I mentioned); but you'll lose reach on both ends, plus it's bigger (although it doesn't seem heavier). If you want convenience in an all around package, this is a good choice, but maybe the Tamron someone mentioned might be a better one.

If you are just looking to get into full frame photography, then maybe there are other completely different lenses you should consider, depending upon what you are shooting. I have a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED that is incredibly sharp, and is my go to lens for portrait or event photography. Its also about $600 cheaper then the newer VR version, and I've never felt that I was missing anything by not having image stabilization on this lens. The Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR is about $700 cheaper than the 24-70 (it's not as fast), but would seem to be a good lens for a general purpose walk-around full frame lens. I don't own one, but it appears to be generally well reviewed. If your interests tend toward landscape photography, you might look for something even wider.

I realize I've digressed somewhat from your initial question about the 28-300, but as with most things, different tools are better (or worse) for different jobs. It all comes down to what you want to do, and of course, what do you want to pay.