TR Forums

The Canon versus Nikon wars will go on forever. One of the two comes out with a feature and, sooner or later, the other matches and betters the first's effort. Nikon beat Canon with internal exposure, and, later, auto-exposure systems. Canon beat Nikon with auto-focus (but redesigned its mount). Nikon came out with the first DSLR. Canon beat Nikon with FF and high-ISO sensitivity (until the Nikon D3/D700). Nikon has come out with the first DSLR capable of shooting video: the D90. Canon still has an edge with resolution: the 1DsIII and the new 50D. Canon's 5D replacement is probably going to be announced in a matter of weeks.

It is unreasonable to say that either brand is significantly better than the other. Both are very good and the competition between them is good for all consumers -- not just Canonite & Nikonut fanboys.

I've shot with both systems and could accomplish all I do with either one. However, at the three junctures where I had the option to switch systems (the 1st after a major theft, the 2nd when AF hit the market, and the 3rd after both systems were solidly into the digital age), I still went with Nikon -- not so much for brand loyalty but for these two points:

1) At least for my use and the way I shoot, Nikon's exposure system -- specifically including the flash system -- has always seemed both more consistent, model to model, and more accurate (note my qualification - I'm not saying that Canon's exposure system is flawed, just that Nikon's seems to match my needs and shooting style better), and,

2) Lenses. There is little to fault with either brand's pro-grade lenses. Each has a few specific designs that are without compare and across the rest of their lineups, one or the other might excel in a certain optical characteristic; however, considered as a system, the two brands are essentially equal. It is with the consumer lenses that I have noticed a difference (although this is less true today with new designs specifically targeted for digital sensors) -- Canon's consumer grade lenses always seemed to be only as good as they needed to be whereas Nikon's always seemed like best efforts albeit at smaller apertures and/or greater zoom ratios and with less metal -- and, consequently, more plastic -- in their outer casings.

Canon learned lens making from Nikon (who, many years ago, made lenses for Canon). Nikon learned from Zeiss. Nikon still makes all its own glass used in its lenses and has the ability to experiment with formulae in house. Maybe this is what has given Nikon a slight edge over the years.

SpotTheCat wrote:

I'm thinking the kit lens would stay on my camera until I can afford the 18-200mm, at which point I'll be good to go on almost anything I want to do. I'm fairy certain I'd rather have the camera first, the 18-200mm second, and worry about the rest later. If I swing a better body now I won't be able to afford as nice of a lens as the 18-200mm, the lens that I would use for 99% of my shooting.

That's reasonable. The 18-200 isn't so much nice (although it's very good for an 11x zoom, it's still an 11x zoom.) as it is extremely convenient and adequate. My 18-70, which goes for about $200 used, is a bit better optically, 2/3 stop faster on the long end, and weather-sealed. It's also a bit smaller/lighter and doesn't creep. By many measures it's "better". It's also less-featured and has less reach. My old 80-200mm/2.8 1st gen glass is also "better" in many ways than the 18-200. It's a couple of stops faster where it matters. It's better optically. It's built like a tank. It also weighs like a tank, though, and obviously doesn't cover the wide end at all. Both lenses together cost me less than an 18-200 would. Both are optically superior, but lose out in convenience. Affording a lens "as nice as" the 18-200 is easy, as long as you don't ask it to do as much. Heck, the cheapest 50mm prime is "as nice as" (better than) the 18-200 where capabilities overlap.

I understand that there are a lot of superlatives flying around about the 18-200, but it's still an f/slow 11x zoom.

SpotTheCat wrote:

If I swing a better body now I won't be able to afford as nice of a lens as the 18-200mm, the lens that I would use for 99% of my shooting.

The 6MP sensor and the associated electronics (now called Expeed in Nikon's literature) in the D40 is essentially the ultimate culmination of the 6MP sensor used in the D100. The corresponding components in the D90 are two generations improved. The difference is significant. Although, it is true that if you are never interested in making prints larger than about 5x7 inches, you'll never need the doubled pixel count.

As to lenses, as good as the 18-200 Nikkor is, it is not perfect (nor is any lens). If you are willing to go with a two lens kit, the 18-55 AF-S and the 55-200 AF-S are actually better optically than the single combined design which is at its weakest fully zoomed to 200mm. Another, and IMHO, even better option is to go with the 16-85 AF-S as a "normal" zoom and then add the 70-300 AF-S as a telephoto zoom later. While the 16-85 is only 2 mm wider than the 18-55 or the 18-200, on DX format, that 2 mm represents a significantly wider angle of view. And, over the 18-55/70 range, the 16-85 lens is the equal of the 18-55 AF-S and better than the 18-70, the 18-135 and the 18-200. Of course, sadly, the 16-85 is no less expensive than the 18-200.

I can't comment on the new 18-105 as yet -- I haven't had one to play with....

Given a limited budget, my personal decision would be to purchase the new D90 as a body only and get the 18-55 AF-S Nikkor to use with it until I could afford either the 55-200 or the 16-85 and 70-300 combination. -- just my unsolicited advice....

SpotTheCat wrote:

Ahh. I am starting from scratch, so things are different. Other than the 18-200mm I would probably want a wide angle and a really fast normal prime.

Note that technically, "normal" is defined as being equal to the diagonal of the sensor [of film image] area and for DX format DSLRs is about 29mm -- not the 43.5mm of FF [35mm film] format cameras. So, for a fast normal, you'd be looking at a lens in the 28, 30 or 35mm range.

Truly wide angle lenses are on the order of 20mm and shorter for DX format. Nikon's 12-24mm f/4 DX wide angle zoom is very good but a bit pricey. You might consider the Sigma 10-24 -- it is good and somewhat less expensive in addition to giving you a 2mm greater wide angle setting at its widest.

edh wrote:

Given a limited budget, my personal decision would be to purchase the new D90 as a body only and get the 18-55 AF-S Nikkor to use with it until I could afford either the 55-200 or the 16-85 and 70-300 combination. -- just my unsolicited advice....

I would actually choose the buy the d90 with the kit 18-105 because you will get it at a discount price and have a good range covered with VR included. Also, the 18-105 appears to be a good performer as well, so one could start with the D90 and kit and eventually decide if they really need the length and pick up a telephoto zoom (55-200, 70-300, 70-200) to complete the set.

edh wrote:

Truly wide angle lenses are on the order of 20mm and shorter for DX format. Nikon's 12-24mm f/4 DX wide angle zoom is very good but a bit pricey. You might consider the Sigma 10-24 -- it is good and somewhat less expensive in addition to giving you a 2mm greater wide angle setting at its widest.

The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 gets good reviews.

mattsteg wrote:

SpotTheCat wrote:

I'm thinking the kit lens would stay on my camera until I can afford the 18-200mm, at which point I'll be good to go on almost anything I want to do. I'm fairy certain I'd rather have the camera first, the 18-200mm second, and worry about the rest later. If I swing a better body now I won't be able to afford as nice of a lens as the 18-200mm, the lens that I would use for 99% of my shooting.

That's reasonable. The 18-200 isn't so much nice (although it's very good for an 11x zoom, it's still an 11x zoom.) as it is extremely convenient and adequate. My 18-70, which goes for about $200 used, is a bit better optically, 2/3 stop faster on the long end, and weather-sealed. It's also a bit smaller/lighter and doesn't creep. By many measures it's "better". It's also less-featured and has less reach. My old 80-200mm/2.8 1st gen glass is also "better" in many ways than the 18-200. It's a couple of stops faster where it matters. It's better optically. It's built like a tank. It also weighs like a tank, though, and obviously doesn't cover the wide end at all. Both lenses together cost me less than an 18-200 would. Both are optically superior, but lose out in convenience. Affording a lens "as nice as" the 18-200 is easy, as long as you don't ask it to do as much. Heck, the cheapest 50mm prime is "as nice as" (better than) the 18-200 where capabilities overlap.

I understand that there are a lot of superlatives flying around about the 18-200, but it's still an f/slow 11x zoom.

1. VR is critical. I don't use tripods.
2. I know it is a bit slow, but after giving it a lot of thought I do not want to be "that guy" who brings a camera case with 4 lenses, etc. etc. everywhere. I like the idea of the 18-200mm because I can bring my camera around my neck for the day and that's it. It's what I've been doing with my point and shoots. It will allow significantly faster performance than any point and shoot.
3. When I travel, I travel light. Taking great pictures to me isn't about carrying around different solutions to every possible photographic situation--instead it is about being ready for that unpredictable shot at a moments notice. The wide-angle lens is speculation (based on how much I love the widest angle on my latest point and shoot). The fast normal is for if I'm going out at night (like on a boat trip or something). I am aware that the 18-200mm isn't the perfect technical lens, but that isn't what I want. I want the most useful compromise I can find, and I believe that is it. For the record I was considering the stock 18-55mm and the 55-200mm double kit lens set, but I think I would be much happier with the 18-200mm

Right. That's why they make different types of lenses. The 18-200 is an amazing technical achievement, all told.

In response to 1) - VR is nice and all, but it isn't always cheap. In many cases you can get f/2.8 glass for the same cost as f/5.6 stabilized glass or even less. That 2-stop difference gets you back quite a bit of what you're losing by giving up VR. Of course, you often pay in weight (although VR adds some weight too). Also, good handholding technique can go a long way (but VR helps it go even further and be more useful). I'm going through some vacation shots tonight and looking at a photo I took inside the ntional archives and managed to get sharp at 1/15 w/ a 50mm.

Traveling light is a huge win for something like the 18-200. I'll readily admit to being "that guy". At times I'd really prefer/enjoy having a d90/18-200 (or maybe a d40/60, but the loss of glass, especially primes, would be a blow. Small body + a prime is a nice package too, after all. Way more convenient to carry than an 18-200) but it's just too much money for what I feel would be a secondary lens for me. Maybe with video creeping into dslrs with the D90 it'll hold more appeal as a wide-ranging stabilized lens that's reasonable for video purposes as well.

Mostly I just wanted to bring up that "nice" can have so many different meanings. Also, I'm not a huge fan of the 18-55/55-200 combo as I'm somewhat sour on budget telephotos in general, but a lot of that is just my personal biases coming into play.

gaaahhhhh I'm having second thoughts. The D40 is so old. 2 years is a long time. I could get by in Hawaii with Lisa's canon 870 compact, after all.

Matt, you're right. The biggest downside to the D40 is it's lack of AF lens compatibility. I cannot find a fast normal autofocus lens that I can afford for this camera. (If The 35mm F/2.0 is what I was looking at.

Have you considered the $489 Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM or the $499 Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM? The new 50mm is getting pretty good reviews.

It's a shame that Nikon doesn't offer a Nikkor autofocus lens comparable to Canon's "nifty fifty" $85 EF 50mm f/1.8 or even the $230 EF 35mm f/2.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Have you considered the $489 Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM or the $499 Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM? The new 50mm is getting pretty good reviews.

It's a shame that Nikon doesn't offer a Nikkor autofocus lens comparable to Canon's "nifty fifty" $85 EF 50mm f/1.8 or even the $230 EF 35mm f/2.

Rumors are flying that a AF-S 50mm 1.4 G is coming to replace the non AF-S version soon. If so I will be buying this for my D40 till I get my D90.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Have you considered the $489 Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM or the $499 Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM? The new 50mm is getting pretty good reviews.

It's a shame that Nikon doesn't offer a Nikkor autofocus lens like Canon's "nifty fifty" $85 EF 50mm f/1.8 or even the $230 EF 35mm f/2.

Yes and no. Canon has the nifty fifty, and Nikon has the amazing 18-200mm VR.

I haven't considered the $450+ prime lenses because I don't want to have to spend that much. I would really, REALLY like to have a 24-70mm f/2.8, but those are really pricey. I could get a used one, though, and I would if I could try it before I buy it.

GokuSS2 wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Have you considered the $489 Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM or the $499 Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM? The new 50mm is getting pretty good reviews.

It's a shame that Nikon doesn't offer a Nikkor autofocus lens comparable to Canon's "nifty fifty" $85 EF 50mm f/1.8 or even the $230 EF 35mm f/2.

Rumors are flying that a AF-S 50mm 1.4 G is coming to replace the non AF-S version soon. If so I will be buying this for my D40 till I get my D90.

AHHHHHHHHH! sweet!
I hope it's G (to lower cost).

Sadly, the "G" designation does not indicate anything about the cost of Nikon lenses -- it only means that the lens both incorporates distance information (like "D") and was designed to have its aperture controlled using the front body control wheel as opposed to the on-lens aperture ring.

D = distance component info transferred from lens to camera body (& flash system)
G = same as D except NO aperture ring on lens
--- (must be adjusted by front control wheel below shutter release)
AF = auto-focus w/o motor in lens -- uses camera body screwdriver motor
AF-S = auto-focus + silent-wave motor in lens -- does not need camera body motor
VR, VRii = vibration reduction system
DX = APS-C (essentially, half frame) format (~16x24mm, 2:3 ratio, ~29mm diagonal)
FX (or no "DX" listed) = full-frame 35mm format (~24x36mm, 2:3 ratio, ~43.5mm diagonal)

Nikon has a 50 f/1.8D AF (not AF-S, requires body motor for AF operation, and not G, meaning that it DOES have an aperture ring) that is very inexpensive. But 50mm is not "normal" on a DX body -- it is more "portrait" range. Portrait lenses are those mildly telephoto lenses typically used for groupings ranging from tight 3-person shots with heads & torsos to single head & shoulders shots. For full frame 35mm, the portrait focal lengths are from about 75/90mm to about 135mm. On a DX format camera, the range would be about 50/60mm to about 90mm.

The most famous portrait lenses in the Nikon lineup are the venerable 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S (Gauss design) from way, way back before the AF era, both versions of the 85mm f/1.4 -- the Ai-S (manual-focus) and the D AF (auto-focus) -- and the current 105mm f/2.0D DC AF, probably the single best portrait lens ever designed for 35mm format. It incorporates a "defocus-control" that allows selective alteration of the spherical aberration of the lens, effectively changing the ratio of depth of field foreground and background and altering the bokeh of the image. (There is also a 135mm version of this lens, but it is not quite as good as the 105mm version.)

I just can't believe they're leaving so much of their marking in the dark (heh) without a cheap, fast prime. You are all right in that I need a 35mm lens, not a 50mm lens. I would like f/2 or better.

You know what? That sigma f/1.4 is about as good as I'll be able to do. I'll probably get one used or something if I find I need it a lot. HSM works like an AF-S, right?

SpotTheCat wrote:

You know what? That sigma f/1.4 is about as good as I'll be able to do. I'll probably get one used or something if I find I need it a lot. HSM works like an AF-S, right?

Yes, HSM is Sigma's verion of in-the-lens motor AF-S.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

It's a shame that Nikon doesn't offer a Nikkor autofocus lens comparable to Canon's "nifty fifty" $85 EF 50mm f/1.8 or even the $230 EF 35mm f/2.

Considering that they have both a (better than canon's) 50/1.8 and a 35/2, I'm not sure what your "shame" is.

mattsteg wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

It's a shame that Nikon doesn't offer a Nikkor autofocus lens comparable to Canon's "nifty fifty" $85 EF 50mm f/1.8 or even the $230 EF 35mm f/2.

Considering that they have both a (better than canon's) 50/1.8 and a 35/2, I'm not sure what your "shame" is.

Indeed! There's the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D, the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D, and the AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D. Canon does have some lenses that are faster though, like the EF 50mm f/1.2 USM and the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM.

titan wrote:

mattsteg wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

It's a shame that Nikon doesn't offer a Nikkor autofocus lens comparable to Canon's "nifty fifty" $85 EF 50mm f/1.8 or even the $230 EF 35mm f/2.

Considering that they have both a (better than canon's) 50/1.8 and a 35/2, I'm not sure what your "shame" is.

Indeed! There's the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D, the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D, and the AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D. Canon does have some lenses that are faster though, like the EF 50mm f/1.2 USM and the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM.

Indeed, and the 85/1.2, and until recently better T/S lenses. Nikon's wide-angle zooms have long been a bit better. All in all, the differences between the two lens lines isn't that big. There are differences here and there, but most of them fall in relatively exotic places. Recently both companies have plugged holes in their lineup relative to the other.

titan wrote:

mattsteg wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Have you considered the $489 Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM or the $499 Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM? The new 50mm is getting pretty good reviews.

It's a shame that Nikon doesn't offer a Nikkor autofocus lens comparable to Canon's "nifty fifty" $85 EF 50mm f/1.8 or even the $230 EF 35mm f/2.

Considering that they have both a (better than canon's) 50/1.8 and a 35/2, I'm not sure what your "shame" is.

Indeed! There's the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D, the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D, and the AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D. Canon does have some lenses that are faster though, like the EF 50mm f/1.2 USM and the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM.

None of those Nikkor lenses has autofocus when mounted on an entry-level Nikon camera. You have to go to the more expensive Sigma lenses that I linked (or the $460 Tokina 35mm f/2.8) or buy a much more expensive Nikon camera body to get autofocus. It's a real shame when you compare that to the ready availability of the inexpensive "nifty fifty" lens for all Canon cameras, even the cheapest Rebel XS model.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

titan wrote:

mattsteg wrote:

Considering that they have both a (better than canon's) 50/1.8 and a 35/2, I'm not sure what your "shame" is.

Indeed! There's the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D, the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D, and the AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D. Canon does have some lenses that are faster though, like the EF 50mm f/1.2 USM and the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM.

None of those Nikkor lenses has autofocus when mounted an entry-level Nikon camera. You have to go to the more expensive Sigma lenses that I linked (or Tokina) or buy a much more expensive camera body to get autofocus.

ding ding ding ding ding. They really don't have a full array of lenses for their low-end cameras.

SpotTheCat wrote:

ding ding ding ding ding. They really don't have a full array of lenses for their low-end cameras.

Depends on how one defines a full array -- Less than 5% of entry level DSLR buyers (and entry-level SLR buyers before them) ever buy a lens other than the entry-level zoom that comes with the camera. And when they do, it is usually a higher-ratio zoom. Nikon offers a very full range of entry-level zooms covering a variety of zoom ratios and with focal lengths from 16mm to 200mm, including 18-55 (& 55-200), 18-70, 16-85, 18-105, 18-135, and 18-200. All these lenses are targeted at the consumer market (even though some are quite pricey) rather than the enthusiast and professional markets (although with the 16-85 and the 18-200, there is some crossover - don't know how the 18-105 will fare, yet). Only a small percentage of Nikon's customers are even interested in primes and most of those want the exotics -- not the pedestrians. They are looking for things like the 28 f/1.4, the 85 f/1.4, the 105 f/2, the 200 f/2 (@ $4.5K!). So, as is everything else, choice of lenses produced is a matter of economics of scale. And most enthusiasts don't buy D40 bodies -- they buy the D80 (now the D90) or the D200 or the D300.

Unfortunately, that leaves the enthusiasts whose budgets are -- shall we say -- on the tighter side, somewhat in a lurch.

Considering the number of used D200 bodies I've seen on the market lately (being dumped in favor of the D300) and their relatively low prices, you might shop around in that supply pool. You'd have a much more versatile camera in terms of the lenses it can use and you have the entire pool of Nikon manual lenses to choose from as well as all the AF and AF-S models. Could be a best of all worlds choice.

edh wrote:

SpotTheCat wrote:

ding ding ding ding ding. They really don't have a full array of lenses for their low-end cameras.

Depends on how one defines a full array

well, there isn't anything faster than f/3.5 in the consumer price range that works on the D40. I would define that as not having a full array of lenses.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

$12,132 away from being debt-free

huh? wasnt it 8K just a couple weeks ago.

Canon rules.
i'll find something on-topic to say at some point... maybe.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

None of those Nikkor lenses has autofocus when mounted on an entry-level Nikon camera. You have to go to the more expensive Sigma lenses that I linked (or the $460 Tokina 35mm f/2.8) or buy a much more expensive Nikon camera body to get autofocus. It's a real shame when you compare that to the ready availability of the inexpensive "nifty fifty" lens for all Canon cameras, even the cheapest Rebel XS model.

That's bo-log-na! How can they claim that autofocus works with all DSLRs, but then it doesn't work with some lower end models? So, I'm guessing it's the AF-S that is actually compatible with everything. What a dumb move on Nikon's part!

Nikon's entry level D40 body can work with practically every single SLR lens Nikon has manufactured since 1959 with the exception of about half a dozen lenses designed to operate only with the reflex mirror locked up. True, those AF lenses needing the body screwdriver motor for operation won't auto-focus; and, true, the manual/mechanical lenses won't auto-expose; however, the focus rangefinder indicator in the viewfinder DOES work with ALL these lenses; and the histogram can be used for exposure estimation with the non-CPU lenses. There are choices ranging from a 6mm f/2.8 ultra-wide 220-degree fisheye (yes, it can photograph things that are actually BEHIND it) to a 1200-1700mm f/8P zoom (which DOES auto-expose on the D40 body) -- both of which will probably cost you more than a mid-line Mercedes or BMW -- but they exist. Then there's the 2000mm f/11 SC telescope lens and a 300mm f/2.0 -- yes, that's a three hundred millimeter two point zero -- telephoto lens. Not to mention the score of special macro lenses, the lenses designed for astronomical purposes and those designed to work with IR and UV light. By my way of thinking, that is an amazing array of optics available should one be willing to delve into the used lens market. Of the nearly 500 lenses Nikon has produced for its venerable F-mount, nearly 4 dozen are in production currently. And then there are all the 3rd-party lenses -- hundreds more to choose from.

Canon has an amazing array of optics for their system, too. Examine your needs and buy from the system that best meets those needs. But squawking because one system or the other doesn't have an AF-S APS-C DX IS/VR 30mm f/1.2 selling for under $100 for its entry level DSLR body is ridiculous.

Get a body -- any body -- and a lens -- any lens -- and go take pictures. That's the object of the game.

SpotTheCat wrote:

well, there isn't anything faster than f/3.5 in the consumer price range that works on the D40. I would define that as not having a full array of lenses.

Then buy Canon. Each brand has its strengths and weaknesses.

edh wrote:

Get a body -- any body -- and a lens -- any lens -- and go take pictures. That's the object of the game.

(bold by me)
so, what you're saying is get a decent Canon body and a nice Nikkor lens?
yeah.. i'm an idiot.. just one of those days.

i actually agree completely.. especially when just starting out.
I've found that the lenses I use most are my 50mm f1.8 & my 60mm macro .. next in line is the 17-85mm .. and as for my 50-500mm "bigma".. it hardly ever gets used. i do appreciate having it around.. but it hasnt gotten 1K of use yet, thats for sure.


ah, the nifty fifty

edh wrote:

Get a body -- any body -- and a lens -- any lens -- and go take pictures. That's the object of the game.

You are right, sir! Which is why I was thinking D40 right away (for the honeymoon, pictures I may not be able to get with our point and shoot, even if it is (what I believe to be) the best point and shoot in the world, the canon SD870 IS)

Medium term I was thinking of upgrading to the 18-200mm VR (again, for the "I bring my camera, just my camera, everywhere, and I want to be ready for the shot that comes unexpectedly" mentality that I love about not having a bag with me)

long term I want a wide angle lens

long term I want a fast normalish lens.

longest term, I want my Dad's setup (maybe he'll just... want to get rid of it?... ?? maybe not). A D3, 70-200mm VR, 14-24mm VR, and a 24-70mm, all f/2.8, all obscenely fast for the D3. Oddly, even if I had all of this, I would probably want a cheap body with the 18-200mm VR on it . I've held the D3 with some of those lenses, and it is too much to carry everywhere, let alone with all of the lenses.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

None of those Nikkor lenses has autofocus when mounted on an entry-level Nikon camera. You have to go to the more expensive Sigma lenses that I linked (or the $460 Tokina 35mm f/2.8) or buy a much more expensive Nikon camera body to get autofocus. It's a real shame when you compare that to the ready availability of the inexpensive "nifty fifty" lens for all Canon cameras, even the cheapest Rebel XS model.

They're still autofocus lenses comparable to the models you cited...