When I had a D5000 I was hot for an aperture ring, but now I have the D90, it is less important.

IMHO, the best handling was the Olympus OM1 & 2 etc They had shutter control as a ring on the lens mount just behind the aperture ring - now that would be cool.

I think the original poster was operating from an erroneous perception.

"There is no sense making camera bodies without focus motor. Even if it costs the $150 extra, the possibility to use AF on all Nikon AF lenses is worth it."

Those "cheap" bodies do autofocus. You just have to use the lenses they were designed to work with (and most are sold with those lenses as kits anyway). Yes, there are a few older lenses you won't be able to use in an autofocus mode but you still have plenty of zoom range available to you with the lenses which were designed to work (to autofocus) with "cheap" bodies lacking an autofocus motor. If the original poster wants (or needs) a Nikon body which contains an autofocus motor so he/she can use older AF lenses without an internal motor there are plenty of choices available and if money is an issue just purchase a used older body.

D50

5 years from now the body motor will no longer be an issue. Since more seem to be concerned about price, leaving the AF motor out seems to make since. I would be willing to bet it will not be long before more DX bodies loose the motor.

I agree about the aperture ring. I shoot a FE2 for personal projects and would love to use my 50 1.4G or my 105VR on it. I keep my 85mm 1.8 and old 50 1.4 AF for this reason.

SkintBrit said:
OK, I'm up for it, I'll stick my head on the chopping block! Several of you respected members have said you'd like the aperture ring back on your lenses. Why? A pro's and cons reply would be useful. Because I only got back in to photography recently after a long absence, I only have AFS G lenses. Like casperwb said, I have got used to using my sub command dial now. I appreciate there are issues if you have older bodies, remind me what I'm missing?

Some people use very old cameras like the FM2. It'd be nice to be able to use the 70-200 VR on it. Or maybe a newer camera, like a F3, which can't focus at all.

Also, it'd be really useful on the primes, one less dial to use, you could set it to be something else. I haven't a clue what you could set it to, but it'd be nice.

Or if anything, make a new line of lenses with chips in them but without AF-S but with aperture rings and nanocoat and all the other newest technologies. Something like what Zeiss does. It'd be really useful I would imagine for the movie making people.

this is going to be a nice thread,

looking forward to viewpoints on aperture rings.

I guess Nikon is going back to its sources... I guess they realized that pinhole cameras is the future:
- No focusing required (No need of motor in the camera)
- No aperture ring required (Aperture is determined by the pinhole diameter)

Now, seriously, Agree that both features (motor + aperture ring) should be back.

OK, I'm up for it, I'll stick my head on the chopping block! Several of you respected members have said you'd like the aperture ring back on your lenses. Why? A pro's and cons reply would be useful. Because I only got back in to photography recently after a long absence, I only have AFS G lenses. Like casperwb said, I have got used to using my sub command dial now. I appreciate there are issues if you have older bodies, remind me what I'm missing?

+1 niko. I wish they had the aperture ring. Easier to change aperture in my opinion but as adamz said.. I doubt it would happen :/

The lenses will be replaced soon anyways. Right now they are cheaper but within the next 5 years id bet almost all of the AF-D lenses that require motors will be replaced with All AF-S and after that start seeing pro level cameras not getting any Af motors.

Yeah, the 80-400mm is about the only lens I know of that's not AF-S and has VR. I expect the updated 80-400 to be even more expensive. I just picked up a like new 80-400 last week. Lovely lens, crazy range. Focus is not as bad as everybody makes it out to be. On the D7K, its fairly fast. Almost as fast as my 80-200 2.8D, which on my D7K is pretty fast. I can tell the 80-400 is geared slower though.

If there was a cheap body with a focus motor in it, I doubt you would be very happy with its performance and people would be complaining that it's too slow. Keeping the focus motors on the higher-end bodies is a good idea.

The other issue with focus motors in smaller, lighter cameras. The motor itself is much smaller, lighter and can't drive the larger lenses effectively. On my D70s, the 80-400 would focus, but not real fast. On my D700 it focus fast enough for action shots of skiers. On a friend's D3s it focuses about as fast as the 70-200.

So, a D5100 with a really small motor will focus the 50 f/1.8D just fine, but mount the 80-400 and there is going to be a noticeable lag in focusing. Then people will complain about that.

adamz said:
vr doesn't equall af-s look at n80-400

This will change with the anticipated upgrade to the 80-400.

Expect a significant price bump, I suggest.

Yeah...I think it just somewhat corresponds to newer lenses have VR and are AF-S and not them going together.

I also kind of argued this before. You would think for a cheaper body that they would make older and cheaper lenses compatible with them. I guess that is more the difference in DX and FX lenses though and also helps Nikon distinguish bodies from each other. Just another option like everything else. If you want all the bells and whistles it costs more.

I know the lenses cost more but I personally like having the newer AF-S lenses.

adamz said:
vr doesn't equall af-s look at n80-400

great,
stand corrected

Thanks Adamz

vr doesn't equall af-s look at n80-400

autofocus motor will cost more, bigger body will cost more, putting it close in price to the models with motors, therefore, the cheaper body with motor is already here.

what you are really asking for is a cheap, read lower cost, body with autofocus motor, then you are going to complain that it is not up to the quality that you want and it gives trouble.

Also, Ithink, and I am subject to correction, that the AF-S motor is part of the VR system in the lens, therefore, using those screw type AF lens will mean that you are loosing VR, and I love VR.

Bah, stop complaining and get a D90, D300 or D7000, or live with AF-S lenses, which auto focus faster gives ou VR and with less noise anyway. And DX lenses are priced cheaper, [read lower cost]

Waterengineer +1...I agree 100%

Having used nikon lenses with aperture rings all my life, and still do on a F3, I find that I am getting spoilt with the ease of use of the "sub command dial" for setting aperture with instant digital readout in the viewfinder. G lenses are eaiser to use, and you do not have to remember to stop them down when using Shutter or Program modes.

Are there users out there who agree that using the sub command dial is very easy and less to think about.

expensive lens on cheap body: lenses contribute more to the quality of the photograph than the body, to a point. I am saying, put a very good lens on a cheap body, and a poor 3rd party lens on the best body and take the same picture and?

phew, that was a long post, my fingers need something to drink.

I believe Pentax has autofocus with an aperture ring. I think they have a line of special lenses, of which their 77mm 1.8 is one that has an aperture ring but screw drive autofocus. I'm not sure about manual focus over ride though.

What an odd focal length.

Why people need to put expensive lens to a cheap body? Nikon said...

PS. I'm kidding.

with all of the af-s lenses who needs build in AF motor in lowest models, I don't.
Niko +1, would love to see the aperture ring back, although I doubt this will happen.

monty11 said:
On addition, no AF motor in cheaper bodies, means that if you really need it, you purchase a more expensive body.

This. It is about hitting a variety of price points, on one hand. Also, on the technology side, the motors in the new lenses are quiet, or silent in Nikon speak.

I agree about the aperture ring.

On addition, no AF motor in cheaper bodies, means that if you really need it, you purchase a more expensive body.

AF motor takes up room. No motor means smaller, lighter and quieter cameras.

I could careless about the AF motor though. Nikon needs to bring back the aperture ring! Please Nikon, PLEASE! At least make sure the ring reappears on your EVIL camera lenses ;^)

There is no sense making camera bodies without focus motor. Even if it costs the $150 extra, the possibility to use AF on all Nikon AF lenses is worth it.

Anyone agree?