focus motor failed in the bunk kit lens. returned kit, exchanged for,....

d200 body.
i'll be happier useing my manual lenses for now, until i settle on an auto-focus zooming all-arounder that i can live with. i'm open to suggestions.
....and the 50/1.4 is in my near future

i like this camera better, s'mo

The 17-55/2.8 is excellent.

If you don't need f2.8 and want to cut costs, the 18-70 is a reasonably good lens. Huge difference in price between the two...which may be the deciding factor more than anything else.

It falls between the other two in price point, and gives you considerably more focal length flexibility, but it's best suited for good lighting conditions, even with the VR.

<ul><li><a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3285&amp;navigator=6">I fecking love this lens with my D200 it's great for all around use.</a></li></ul>

I'll build a nice quiver for the price of 3 Nikkor or Nikon lens's, but that's me.

the machine that aligns and holds the glass elements is as critical, and arguably, harder to get accurate.

i took a while, ....until the technology got good enough, ....to lay cash down for a <i>zoom</i> lens, let alone af.

the first af lens i get,....
it's the kit lens that comes with the d80, and i know it's a kit lens, and being a $400 lens, i know i really should have just bought the body, but it's a nikkor, so what the hay?

well, what a piece of junk. i'm sure glad i was able to return that stuff.
i think the only metal in that entire lens were the contacts(<i>which were likely, only plated nylon</i>), and a couple of little machine screws(where they couldn't get away with glue).

to get a similar focal length, in an acceptable, zoom af nikkor, you've got to go $1000 deeper, than their "consumer" lenses.
i'm not against that at all. you get what you pay for.
i should have known from the start, by taking the time to learn a little more about nikon's new systems, before i took the plunge. but i was really surprised at the lack of quality in that lens series.

and don't get me wrong. i am not knocking your tamrons. i used many, as well as vivitars. there are some great ones.
i just don't have to anymore. i have my needs covered, and don't <i>need</i> any more lenses.

my nikons will purely carry nikkors. call me a dork or a snob, but that's what is intended to be on the front of a nikon.
when i do go for an auto-focus lens, it will be an unjustifiably high priced nikkor. but i'll have it forever, so the price if insignificant to me. i have no idea what i paid for all my good pieces. i am sure it was painful at the moment, but i can't remeber now, and i don't care, i am in <b>this</b> moment.

Yeah, it's a lot cheaper and quite good for the price but it's not as good and it's not the same glass.

it's the mechanics and primarily auto focus for each manufacturer (Nikon, Cannon etc...)

The only glass that Nikon -actually- makes is their ED glass, and an ED lens only contains a certain number of ED elements. Aside from ED glass and other glass made for special lenses and special purposes (always low volume production), most brand names get their glass from one of three or four glass makers in the entire world (Schott, Pilkington and Hoya are few off of the top of my head).

Do you have any idea how expensive glass is to make for lens's. Whether it be telescopes, binoculars or camera lens etc... there are 4 manufacturers all companies use to supply their equipment with glass and then for specific lens such as ED Nikon special orders a specific grind etc... and incorporates it into the high level lenses.

The question is what do they do with the lens blanks once they get them. By "glass is the same", I assumed you meant the lens formulas.

Your previous post argued there is no optical performance difference between the Sigma 18-50/2.8 and the Nikon 17-55/2.8. That's wrong.

As for Nikon only making ED glass, you're wrong there too. Nikon even makes fluorite, a type of glass Canon uses in many of their high end lenses for less chromatic aberation.

So, in short, just because the raw glass comes from the same supplier is pretty meaningless.<ul><li><a href="http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/products/glass.htm">http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/products/glass.htm</a</li></ul>

Looking at the images from a $200 Canon lens and a $1000 Canon lens shows a difference, and you can take test pictures with manual focus that will reveal those differences in the optics.

I'd totally believe. Even though they have different formulas and use different glass types. They just arrived at the same quality through different routes. For two lenses of widely different cost though I wouldn't, like you said.

a few articles that the glass was primarily all the same. I didn't know Nikon was grinding and making it's own glass. I guess I was wrong, sorry and thanks for the info. Has this been a long term thing for Nikon? I almost feel ashamed to be this out of the know.

Even Mamiya (who's tiny compared to Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc) grind their own elements.

A lens blank is a round disk of glass the proper diameter, thickness and glass type as specced by one of these companies and often sourced by the glass companies you mention, like Hoya. Nikon, Canon, etc. all have the ability to grind these blanks down to actual lens elements as used in a lens. Of course, even a good local optician has this ability for eyeglasses.

To my knowledge, Nikon is the only camera/lens maker who has their own glass foundry though I could be wrong there. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon buys lens blanks from Hoya or whoever depending on what kind of lens it's going into. They may reserve their own glass for higher end stuff. Once again, I'm not sure.

In some cases, all these companies will outsource the whole manufacture of a lens to a company like Tokina or Tamron. Zeiss outsources manufacture of whole camera and lens lines to Voightlander (really Cosina, a Japanese company). I believe that's always on the cheaper stuff though.

In some cases, a given camera company does not produce its own lenses. Hasselblad lenses for the H system are all made by Fuji (who makes great lenses) and the lenses for the old square system were Zeiss which they made no secret of. Canon, many decades ago, actually bought lenses from Nikon.

Like I said, where the company gets the raw glass from is a very small part of the equation.

Oh and NP on this. I only know it because a friend is a lens designer and my grandfather used to have a company that made view camera lenses.<ul><li><a href="http://www.edmundoptics.com/onlinecatalog/DisplayProduct.cfm?productid=1938">You can make your own lens if you want.</a></li></ul>