Nikon SWM

[Mudpool]

Hi,

Just wondering, why has nikon put SWM into only a few of their lenses, while Canon has USM in most of the lenses? Is it because that there's no need for it, or is it to cut the cost down?

Just wondering only, I'm not out to start a flame war... please forgive me for my ignorance ya? :embrass:

 

[Larry]

personally i think it's a matter of price and market. non-SWM lenses are much cheaper than the SW ones. take the 80-200mm for example, the regular AF version is much cheaper than the AF-S one, and caters to those who don't really need the extra focusing speed or silent operation. i'm not totally sure about Canon but they seem to have a lot more USM lenses, and hence are more costly...

just my 2 cents, don't flame me please....

 

[Kho King]

From what I read in Canon brochures, they have two types of USM motors. One is ring and onother one is ...tube? In low end lenses, they don't use ring type, but the cheaper tube type.

Nikon has only one SWM motor at the moment...or maybe a cheaper motor in the going to produce 28-100mm AFS?

 

[Mudpool]

Originally posted by firefox13

just my 2 cents, don't flame me please....

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :kok:

 

[Mudpool]

Originally posted by firefox13
non-SWM lenses are much cheaper than the SW ones. take the 80-200mm for example, the regular AF version is much cheaper than the AF-S one, and caters to those who don't really need the extra focusing speed or silent operation.

What's the price diff between the two??

 

[Larry]

Originally posted by Mudpool
What's the price diff between the two??

the AF-D version is about $1600, while the AF-S model is almost double, at about $2800+.

 

[Mudpool]

Originally posted by firefox13
the AF-D version is about $1600, while the AF-S model is almost double, at about $2800+.

I see your point there....

 

[Richard]

Originally posted by firefox13
personally i think it's a matter of price and market. non-SWM lenses are much cheaper than the SW ones. take the 80-200mm for example, the regular AF version is much cheaper than the AF-S one, and caters to those who don't really need the extra focusing speed or silent operation.

To be honest, the regular 80-200 version on a F5 is quite silent, while not as silent as the AFS version, is quiet enough not to piss people off. More often than not.. it's the shutter slap going off that pisses people.

 

[Mudpool]

Not discussing about the optical quality, how are similar Canon USM priced?

Don't flame me, don't flame me... I beg you...

 

[crazyhorse]

The 75-300mm costs $430 while the USM version costs $500. (Prices from Canon Singapore's website). There is no comparison between a "L" lens with the USM and the same lens without the USM since all "L" lenses now use USM to drive the AF.

 

[Mudpool]

The 80-200mm that firefox is talking about is AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8D IF-ED ($2800+), and AF 80-200 f/2.8D ED ($1600). Shouldn't compare Canon's EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM with it. A similar one would be EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM which is $3,100. Dunno how to compare now... hehehe.

But if we use crazyhorse's Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM and compare with a similar nikkor, which is... 70-300 f/4-5.6D ED (or is it 70-300 f/4-5.6G?? I don't know much about canon's labelling) How would it compare?? In terms of pricing. If the prices turn out to be almost the same, then does it mean that Canon can incorporate the USM motor cheaply??

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by Mudpool
Hi,

Just wondering, why has nikon put SWM into only a few of their lenses, while Canon has USM in most of the lenses? Is it because that there's no need for it, or is it to cut the cost down?

Just wondering only, I'm not out to start a flame war... please forgive me for my ignorance ya? :embrass:

You've hit the nail on the head as there really is no need for SWM in the majority of AF lenses produced by Nikon. The same applies to Canon and their USM offerings.

The simple fact is Nikons SWM is a very well enginnered and expensive item to produce and having seen both the Nikon and Canon motors side by side I feel it's fair to say the Nikon unit is more robust in construction.

Keeping costs down has been an integral part of the Japanese camera industry for at least the past 25 years and modern lenses are no exception with Nikon producing lenses and bodies on a 3 tier marketing model to maximise the sales potential and also to best cater to different types of photographer being broadly grouped in to consumer, advanced amateur and professional ranks. Needless to say there is some cross purchasing, for example it's not uncommon to see an F5 with a consumer lens attached to it, or an F90 with a professional lens attached.

One thing I have no doubt about is the fact that in time Nikon will incorporate SWM in to more and more lenses.

 

[Darren]

Originally posted by Ian
One thing I have no doubt about is the fact that in time Nikon will incorporate SWM in to more and more lenses.

And the first "consumer" lens to incorporate SWM will be the AFS Zoom-Nikkor 24-85 f/3.5-4.5G ED due out any time now, joining the AFS Nikkor 300f/4 which I would argue was the first affordable AFS lens from Nikkor.

To further clarify on Canon's USM motors, there are two distinct types - Ring-Type USM and Micro-Motor USM. CLICK ME! for more info on Ultrasonic Motor technology from Canon. Ring-type USM allows for Full Time Manual focus without having to switch out of AF mode, meaning that you can override the AF function just by turning the focus ring. Micro-Motor USM does not allow that.

So! Although a lot of Canon lenses have the USM tag, not all (but the number is increasing) can do FT-M. If you look at the individual lens charts here - CLICK ME CLICK ME!! - you can see that a lot of Canon lenses are USM, but only some have the FT-M label (inferring that they use Ring-Type USM, altho i vaguely remember reading somewhere that Canon has also re-engineered newer Micro-Motor USM lenses to provide FT-M as well)

Here I have to lament Nikon's apparent lag in incorporating USM (or SWM) into the consumer grade lenses - for a variety of reasons not known to us eg patents, costs, already-good AF perf. without SWM, etc - but it looks as though we are seeing more and more lenses coming out with SWM.

And for those that think USM/SWM is the be-all and end-all of focusing issues (speed, accuracy, et al), let me state here that not all USM/SWM lenses are made equal. And I am still getting Out of Focus shots with these lenses ;p

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by Darren
the AFS Nikkor 300f/4 which I would argue was the first affordable AFS lens from Nikkor.

Eh? The zooms are about the same price what... :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[nicholas1986]

one thing i dun get is that why cannon lenses usually focus faster then nikon?

 

[Darren]

Originally posted by Jed
Eh? The zooms are about the same price what... :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

I was referring to the comparison in price between say a AFS 300f/2.8 (S$7K+) or the AFS 80-200f/2.8 (S$2.9K) and the AFS 300f/4 (S$1.9K).

 

[Darren]

Originally posted by nicholas1986
one thing i dun get is that why cannon lenses usually focus faster then nikon?

Please provide statistics, numbers, quotes, references that CONCLUSIVELY state that Canon lenses focus faster than Nikon.

Thank you!

 

[nicholas1986]

my 28-80 nikon compared to me friend 35-80 canon

 

[Darren]

I am sorry but one sample size does not back up your statement that Canon lenses focus faster than Nikon lenses. Its a very controversial statement to make.

I do not wish to sound harsh, but there are a lot of variables that come into play for focusing speed - the AF module being used (and the processing algorithms), the construction of the lens focusing mechanism (eg how many elements are moved, whether its rear-focusing, internal focusing, front element focusing), the focusing mechanism (motor) being used, and a thousand other things.

 

[Edmund]

Originally posted by Ian
The simple fact is Nikons SWM is a very well enginnered and expensive item to produce and having seen both the Nikon and Canon motors side by side I feel it's fair to say the Nikon unit is more robust in construction.

Hmmmm? Care to elaborate Ian? (not being sacarstic or anything, just honestly curious how you arrived at that conclusion)