Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1

    Default Nikon lens compatibility

    Is the D100 fully compatible with the Nikon DX AF-S 55-200 G ED VR lens?
    Will the autofocus work?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    scotland
    Posts
    1,002
    Images
    2

  3. #3

    Default

    So the fact that it does not autofocus (when my Sigma 12-14 lens does) probably means the lens has got a fault.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    scotland
    Posts
    1,002
    Images
    2

    Default

    Hi , It sounds like your lens is in need of repair... graham

  5. #5

    Unhappy

    It's worse than that, local camera shop agreed that it was probably an electronic fault with the lens, but said it was beyond economic repair! It's 3 years old and thus out of guarantee. Nikon charge nearly 90 per hour +VAT to even look at it so a new Sigma lens with almost the same spec (on special offer at 150) would probably be cheaper. .
    Now if the body had been more modern I might well have bought this, but the D100 is now some 8-9 years old and very much outclassed in many respects by even a small compact. So I passed. I can't afford a new body equivalent to what the D100 was in its heyday and it didn't make economic sense to buy a new lens to go with a down level body.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    scotland
    Posts
    1,002
    Images
    2

    Unhappy

    Sorry to hear that. You may pick a second hand sigma cheap i have saw them on gumtree and ebay... good luck and let me know how you get on... graham

  7. #7

    Default

    I've decided that my days of lugging a heavy camera bag around are over. As I said, the D100 is obsolete and a modern compact digital camera can outperform it in many ways. So I cut my losses and bought a Panasonic TZ8. It's got a Lica Vario-Elmar lens with a 12X optical zoom (OK it's probably made under license in Japan) and a 12M pixel sensor, twice that of the D100. With built in image stabilisation and more bells and whistles than you can shake a stick at.
    To be brutally frank, despite its obvious limitations (no RAW mode for example), it's a better camera for my needs and a lot cheaper than throwing the thick end of 1,000 at the Nikon outfit to bring it up to date. In any case, I've still got the Nikon if the need arises.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    scotland
    Posts
    1,002
    Images
    2

    Default

    Hi. I'm thinking along those lines as well. I go up the north of scotland and lugging a dslr and 3 or 4 lenses up and down mountains a bit of a pain. I checked out you camera and it looks a good choice... graham

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham_c View Post
    Hi. I'm thinking along those lines as well. I go up the north of scotland and lugging a dslr and 3 or 4 lenses up and down mountains a bit of a pain. I checked out you camera and it looks a good choice... graham
    If it's any interest, there is the TZ9 and TZ10 in the same family. I can't say off hand what the advantages of the TZ9 are, but the TZ10 can do 1080p video and has built in GPS so images and video can be geotaged. That might be a useful feature if you are half way up a mountain. But it does cost about 40 more.

  10. #10

    Default

    Actually, if you shop around on the web, you can get it for about 185, only 20 more than I paid.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •