I have dilemma what camera is better Nikon D5100 or D90. The first one is newer but the second one has lens servo ("screwdriver") motor. My question is: can I save some money overall with the more expensive camera, by buying lenses without lens-based AF motors?


If money is the only consideration and if you plan to buy many lenses, I'm sure the answer is yes. The newer AF-S lenses are more expensive than the AF-D predecessors, or the AF lenses before those.

If price is the only consideration, you might forego AF altogether and get some old MF Nikkors. They're often cheaper still.

I have trouble endorsing the direction this thought process leads, though. AF-S lenses often offer more than just internal motors: better optics are pretty standard. A while back I pulled out an old 35-80mm f4-5.6 AF-D "kit" lens and shot with it a little on my D300 and was amazed at how poor the optical quality of it was as compared to the 18-55mm AF-S "kit" lens. It wasn't bad, but the 18-55 was clearly better. I'm sure that there are many great AF-D lenses, but I suggest that you'll really need to do your research to be sure you're getting something worthwhile.

Of course, the AF-S lenses offer two other great benefits, too: generally faster AF, and much quieter AF.

  • Agreed - the lenses may be cheaper, but given the choice I'd get the 5100 - the D90 is getting on a bit. Mar 5 '12 at 15:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.