Originally posted by Jed
Cost of piezo-electric motors is not the main problem, from what I understand they can be manufactured relatively cheaply. Look at comparative lenses from Minolta and Pentax, the prices are equally as exciting. Not to mention that AIS glass costs more than AF-S glass.
The aperture ring debate is an interesting one.
Pros (of having one)
[1] Better handling if your camera only has one command dial
[2] Option of using either apeture ring or command dial if camera supports it, so the user can choose.
Cons (of having one)
[1] None, aside from cost savings, which is very dubious.
Pros (of not having one)
Same as cons of having one.
Cons (of not having one)
[1] Non-existent handling on older cameras. However, again this takes us back to the Nikon compatibility issue. How many of these newer G lenses with no aperture rings have got features that an older camera that cannot control aperture can actually use, as opposed to another lens? If your camera cannot accept a G lens, don't buy one. There's no reason to either. Buy a previous model with an aperture ring. You don't lose out in any way. About the only thing you might gain is VR with the new 70-200, but as I said, the older cameras cannot utilise the VR anyway.
Confusing a bit possibly because of the way I've phrased it, but losing the aperture ring while it sounds drastic is not actually a major problem. And for those die hards who insist that aperture ring control is better; it's not. It'll take you no time at all to get used to it if you actually use your camera, and before long you'll find it's better than an aperture ring (again, credit where credit is due to Canon or whoever discovered aperture control off the camera first).
Using an aperture-ringless lens feels like something is missing (like using a car without a steering wheel but has a little knob in place of it). ;p