NSXType-R said:
I'm curious as to how they're going to update the 50mm 1.2.

Forget it! The people who have one love theirs just fine (unless it's pre-Ai ;^) ), and understand it's a special purpose lens. No need for it to be updated, like Chris said ½ a stop isn't a big enough difference.

None so far. . .when I have doubts, and know I'll question the purchase, I'll usually buy used (recent acquisitions like a Domke F-3X, great example, $45 used and LOVE IT, wouldn't have ever paid $100 new). . .as far as lenses go, I'm still on the fence about my DX investment (like Niko is :-)), but when I vaca and pack a couple of small lenses, I realize I'll probably always keep a small DX line with me for THAT reason alone. . .

I might regret the used 24 2.8 and 35-70 2.8 I got in 2009 ONCE Nikon releases newer versions this year (24 1.4 and an updated 24-120 VR with much better optics that'll cover the 35-70 range), but until then, I can enjoy both on my N75, get reasonably sharp images, and not have to terribly fret over an FX purchase. . .

I doubt they'll upgrade the 50/1.2, considering Nikon just put out the new 50/1.4 in the past 18 months. A half stop is not a big deal, and the 1.2 never even got an AF or AFD version, so I'm not exactly expecting an AF-S one. It doesn't really need updating either...lenses like that practically need to be used on appropriate focusing screens anyway, with split images and micro prisms. Or with a rangefinder.

a 35/1.4 would be really great, but truthfully, I'd kill for a 24/1.4.

NikoDoby said:
OK so be remorseful when the new 35mm f1.4 FX comes out :^)

I'm curious as to how they're going to update the 50mm 1.2.

On one hand I'm nostalgic that it's still in production, but yet I also want to see a modern derivative that's not like the 50mm 1.4 or the 35mm 1.8. All plasticy is fine on cheaper models, but not on the fastest Nikkor lens in the entire lineup.

I hope they do that lens justice.

OK so be remorseful when the new 35mm f1.4 FX comes out :^)

NikoDoby said:
Hmm...OK I've got a serious answer now. I regret buying sigma lenses :^(
I know, I know, there are a lot of sigma fan boys on this forum but if I had to do it all over again I'd stay far far away from them. I only recommend Nikkors now. You get what you pay for and unfortunately with Sigma it's often crappy image or quality control.

My second regret would be buying into DX glass. FX glass can always be used on both FX and DX cameras so what was I thinking? If Nikon comes out with an EVIL DX camera than I'll change my mind, but until then I regret buying DX lenses. Luckily I'm not heavily invested so it's no big deal.

I would agree with the DX glass thing, but I would have bought the FX version of the 35mm 1.8 if they made it.

But they don't. But I still love the lens for what it is. I don't regret it because there's nothing that would give me the same performance and price, whether it be from Nikon or Sigma or Tokina or Tamron.

Hmm...OK I've got a serious answer now. I regret buying sigma lenses :^(
I know, I know, there are a lot of sigma fan boys on this forum but if I had to do it all over again I'd stay far far away from them. I only recommend Nikkors now. You get what you pay for and unfortunately with Sigma it's often crappy image or quality control.

My second regret would be buying into DX glass. FX glass can always be used on both FX and DX cameras so what was I thinking? If Nikon comes out with an EVIL DX camera than I'll change my mind, but until then I regret buying DX lenses. Luckily I'm not heavily invested so it's no big deal.

alphanikonrex said:
Yeah, same here. For while after I got my D300 I had "Buyer's Remorse" telling myself I should have gotten a D90 plus a lens, but I've got some shots with my D300 I know I wouldn't have been able to do with a D90, soo...

I'm happy now, so that's all that matters.

Yeah, I'm happy with the D40 too. Although maybe I feel like I should have splurged to get a D80 because it has the motor and the slightly better build quality. But then again, the D80 would have been instantly replaced by the D90, and I'd be annoyed and sad again.

....so is that reverse buyer's remorse...?

Arrg! My head is about to explode!

:D

I do love the small form factor of the D40, so I'm still happy. With the 35mm 1.8, it disappears!

alphanikonrex said:
Yeah, same here. For while after I got my D300 I had "Buyer's Remorse" telling myself I should have gotten a D90 plus a lens, but I've got some shots with my D300 I know I wouldn't have been able to do with a D90, soo...

That sounds more like sour grapes, alpha.

alphanikonrex said:
I'm happy now, so that's all that matters.

I agree with this, though.

I get buyers remorse occasionally if I know I'm gonna have to live tightly the next few weeks to make up for it, but I don't buy that much "stuff" usually perishables that I need (film and chemistry). If I see a really good deal on a piece of gear that I can fit into my workflow, I'll usually jump on it, even if money's tight, because it'll save me from spending twice as much later on. My Pentax 67 is a good example, times are a bit rough right now (understatement of the year) but since the only thing missing from my medium format stable was 6x7 (got 645 and 6x6 already), I bit the bullet and went for it. If it had been a 35mm camera, never would've bought it.

On the upside, for less than the cost of a low end point and shoot I now have a system capable of yielding 50mp neg and chrome scans.

NSXType-R said:
Plus, I make sure I really want it first before I ask my parents to buy it. Since the money's not mine, I make sure I make a smart decision beforehand.

Yeah, same here. For while after I got my D300 I had "Buyer's Remorse" telling myself I should have gotten a D90 plus a lens, but I've got some shots with my D300 I know I wouldn't have been able to do with a D90, soo...

I'm happy now, so that's all that matters.

Nope, never really had buyer's remorse because I usually get it on sale anyway, so I feel better once I get it.

Plus, I make sure I really want it first before I ask my parents to buy it. Since the money's not mine, I make sure I make a smart decision beforehand.

nikyvee said:
Good info re tele lenses, and I obviously need the info. Not many guys are fessing up about having serious "buyer's remorse" to the point of returning the lens/camera/whatever.
I guess it is just me.

I wouldn't worry about it. Clearly, you are responsible enough to seek a way to return the purchases you realized weren't a good idea. Also, this thread is probably pretty biased. Everyone here tends to be more knowledgeable than your average person about gear and what to expect from a given lens/camera, etc.

I know that I've been reading reviews on affordable super-telephotos since this summer, when I find the time. By the time I saw the Bigma, I knew what to expect from it and that it was a good price. Although despite all my preparation, I didn't actually realize there were two versions of the Bigma. Mine appears to be the old version, so the price wasn't as good as I thought. I'm still happy I bought it, but my story could have easily mirrored your's!

Nick, you know I tried to think of something for your sake. I guess I'm just a lot more responsible than you are. ;-)

Good info re tele lenses, and I obviously need the info. Not many guys are fessing up about having serious "buyer's remorse" to the point of returning the lens/camera/whatever.
I guess it is just me.

I know when I have made a really satisfactory purchase. I fall a sleep with sugar plums in my head and sleep through the night. A sleepless night, after a big purchase, and I know I am real second thoughts. That being said, I don't often return things because of my remorse.

Most expensive thing that I returned was a used VW many years ago. I bought it at an auto auction in LA via a local San Diego dealer. I drove it home to SD and called the dealer and returned the vehicle in the same day. He charged me $100 to return it, but I was really glad that I did return it. It just wasn't the car for me, but it took that 90 mile drive to figure that out.

Nick V

ted2001 said:
The latest 70-300 VR has VRII and is a quite good lens. The AF is adequate and the speed is just acceptable, but at f8 I find the image quality excellent. It's also small, light, uses 67mm filters and might meet your needs. I've been very happy with mine.

for me this lens was great up to 200 and around 300 it was too soft.

ShadeofBlue said:
...That being said, there's obviously a big difference between 300mm and 500mm, although that will probably not really come into play unless you are shooting small wildlife, like birds. 300mm on DX is quite a lot of reach, after all.

try shooting any wildlife with 500mm and 300mm, and You will see that small birds are not the only need for long telephotos

aesnakes said:
...
Have you tried handheld at 500mm yet?

yes, and in bright light it's possible with this lens - although You need a big body with grip, it's much easier for me to handhold it on d200 than on d90. if You add monopod to it, it's really a nice combination for it's price.

ted2001 said:
The latest 70-300 VR has VRII and is a quite good lens. The AF is adequate and the speed is just acceptable, but at f8 I find the image quality excellent. It's also small, light, uses 67mm filters and might meet your needs. I've been very happy with mine.

I agree that this lens is very good, and you can usually find it used for $400-$450. I have one that I bought before I bought the Bigma, and I'm not selling it since it's so much lighter and has VR, so can be used in situations the Bigma can't. That being said, there's obviously a big difference between 300mm and 500mm, although that will probably not really come into play unless you are shooting small wildlife, like birds. 300mm on DX is quite a lot of reach, after all.

The latest 70-300 VR has VRII and is a quite good lens. The AF is adequate and the speed is just acceptable, but at f8 I find the image quality excellent. It's also small, light, uses 67mm filters and might meet your needs. I've been very happy with mine.

I've used my Bigma at 500mm handheld. If I concentrate, I can get a reasonable keeper rate down to about 1/300th, but I have to go to more like 1/600th to be really consistent. I did know that it would be a "good light only" lens when I bought it, though.

jonnyapple said:
But it does say VR II on that link mb posted, alpha.

Not that is mater much though 70-300 is the first Nikon lens featuring VR II, second is 16-85 if I am not mistaken ...

Yeah I think for most tele lenses you really get what you pay for. I heard the 50-500 "Bigma" was a great lens for that reach / price but for me it has no "OS" which at 500mm you definitely need I bought the 150-500 HSM OS lens and with the HSM in it focuses really fast and the OS is pretty good too for shooting handheld. Its really a loud lens which is weird, but for $1300 the speed focusing, OS, and distance are worth it.

Have you tried handheld at 500mm yet?

Ooops—my bad—sorry. Then it's just Nikon being inconsistent I guess.

But it does say VR II on that link mb posted, alpha.