I'd rather it be made in Thailand than in China.

But then again, this is Nikon, not Canon we're talking about here. :D

The only thing I lament is the lack of a aperture ring, because I would love to have full backwards compatibility.

We only have nearly full forwards compatibility, or about 99% mounts, if I generously estimate.

soap said:
AI(S) lenses don't meter on any of the D or F x0 (or now x000) cameras.

So what? I still used my non-AI lens on my D70! Lack of metering isn't going to stop me.

ted2001 said:
I hope my new gear holds up as well.

Doubt it. My good old ƒ/1.2 was made in Japan, along with my F2. The rest of my crap was made in Thailand. An F2 is more indestructible than a D300 any day.

ted2001 said:
I've owned many (I can list them if you'd like), many Nikon lenses since the 1970s. Most were bought new, some were bought used, none have ever needed any repairs whatsoever.

That's been my experience too ted!

I just picked up those old treasures and wow, is the F3HP viewfinder huge and bright and the 200/4 is much smaller than the 105/2.8 and that 20 is tiny and ... after 30 years they're still perfect. The camera bodies have a bit of the black finish worn off, but everything works as when new. All focusing mechanisms are smooth, nothing on lens surfaces (inside or out) and the diaphragms move just as crisply as when new. I hope my new gear holds up as well.

alphanikonrex said:
Hmm...You don't use them on your D90?

AI(S) lenses don't meter on any of the D or F x0 (or now x000) cameras. (Is there an exception to this rule? (Nikon has always been so much more consistent than Canon on this front))

*Sigh*

Reminds me of my baby—a non-AI 50mm ƒ/1.2. These older lenses sound so wonderful. I really wish I had more to use on my F2.

In some ways I think they are better than today's lenses—built in hoods, supplied extension rings, small size, etc.

They're like your children, you love them all, but in order of what I'd save in a fire...

105/2.5, 28/2.8 and 55/2.8 micro (focused to 1:2 and 1:1 with supplied extension ring PK-13

Hmm...You don't use them on your D90? Which one was your favorite?

I used them on an F2a, briefly a Nikormat EL and finally F3HP's. Yup the 200/4 takes 52mm filters and has a beautiful built-in lens hood. The 20 is very sharp past f5.6 and at f8 is terrific and it's smaller than the new 35/1.8.

QuadraPixel said:
I have rented the Sigma 100-300 and Sigma 12-24 lenses from them.

What did you think of the Sigma 12-24? 12 is so tantalizingly wide, as much as I dislike (and boy do I dislike it) not having a front filter I've grown used to it with my 14.

WOW.

What body did you use those on?
Did the 200mm really take 52mm filters?
What was the reproduction ration of the 55mm?
Did the 20mm have bad distortion?

I'll go short to long: 20/4 AIS, 28/2.8 AIS. 50/2 AIS, 55/2.8 AIS Macro, 85/2 AIS, 105/2.5 AIS, 200/4 AIS and 500/8 reflex. All are small, take 52mm filters (except the 500) and were comparatively inexpensive. All, except for the 85 are very sharp and I don't personally like sharp portrait lenses (saves on Softars). I owned the original 80-200/4.5 zoom and wow, did it suck. I almost never used it. The 105/2.5 and 200/4 were so good, the 80-200 was bigger, slower and not nearly as sharp. Made me swear off zooms until last year and episode two: 16-85 with D90 followed by 10.5, 70-300VR, 10-24, 35/1.8, 60/2.8, 105/2.8, 200/4. All have been perfect. Some of the AIS lenses were upgraded by Nikon for a nominal fee. I'm looking forward to seeing what the old lenses can do with an FX body - almost makes me want a D700 more than the (better for me) D300s.

Please do list them! I'm greatly interested in Nikkors, and would love to learn about some of the older ones.

I've owned many (I can list them if you'd like), many Nikon lenses since the 1970s. Most were bought new, some were bought used, none have ever needed any repairs whatsoever.

They are selling off their near-mint condition Tamron 70-200mm lenses for $429, which is a steal.

I like these guys. I have rented the Sigma 100-300 and Sigma 12-24 lenses from them.

ted2001 said:
diversions notwithstanding, the numbers on reliability were interesting and I would like to see more. Besides, Nikon fared pretty well and I've had no problems at all with any of my Nikon lenses. Should we conduct our own survey? Perhaps something for a Moderator to think of.

Actually it does not have to be a moderator, everybody could start a thread about almost everything here as far as I understood.

diversions notwithstanding, the numbers on reliability were interesting and I would like to see more. Besides, Nikon fared pretty well and I've had no problems at all with any of my Nikon lenses. Should we conduct our own survey? Perhaps something for a Moderator to think of.

Yeah demi's right this is a dead horse. Like I didn't see that coming, lol.

why don't you two grab a shovel and start digging holes into the ground somewhere?, i reckon itd make you use up your energy faster than this litle discussion?.
actually, start out somewhere where theres asphalt.
:)

nice misquote
forget the significance of the word AND?

soap said:
I assumed most of us were college grads

NikoDoby said:
So now your saying I don't have a degree? Bravo soap you win. I actually have two.

Not sure where I said that. Just mentioned I assumed talk about being "statistically significant" wouldn't be misconstrued to mean being "significant to you".

So now your saying I don't have a degree? Bravo soap you win. I actually have two.

There I go assuming again. I assumed most of us were college grads and most of us had at least one statistics class. ;)

What's a sample size and it's significant enough for who?