I e-mailed them to ask them about the order. It's a special order, so if they've already placed it then it's all over. That said, I don't really want to cancel it... I want that zoom range. The bokeh that gets worked into a longer focal-length picture at something like f4.5 is pretty nice... and 70-300 is really good. I might end up just carrying primes and a 70-300 hahaha... I really have always wanted a camera that zooms in like mad (for years that's what I talked about -- "I want a camera with 16x or more zoom" -- back when I didn't know that the multiplier might not mean a lot).

If I do keep with photography, and I can't justify a higher quality 70-300 range lens, then this will be a permanent lens in my collection. Then I can just add in primes as I go, and get a full-frame sensor camera.

If I don't keep with photography, at least I've gotten this on sale and it should resell well if I ever want to get rid of it.

If I enjoy photography but never go much further, then this completes my focal range length and that's wonderful.

Imho I've been enjoying my camera quite a lot, and I think I will be keeping with photography. So I don't feel bad about the purchase. I do wonder if an 85mm 1.8g would've been a better investment though. I notice a lot of people are telling me the 35mm and 50mm are too close in focal lengths, but I'm finding that not to really be the case when I play with my zoom.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jul 7 2013 01:29pm

Sell it as brand new for ~90% ha

Anything above 85 is too long for walk about. 50 is just enough to snap shots. Not too long but arguably not wide enough. Still does enough damage.

Just use your feet, step back a meter or step forward a meter. You will see how much just using your feet opens or closes a shot. Plus you keep that lovely compression that a 50 makes. Trade in your 50 for a 35

The sigma 17-70 is f2.8... why did no one mention this in the reviews when comparing it to the 16-85? When I was new I didn't know to look at this... and this wasn't emphasized in most reviews >_<; And it's $200 cheaper. Lol.

it's not a f2.8
The sigma is a f2.8 to 4 (4 at max zoom)
You really need f2.8 All around the zoom if you want a good zoom lens.
The 17-50mm f2.8 from sigma (or tamron) are f2.8 from 17 to 50mm but the sigma is more expensive

The 17-50mm seems like an awesome lens, especially for the price, but it gets constrictive enough in the focal length to not be for everyone as a walk-around.

For me, I probably wouldn't get it. On the wide end, I don't mind f3.5... in fact, I get sharper images at f3.5 for the type of wide shots rather than going to f2.8. The difference is minimal.

Coming up to 35mm, if I want quality, then my 35mm makes sense. And up to 50mm, again, a 50mm prime makes sense.

It just feels like the 17-50mm has so little options on the focal length (too constricted) to make sense for everyone as a walk-around. I'd probably just end up getting frustrated with it and stick with a 35mm walk-around on a crop-sensor camera.

The problem is that you'll rarely get a static f2.8 from 17 to over 55 :/
and if you find one the price will be insane.
(shout out to the 17-55mm f2.8 from nikkor)

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2147/AF-S-DX-Zoom-Nikkor-17-55mm-f2F2.8G-IF-ED.html

This post was edited by Deibu on Jul 8 2013 03:10pm

I got the refund on the 70-300.

The company is run poorly. I ordered and paid for it online, and selected pick-up in their store.

They e-mailed me to tell me they don't accept payment online if it's not being shipped to my house.

:-/...

Their loss. I'm considering whether I'll get the 70-300 yet or not. I still might go for it.

Keep your money.
invest later in a really great lens.

Yeh but I can't afford a great lens on the telephoto bus om end of 70-300. If I do spend 2k on a lens it would be in the normal focal length range. But I'd think 200-500 dollar primes plus decent zooms makes sense. Idk what would replace my 16-85... Probably a slightly better kit lens with a full frame in a year.

What would my d5200 resell for in good condition in a year. It's 700 without the lens package normally, I got mine for 560 due to an error discount lol. I overpaid for my extra battery and my sdhc so it evened out uunfortunately.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jul 8 2013 06:53pm

How rich are you <.< ?
A better lens over a fullframe will be the best bang for your money.
Ive got my d90 for like 4 years now and there's no way im going for a full frame until i really get professionnal glasses.
But again, it's a personnal choice but fullframes are extremely expensives The nikon cheaper fullframe is $2000 i think. (not sure)
And the D4 is like $4000 (if not more) - BODY ONLY by the way

Real prices for the crazy beast "D4" and the cheapest fullframe from nikon.