I thank you all for this communication, which I hope will continue. I don't have all the answers (and when I do offer an answer, I don't claim to have the best one - let alone the sole one) but I promise you it will always be an honest one, that is, I will say things as I believe them.
For today, I picked a few questions I was asked over the last few months, and published the answers I gave, for everyone's benefit.
Note: For clarity's sake, the questions & answers are slightly edited from the original discussions.
Q1. Is the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 really worth it over the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8
I've also been asked the same thing about the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 vs the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8. In both cases, it all boils down to value, which is entirely subjective. In other words, if you need the extra aperture and if you don't mind paying extra, then it's a no-brainer: the f/1.4 is worth it. But, realistically speaking, the vast majority of people asking this question don't really need it. In terms of optical quality, you'll see little if any difference between the two versions (by f/2.8 they're all the same; at f/1.8 the f/1.4 can be very slightly better). Additionally, please do realize that shooting at f/1.4 requires quite a bit of discipline (and a well calibrated autofocus system). Few things can be more frustrating than missing a shot because of missfocusing.
I've talked about this before. I think with each update, we get less of meaningful stuff and more fluff. Photographically speaking, the D3200 and the D3300 are virtually indistinguishable, particularly if you're shooting Raw (which you should, if you're serious about your photography). Having said that, if the newest model has a little detail (the "fluff") you're interested in and you don't mind the extra price penalty, go for it. You can't go wrong with either.