D7K plus 24-70, --OR-- D600 plus 50 1.8G

Get the D7k with the 24-70, you won't be sorry. Lenses are way more future-proof than recyclable bodies.

I have the 24-70, a 50mm 1.4D, a D800 and a D5000. All I can tell you is the D800 with the 50mm is the combination I appreciate the most.

Although I agree with glass over bodies, I can't see where a D600 with a 70-200 and a 50mm 1.8 will find anywhere but happy. A D7000 with a 24-70 as a walk around lens is a bit hefty. A D600 with a 50mm is sharp and light and fast for almost any situation.

I have a D800 and a D7000. I love the D7000 and for the most part I agree that the glass is, in general, more important, but I would go for the FX body in this particular case.

Even if you want to make the argument for glass. The 50mm 1.8g is sharper than the 24-70!

You probably will not find a better zoom lens, but if you want absolute optical perfection primes win.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tdixson/

I was almost decided for the D7K + 24-70 option, but after reading the last 3 posts... Im now again back to where I started =(

When you had your D300 and 17-55, did you shoot most of your photos at 35mm? If so, go with D600 + 50mm. If you shot at 55mm a lot and still felt not enough long, go with D7K + 24-70.

1 year or two later you will have both, FX and 24-70, so take it easy. Even if you make a "wrong" decision it's going to be fixed later anyway.

I have D7000 with 24-70 and I love this combo, except that the 24-70 is too heavy and the autofocus of D7000 is kind of weak. Anyway I prefer this combo over D600+50mm prime. I use 24mm a lot and 70mm too. I know it's a FX lens and I'm "wasting" it, but I too don't really need 18mm that much and 55mm is not enough long for me, so I'm enjoying it.

It's interesting that people saying using a FX lens on a DX body is a waste. Using a prime on a FX is not a waste? A FX camera can do 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, with a 24-70, limiting it to 50mm is not a waste?

Also, I see people saying a 50mm 1.8 is sharper than 24-70, or IQ of D600 is much better than D7K. Well, when you shoot brick wall, yes, it is. In the real life, a decent zoom lens is much more useful that a prime, we all know that.

fredal said:

I was almost decided for the D7K + 24-70 option, but after reading the last 3 posts... Im now again back to where I started =(

Click to expand...

Rent them both. It is the only way to be sure what will work best for you.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tdixson/

D600 + 50 1.8d + used Tamron 28-75 f2.8

The Tamron is an excellent, sharp zoom.
--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

In my view both presented choices are not well balanced.

For dx I would take the 16-85 with the D7K and for D600 the kit-lens: 24-85, or the more hefty 24-120 F4, which has a still higher quality. Only when printing Very Big the primes can have advantages, but you lose the flexibility of the zooms. Both last zooms are well suited to the high resolution of the D600 and D800, according to Nikon.
You can always buy a cheap F1.8 G-lens when needed.

WillemB

Ken Rockwell says D600. In all seriousness, I think if you buy the D7000 you will always wonder about the Fx sensor and if you made the right choice. If you buy the D600 you will never give a second thought to the D7000. That is why I bought the D600. I don't regret it.

I'm unsure what prices are where you live, but here in the USA, one can currently buy from B&H Photo:
1) D600 + 24-85mm f/35.5-4.5 G + 50mm f/1.8 G for ==> $2,920

or

2) D7000 + 24-70mm f/2.8 for ==> $2,880

The new 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 G is quite a decent lens. Have you been checking out image samples produced with it?

I would go with option 1 if I were you. And then start saving to upgrade to the 24-70mm f/2.8 down the road.

Everyone should own the 50mm f/1.8 G, as it is so affordable and produces such lovely sharp images. Here is a photo taken with it on my D600:



2012 University of Oregon Science Fair

It's really great that you're seeking information, but it really helps if you give more information about your goals and needs.


Assuming your are a normal hobbyist, there is no reason for you to get the 24-70. It is a professional lens, not just in image quality, but in its features. It lacks VR. It focal length range is small. It is very well built. You can shoot with reasonable confidence wide open. This makes it a good wedding and indoor lens and a good night zoom lens.


But if you are shooting outdoors in daylight, or with a flash, it is not the zoom of choice. The 24-85 or 24-120 are fine for any of your purposes stopped down, and in several ways superior - smaller, lighter, cheaper, wider range, VR. I only use the 24-70 when I need its special abilities. For a hobbyist on a limited budget it would be a foolish buy, more for status than for function. The f2.8 zoom are designed with the needs of money making photographers, and not with the needs of hobbyists in mind.

I vote D600 + 85 1.8G (or 24-85 VR kit zoom lens if you want to zoom to compliment your 70-200).

I just jumped D300s -> D600 and i think this was the best decision i could have taken...It is another league of camera !

Plus dont forget that you can use the DX crop mode (10 Mp) if needed.

Good luck with your decision

Cheers

Gwen