D610 or D750

[lacogada]

Buying a used 600 ... many say Nikon will fix or replace if it develops oil spots.

How long will Nikon continue this at no charge ?

Forever. And if your repaired D600 develops it again, they'll replace the camera.

using tapatalk.

Thanks ... that's a long time.

 

[Solarflare]

Wow man you are one heck of a sales person, you should consider selling cameras for a living, ok I am convinced I change my recommendation to the D750, you buy a camera once every few years, spend the extra 500$ and get the best FF camera in its price range!

Err, I would be the worst merchant in the world.

 

[astroNikon]

I think if I bought a 610 or 750 I wouldn't care to use the 5300 and it would just go unused. It would seem like a waste of equipment to let sit especially with the condition its in.
On another note I do like the length of the Tamron 18/270.

I have a d600 and a d7000.
I barely use the d7000 anymore but it does get used a little.

 

[gr8five]

I decided to go with the 750 and Nikon 70/300 ED and Nikon 24/85 VR. I think the lenses will be a good option for me right now. I'm going from dx (D90) to ff and I realize there will be a difference but just how much I'll have to find out for myself.

 

[goodguy]

I decided to go with the 750 and Nikon 70/300 ED and Nikon 24/85 VR. I think the lenses will be a good option for me right now. I'm going from dx (D90) to ff and I realize there will be a difference but just how much I'll have to find out for myself.

I owned the D7000, D7100 and now the D750, the D750 has really blew me away especially when it comes to low light performance.
With the crop sensor cameras I always had a 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 lens with me for low light situation, now with the D750 I stopped carrying it and simply uses my f2.8 zoom lenses for all occasions, at f2.8 and a steady hand I can get clean shots at low light situation.
I also used to own the Nikon 24-85mm VR and 70-300mm VR
The 24-85mm VR was a fantastic lens very sharp and may I even say not too far from my Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G which replaced it, only real drawback is that its much slower then the f2.8 lens, I know you will love it
The 70-300mm VR is a good and relative to its price is sharp but it is slow and comparing to the 70-200mm lenses it isnt as sharp, not a big deal but if you will get in the future a 70-200mm 2.8 lens you will notice the difference.

Good luck

 

[gr8five]

Thanks goodguy, Im sure I will probably make some changes/additions to my glass after I use what I'm probably going to buy. I have read a lot about these two from "the experts" and real Photographers, like the people on this forum.One driving factor is price. I can get this setup from Adorama for under 3k,

 

[gr8five]

Ok I admit I haven't made a clear choice on what lenses to buy.

 

[astroNikon]

Ok I admit I haven't made a clear choice on what lenses to buy.

It's just be-fudoling !!

I had the 70-300vr but had issues with the way it focused, especially for sports.

I use the built in focus motor a lot with my lenses as I use my 3 "general" lenses that perform really well, and has saved hundreds of dollars are:
18-35 AF-D
24-85/2.8-4.0 AF-D (the older version of your selected 24-85 AF-S lens)
80-200/2.8 AF-D

I also have a 300/4 prime AF that is great too, and a few other lenses.

It all comes down to budget.

 

[goodguy]

When talking about lenses going used is a great option, yes its risky like any other item you buy used but lenses are in general a fairly well build item and in most cases a rather safe bet.
Most of my lenses I bought used and got really burned only once.
I also bought some new lenses and one was a lemon so my success rate with lenses is actually higher with used then with new, only thing is that buying new you have the warranty and buying used means no warranty.
As an example if you want a good used fast telezoom lens I would suggest the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 (non OS) goes for around 500$ USD and is a wonderful sharp lens.

 

[gr8five]

Im not at all opposed to buying a used lens. The more money I save the more I have to spend, if that makes sense lol.

 

[goodguy]

Im not at all opposed to buying a used lens. The more money I save the more I have to spend, if that makes sense lol.

Well then the Nikon 80-200mm 2.8D and Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 (non OS) are 2 good options, both sharp and fast.
As for wider lenses there are lots good used lenses for reasonable prices like the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 and lots others.
I can tell you that the D750 with good fast glass pretty much feels unstoppable no matter what the lighting conditions are

 

[Solarflare]

Ok I admit I haven't made a clear choice on what lenses to buy.

Well, as a general set of lenses with excellent image quality, I can recomment the AF-S 16-35mm f4 VR and AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR duo which I use, and for which at the moment there still is no better option available.

The AF-S 16-35mm f4 VR isnt outright brilliant, but IMHO the best all-around package of all available options. If you think you dont need 16mm (to me thats the highest focal length I personally still would accept as lowest border, but depending upon your taste you might not need it) theres a AF-S 18-35mm (not sure about f-stops, I think f/3.5-4.5 ?) thats cheaper, smaller, more lightweight and optically at least as good (but dont expect wonders from either of them - if you really want sharpness in wide angle on Nikon F, theres no way around the heavy bulky AF-S 14-24mm or the brand new heavy and bulky Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 VC, or those Zeiss manual prime lenses. With the zooms I specified, try to shoot them at f/5.6 for optimal sharpness, avoid the extreme ends of the focal range, and dont have too high demands for border sharpness either. With those cheavats, I typically use my 16-35mm as a 21-28mm f5.6 and cant complain about the results, especially since I rarely do landscape. And yes, sometimes 16mm is not wide enough, but there you go, cant have everything).

The AF-S 70-200mm f4 is simply excellent. But if its too pricey for your taste, the good old AF-S 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR is no slouch at all either. If you think you want more light, the AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR2 is of course brilliant too. Theres also cheaper options for f2.8, like the old AF-S 80-200mm f2.8; you might want to think about getting a monopod for using this too, because it has no image stabilization.

Add to those two zooms (or whatever variant specified you choose) an AF-S 50mm f1.8 (or AF-S 50mm f1.4, or Sigma 35mm f1.4 "Art") as a lens for low light and a Tamron 90mm f2.8 VC macro (or AF-S 105mm f2.8 VR micro) as a macro lens, and that would be a great general setup for "anything".

I personally hate "normal" zooms. I think in that focal range, prime lenses are simply vastly superior, and the only reason not to use a prime lens is if you're too lazy for zooming by feet. But others have already made pretty good suggestions about this type of lens, so fortunately I can skip that anyway.

 

[goodguy]

LOL, looking at "Solarflare" post above and I think you really have a lot of options each with its pro's and con's
Each lens has something good and bad to say about it, some are really good but big, heavy and expensive, some are small, cheap but you loose on amount of light coming in camera.
You areally are limited only by your pocket.
Dont rush to buy any lens, it will be a shame if you buy something because it sounds good only to find you are not using it or find its not for your liking.

From my experience I can tell you lenses are the main factor to get good sharp images (when talking about equipment) more important then the camera body.
I rather have nice camera with amazing lenses then amazing camera with nice lenses.

Dont forget third party lenses are a very good option, some of these lenses are excellent and will cost considerably less then Nikon's equivalent lenses.
Today in some cases third party lenses are actually superior to Nikon's lenses.

 

[gr8five]

Do you think the AF-S 50mm f1.4 is worth the extra money over the AF-S 50mm f1.8 lens?

 

[astroNikon]

Do you think the AF-S 50mm f1.4 is worth the extra money over the AR-S 50mm f1.8 lens?

Depends upon what you need the extra aperture for.

For "artistic" stuff I use the f/1.4 over my f/1.8 50mm lens - I have both.

But using it strictly for "low light" is a double edge sword. One has to remember that a f/1.4 aperture gives you extremely shallow depth of field when up close. So if you are taking a photo of a person at f/1.4 you'll only get part of the nose in focus if you focused on the nose .. eyes and ears would be out of focus.

So, f/1.4 is great depending upon how you use it and if you can use it.

The one advantage the AF-S G lens has over the AF-D lens is that you can do focus override without switching off the AF switch, which is great for artistic stuff.

I also rarely have any problems handholding my AF-D lenses and rarely use VR with my VR lenses. It all depends upon how your use them and how you know how to use them.