D600 & 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 or D7100 & 17-55mm f/2.8

Which will you choose?


Results are only viewable after voting.

cheesy

New Member
Aug 31, 2010
716
0
0
#1
which will you choose?
 

cheesy

New Member
Aug 31, 2010
716
0
0
#2
feel free to start a discussion.. :)
 

Fable

Senior Member
Dec 14, 2011
2,892
23
38
Singapore
#3
Will choose D600 & 24-85mm lens.
Full Frame sensor benefits with wide to mid range zoom coverage.
 

cheesy

New Member
Aug 31, 2010
716
0
0
#4
since the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G has a variable aperture, is the wide aperture of 17-55mm f/2.8 worth a consideration in deciding which set-up to get?
 

sje4182

New Member
Oct 12, 2008
1,467
1
0
#5
If weight and money is not an object then D600 + 24-70 f2.8. If they are then D7100 + Sigma 17-50 f2.8.
 

Luminare

Senior Member
May 25, 2012
896
13
18
S'pore
#6
Looking at the equipment listed, it looks like a budget of around $3,000 to $3,400

IMHO, the D600 alone would be a better buy because it is a FX body with good dynamic range and ISO capabilities. However, for the amount of price compared to the D7100 + 17-55mm f/2.8 setup vs. the D600 + 24-85mm f/3.5-5.6 setup, the D600 setup is less versatile and value for money than the D7100 combo.

The D7100 combo is better because of the lens. The 17-55 f/2.8 is a great DX lens that provides an equivalent FoV of 26mm at its widest and a constant aperture of f/2.8 through out the range. The FoV and aperture of the 17-55mm f/2.8 is great for event, street and landscape photography with its greatest asset of f/2.8 through the range. For an equivalent capability, it would be like having the D600 paired with the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 or the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC that effectively brings the cost up with the highest end of the spectrum at $5,150.

This is how it is. FX is generally better but also much for costly than DX but that does not mean DX is always worst off. Besides the over arcing ability of the photographer, the other parts of the equation in getting the photo is the combination of the lens and body with the lens taking precedence over the body.



since the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G has a variable aperture, is the wide aperture of 17-55mm f/2.8 worth a consideration in deciding which set-up to get?
 

Last edited:

trd2970

Senior Member
Jun 8, 2005
5,310
1
0
#7
Really depends on what u are shooting. Looks like the dilemma is between spending your hard earned dollars on a FF body or a constant aperture zoom.

If I'm stretched out on budget but want a FF, I will rather forget the 24-85 vr altogether and get a 50 f1.8 matched with another prime of a frequently used focal length eg 35 f2 or 85 1.8. This will do more justice to the FF capabilities of the d600.
 

dc01572

New Member
Oct 20, 2009
914
0
0
why should I tell you?
#8
vote for D600/24-85mm VR. after upgraded to FF, I have no way back. prefer to FF body first, as you will have more budget next time to upgrade the lens. you can always pair up with a 50/1.8 D/G first to get decent IQ.

while if you get the D7100/17-55 combo, when you need to upgrade to FF, you need to sell both D7100 and 17-55. IMO, it is very troublesome.
 

N-user

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2006
2,459
2
38
TPY
#9
If you want a FF, you want a FF...... whatever else you buy you will not be satisfy..... so cut the chase and join the FF family......:devil:
 

Miao

Senior Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,069
1
38
#10
If you want a FF, you want a FF...... whatever else you buy you will not be satisfy..... so cut the chase and join the FF family......:devil:
Best advise
 

trd2970

Senior Member
Jun 8, 2005
5,310
1
0
#11
If you want a FF, you want a FF...... whatever else you buy you will not be satisfy..... so cut the chase and join the FF family......:devil:
Exactly.
 

cheesy

New Member
Aug 31, 2010
716
0
0
#12
If you want a FF, you want a FF...... whatever else you buy you will not be satisfy..... so cut the chase and join the FF family......:devil:
wah bro your advice very poisonous leh.. :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
 

lenslust

New Member
Apr 22, 2012
1,211
2
0
#13
Do you have a camera already?

If you have, focus on your lenses first, eg: 24-70 f/2.8.

The camera can come later. If you do not have a camera, I'd rather go for the D600 combo.
 

TWmilkteaTW

Senior Member
May 30, 2011
2,251
1
0
#15
TS. I understand it may be hard for you to decide or before you hand over your hard-earned money.. But... it really depends on which one you really prefer or want..
To be frank.. i dont see how our choices should affect your purchases..Because that is our opinion, not yours. This is important for a simple reason; because end of the day you will be the one behind the tools Not us.

From what i see..it will be a Full frame vs APSC sensor. You have to decide. If u dontknow them. Perhaps you can do more read up. If not.
As the lenses u suggested..i think its fine..because on the D600..u can go higher ISO..(ok perhaps u "loose" some DOF without having the 2.8. but. how important is that to you?)

In any case. I'm sure you already had 1 of the above 2 in mind..just seeking for more people to support you? :bsmilie:
 

Last edited:

dracoid4

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2011
760
1
18
#16
TS. I understand it may be hard for you to decide or before you hand over your hard-earned money.. But... it really depends on which one you really prefer or want..
To be frank.. i dont see how our choices should affect your purchases..Because that is our opinion, not yours. This is important for a simple reason; because end of the day you will be the one behind the tools Not us.

From what i see..it will be a Full frame vs APSC sensor. You have to decide. If u dontknow them. Perhaps you can do more read up. If not.
As the lenses u suggested..i think its fine..because on the D600..u can go higher ISO..(ok perhaps u "loose" some DOF without having the 2.8. but. how important is that to you?)

In any case. I'm sure you already had 1 of the above 2 in mind..just seeking for more people to support you? :bsmilie:
Hmmm I thought on FF, your depth of field is shallower by 1.5 stops compared to APS-C. So in term of shallow dof, the 24-85 on d600 is similar as 17-55 on d7100. As for exposure, yes the f-stop counts but d600, you can up the iso as suggested by twmilkteatw.
 

Last edited:

cheesy

New Member
Aug 31, 2010
716
0
0
#17
TS. I understand it may be hard for you to decide or before you hand over your hard-earned money.. But... it really depends on which one you really prefer or want..
To be frank.. i dont see how our choices should affect your purchases..Because that is our opinion, not yours. This is important for a simple reason; because end of the day you will be the one behind the tools Not us.

From what i see..it will be a Full frame vs APSC sensor. You have to decide. If u dontknow them. Perhaps you can do more read up. If not.
As the lenses u suggested..i think its fine..because on the D600..u can go higher ISO..(ok perhaps u "loose" some DOF without having the 2.8. but. how important is that to you?)

In any case. I'm sure you already had 1 of the above 2 in mind..just seeking for more people to support you? :bsmilie:
erm actually no ah im still deliberating over it.. :angel:
 

enenyi

New Member
Mar 28, 2013
155
1
0
Singapore
#18
erm actually no ah im still deliberating over it.. :angel:
I'm one of the D90 + 18-105mm lens kit users who recently made the jump to FF. And I bought the D600 + 24-85mm VR. And to say, it is simply amazing, this FF combo. :) Coz the colour reproduction is great, this lens is sharp even at f/5.6-f/8., and the D600 is a real beast in terms of dynamic colour range and autofocusing. :)

My advice is to go for the D600+24-85mmVR combo. Coz it's really a great combo to have, esp for candid and street photography. And you seldom need the extra 2/3 f-stop; if u need it, just get a prime lens that is f/1.8 or larger. And with the D7100, I wouldn't go for the 17-55mm lens, coz I find it's just not worth it paying over $1500 just for a f/2.8 zoom lens. I would pair the D7100 with the new Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 (when the Nikon mount version becomes available) over this 17-55 f/2.8. Or just wait for the rumoured 18-140mm lens to enter the market before pairing it with the D7100.

At the end of the day, to each his own. Me coming from the DX camera experience with my D90, I treasure the high-ISO capabilities and high dynamic range of the D600. If u r shooting landscapes/cityscapes, streets and candids, then I would recommend getting the FF camera so as to get wide angles without spending too much to buy DX ultra wide-angle lenses. If u r shooting sports/nature/wildlife/birds,, then the D7100 would be the better camera for u, since a 300mm on DX would be an equivalent of 450mm on FX and if the 2x crop is enabled on the D7100, the 300mm would effectively turn into a 600mm FX equivalent, making it ideal for telephoto shooting.
 

Luminare

Senior Member
May 25, 2012
896
13
18
S'pore
#19
Ultimately, it depends on what you want to use the setup primary for and how frequently you actually have the opportunity to do it.

Having a constant aperture of f/2.8 is very important to me because not only do I need the control of DoF across the focal range but also the consistency of accurate AF in low light. So perhaps a few questions for you to ask yourself?

Rate the following questions
1) For what you are planning to do, how important is f/2.8 constant aperture across the focal range? {1: Not important, 5 Very important}
2) Do you intend on throwing in more (a whole lot more) cash for photography? {1: Going to do photography in the long haul and have at least $2.7K budget yearly, 5: $1k or less annually}
3) How important is the FoV of 24mm (FX) and wider to you? {1: Very important, 5: Not important, "I think less is more, can make do with narrower than 24mm FoV onwards for now"}

erm actually no ah im still deliberating over it.. :angel:
 

rain5533

Senior Member
Apr 14, 2009
3,103
0
36
S'pore, JB
www.flickr.com
#20
Both here, look at the lens on fixed 2.8 Aperture seem like more Pro , lol...

D600 is a great FX value body... But you will find out on daylight using pop up flash to be refill some light.. These is overexposure..

D7.1k more suite you as more value cost of last 1-2 yrs on your hand only.
 

Top Bottom