Posted Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:16PM
So here is one for you guys. I have 17-35/2.8 and 60/2.8, both Nikkors [occasionally I use 28-75/2.8 Tamron, and 70-200/2.8 Sigma, along my current D300]. So the big question is:
- D600 + 24-120/4 Nikkor or
We are here for stock, so stock-oriented photography is what we have in mind. I do realise I need something longer, yet 70-200/2.8 is out of my league at the moment [had to buy a new desktop and Eizo monitor], so what would you advise me to do?
IQ of both the cameras is amazing, sensor difference we are aware of. From say 2-3 stock photo perspective, which you reckong would be a better perspective [baring in mind the equipment I own at the moment]
Posted Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:02PM
Posted By gipi23:
We are here for stock, so stock-oriented photography is what we have in mind.
What subject matter do you want to shoot, in what lighting conditions?
I think a longer lens would be more helpful than the loads of MP that the D800 would give you.
Posted Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:47PM
Sorry, but what is wrong with your lenses now ? It seems like you have a good arsenal as it is, the difference between Sigma 70-200/2.8 and Nikkor 70-200/2.8 is realy marginal IMHO not worth the upgrade there, the 24-120/4 is not a great lens I would pass on that and save some money to get a ring flash for macro work if you are really interested of doimg macro work, good macro shots require very small aperture f/16-22 due to limited DOF at 1:1 and unfortunately no natural light is going to accomodate that. Also asking for what type of lenses to get to produce stock is like asking about what car should I get to deliver pizza.
Posted Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:04PM
Remember, too, that Nikon recently announced the 70-200/4 which will be less expensive than the 2.8 version.
I would recommend the D800 over the D600.