durango Loc: Marietta, Ohio

I’m hooked on UHH, I read it every. Great advice and friendly people.

I’m considering getting the Nikon D600, but trying to decide on a couple of lens. My interests are landscapes, nature, sporting events of grandchildren, and some macro(this one can wait). My oldest granddaughter runs track both indoor and outside tracks, I need a fast for that. I have about $5,000+ put aside for a new camera and lenses. A salesperson suggested that I purchase the Nikon 28 300mm VR $899.00 and the Tamron 24 70mm VC f/2.8 for $1299. Our closet camera shop is 2.5 hours away, so I can’t just stop in and ask for help. I know some of you have Nikon 28 300mm and have recommended it to others. Would the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 $1249 with rebate be a good choice for sports and other low light situations? If so, would I need the Nikon 28 300 lens too? I’ve read Ken Rockwell (I can’t afford all of his suggestions), dpreview, and other reviews, but still confused. Help please!

ephraim Imperio

The Nikon 28-300 VR is a pretty impressive lens. My daughter just came home from Italy and she shoots with a D600 camera. She said the lens is very versatile and if used properly, it is sharp. Here is a sample of a photo taken with this lens but with the D800>

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1162720

durango Loc: Marietta, Ohio

durango wrote:
I’m hooked on UHH, I read it every. Great advice and friendly people.

I’m considering getting the Nikon D600, but trying to decide on a couple of lens. My interests are landscapes, nature, sporting events of grandchildren, and some macro(this one can wait). My oldest granddaughter runs track both indoor and outside tracks, I need a fast for that. I have about $5,000+ put aside for a new camera and lenses. A salesperson suggested that I purchase the Nikon 28 300mm VR $899.00 and the Tamron 24 70mm VC f/2.8 for $1299. Our closet camera shop is 2.5 hours away, so I can’t just stop in and ask for help. I know some of you have Nikon 28 300mm and have recommended it to others. Would the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 $1249 with rebate be a good choice for sports and other low light situations? If so, would I need the Nikon 28 300 lens too? I’ve read Ken Rockwell (I can’t afford all of his suggestions), dpreview, and other reviews, but still confused. Help please!


The Nikon 28-300 VR is a pretty impressive lens. My daughter just came home from Italy and she shoots with a D600 camera. She said the lens is very versatile and if used properly, it is sharp. Here is a sample of a photo taken with this lens but with the D800>

Thanks, Awesome photos! I especially like #1. I'm new at posting, so I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly. Looks like tht Nikon 28-300 VR is an excellent choice. Has your daughter noticed any of the reported spots on here pics?

ephraim Imperio

No! But her first D600 camera that came from B&H had a blurry viewfinder even with fully charged battery. She sent it back to B&H and got one from Best Buy that had no viewfinder problems.

durango Loc: Marietta, Ohio

durango wrote:
I’m hooked on UHH, I read it every. Great advice and friendly people.

I’m considering getting the Nikon D600, but trying to decide on a couple of lens. My interests are landscapes, nature, sporting events of grandchildren, and some macro(this one can wait). My oldest granddaughter runs track both indoor and outside tracks, I need a fast for that. I have about $5,000+ put aside for a new camera and lenses. A salesperson suggested that I purchase the Nikon 28 300mm VR $899.00 and the Tamron 24 70mm VC f/2.8 for $1299. Our closet camera shop is 2.5 hours away, so I can’t just stop in and ask for help. I know some of you have Nikon 28 300mm and have recommended it to others. Would the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 $1249 with rebate be a good choice for sports and other low light situations? If so, would I need the Nikon 28 300 lens too? I’ve read Ken Rockwell (I can’t afford all of his suggestions), dpreview, and other reviews, but still confused. Help please!


The Nikon 28-300 VR is a pretty impressive lens. My daughter just came home from Italy and she shoots with a D600 camera. She said the lens is very versatile and if used properly, it is sharp. Here is a sample of a photo taken with this lens but with the D800>

Thanks, Awesome photos! I especially like #1. I'm new at posting, so I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly. Looks like tht Nikon 28-300 VR is an excellent choice. Has your daughter noticed any of the reported spots on here pics?


No! But her first D600 camera that came from B&H had a blurry viewfinder even with fully charged battery. She sent it back to B&H and got one from Best Buy that had no viewfinder problems.

Thanks ephraim Imperio. That's too bad, but glad she got it replaced. It's nice to know that B&H refunded her money.

I'm leaning toward the Nikon 28-300mm lens, but still need a fast lens for indoors sports. I may wait and get use to the camera and lens before buying a fast lens. I have about two months before the first indoor track meet. Thanks again for sharing the photos and for replying.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

If you have 5K to spend, I am going to suggest that you purchase the camera body for 2K and get one top of the line lens, the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8. This will put you right at 5K. Shoot your sports shots with it. They will be so sharp that you will be able to crop them. As you can, fill in the other lenses that you need, but start here. You'll have two outstanding pieces of equipment.

I might suggest adding a second lens to start with, which is fairly inexpensive....the Nikkor 50mm f2.8.

durango Loc: Marietta, Ohio

Thanks SteveR. I'll definitely consider the Nikon 70-200mm. Maybe one great lens for now would be the best option. I looked on B&H and Amazon I saw a Nikon 1.8, but couldn't find a Nikon 2.8 lens. Thanks again for replying.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

I have an 800, nonetheless everytime I see images made by it my eyes pop.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Only problem I see with the 28-300 3.5-5.6G ED VR is the aperature. I have similar needs as yours. Indoor and outdoor sports. The additional shutter speed you can pickup with the Nikon 70-200 2.8 throughout the zoom range makes a big difference in what you can do. I use mine with a monopod for sports. I agree also with a nifty fifty. Then perhaps, later add the little sister to the 70-200, the 28-70 f2.8. Then later a 1.7 teleconverter for the 70-200 then...the list never ends. :)

NoSocks Loc: quonochontaug, rhode island

the 1.8 is what steve meant. 2.8 was a typo. I have the d600 with the 28-300 lens and am very happy with it. I'm surprised that you found it for 899. be sure it isn't a gray market lens that would not have a USA warranty. as to shooting sports, I'm getting nice clean images with my iso set to auto 6400 which allows me to shoot in low light. I don't plan on hanging them on the wall, but for albums the shots are fine. when I shoot in a preferred iso of 100 or 200 the images are awesome. I think you would be very happy with the d600 and 28-300 combination. save the $ for a lens you can choose when you have a better feel for the camera.

felo6162009

look at costco they selling the d600 with two lenses

durango Loc: Marietta, Ohio

Thanks BobH for your input.

parks333 Loc: Chicago

I wouldn't recommend the D600 at this time. Look into the senor oil and dust problems that appears on this and other forums. Mine is on the way back to B&H for a refund.

NoSocks Loc: quonochontaug, rhode island

knocking on wood while reporting that mine is dust and oil spot free.

NoSocks Loc: quonochontaug, rhode island

knocking on wood while reporting that mine is dust and oil spot free.