Clynro Loc: South Jordan, UT

I'm a relative newcomer to this forum (first post--sorry it's long), but have followed it religiously for about 3 months. I'm in the process of resurrecting an old interest in photography and intend to make this a significant hobby for the rest of my life. I thank all the Hogs here who have facilitated and furthered my digital photography education thus far.

Years ago, I owned a Nikon 4004AF with a 50mm and a 70-200mm zoom, but 12 years of schooling got me away from it, during which the transition to the age of digital photography occurred. I've primarily been using a high-end point and shoot camera in recent years, and though I wouldn't consider myself a true beginner, I've got a lot to learn about the digital world. But now I am to the point where I am able to dedicate the necessary time and money to this interest.

Because of my long-term intentions in photography, I wanted to make my re-entrance into the digital field with an FX camera so that I can feel good about significantly investing in quality glass that I plan to keep long-term as my abilities increase. Especially so that when I decide to upgrade the body I won't have to reinvest in new glass. I'm leaning heavily toward the D600 body, and feel that in the end I will probably wind up with at least a Nikon 70-200mm VR II, possibly a 50mm f/1.4, and a wider angle zoom or some interest specific lenses if led in a different direction. My dilemma is where to start. I am prepared to spend the necessary money to get properly set up over time, but want to proceed at a pace that allows me to learn first, and then expand later with the option to alter my course as I go, rather than drop $6000 on equipment now that I end up not using like I thought I would, and wish I had waited to buy (or not buy).

I thought the 24-85mm kit lens (though a "kit" lens, it comes well-recommended) would be a good place to start, just to figure out the ins and outs of the new SLR, and thought that in a year or so to get the incredible 70-200mm keeper above. That would ultimately give me good focal range coverage between the two lenses, but I wonder if I would feel handicapped by not having a longer lens option in the meantime. That has made me consider the Nikon 28-300mm as a starting lens (which also seems to be well thought of). The downside of that choice being that, in addition to being more expensive, I've read that a lens with that much range usually doesn't perform as well at the ends of its spectrum as more specifically designed lenses do. That, and when/if I did want to move on to the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, I would have a lot of redundancy in my lenses. I would love some suggestions from you veterans on how to intelligently proceed. I am one who usually buys more than I need, rather than less, because I fear limiting myself down the road.

I anticipate eventually photographing nature, candid artsy street stuff, travel, and low light indoor kids activities (recitals, etc.)--I know that is quite diverse and I won't be able to do all that with the first lens I get, but that's where I'm heading!

DigitalDon Loc: Calgary, Alberta

I would go with a 70 x 200 with a 2x multiplier. This would give you a 400 but not quite at 2.8. However, I have had this setup from day one and have NEVER regretted that move. You will run into landscape where you might want less than 70. A very good way around this is to create a panorama. PS does an excellent job combining images. That would create a larger file which in many instances is beneficial anyway.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Welcome to the Hog, Clynro. You have already made some key decisions-FX and quality glass. If you read the byline under this post you will see my answer. If you would like my reasoning, etc. send me a private message and I'll get back to you.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Welcome to UHH

SR71BLACKBIRD

CurreyPhoto Loc: Reddick, Florida

Just my opinion, but I would start exactly where you left off 12 years ago. I would get the new 50mm f1.8 and the new 70-200 VRII. That combination will give you a great start and some good information about where you should go in the future so far as lenses are concerned. As to the camera, I have no experience with the D600. I have the D3s and D3, both of which are fantastic cameras, the D3s being better in low light and both of which I can highly recommend. Good luck with your choices. About ten years ago I did exactly the same thing you are doing now. Forty years ago I used a Nikon F, a 50mm f1.8 lens and a 70-210 lens. Then I drifted away and came back in the digital era.