Which full frame DSLR and lenses

[DJT]

I am upgrading to a full frame DSLR shortly and would like people's views on possible camera and lens combinations. I shoot a wide variety of subjects ( people, landscapes, wildlife and more) and would like to cover about 24 - 300 mm with my lenses. The combinations below are what I am considering and I would welcome views on them, and any alternatives you can offer. My budget is around £2.5K.


Nikon D700 - with Sigma 24 -70 mm f 2.8 EX ,HSM and Sigma 70 - 300 mm (f4 - 5.6) DG, OS


Canon 5D Mark 2 - with lenses above or Canon 24 - 105 mm f4 and Sigma 100 - 300 mm (f4 - 5.6) DG, OS

[mysterylens]

You might also want to consider the Sony a850 which is a 24 megapixel camera compared to the Nikon D700 and 12.8 for the Canon.

Si

[Cathus]

the Canon 5D MkII is 21 not 12.8

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by DJT

I am upgrading to a full frame DSLR shortly and would like people's views on possible camera and lens combinations. I shoot a wide variety of subjects ( people, landscapes, wildlife and more) and would like to cover about 24 - 300 mm with my lenses. The combinations below are what I am considering and I would welcome views on them, and any alternatives you can offer. My budget is around £2.5K.


Nikon D700 - with Sigma 24 -70 mm f 2.8 EX ,HSM and Sigma 70 - 300 mm (f4 - 5.6) DG, OS


Canon 5D Mark 2 - with lenses above or Canon 24 - 105 mm f4 and Sigma 100 - 300 mm (f4 - 5.6) DG, OS

What lenses do you have at present?

Consider the Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 SP Di VC USD Lens, which has received good reviews. Heard some comments about the Sigma 24-70mm which isn't highly rated but the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.0 DC Macro OS HSM Lens is rated highly.

[greenwing]

Originally Posted by OldBoy

... but the Sigma 17-70mm 17-70mm f2.8-4.0 DC Macro OS HSM Lens is rated highly.

Maybe, but it's not full-frame

I always wonder why people who want to move to 'full-frame' need advice, and think it's probably because they've been sold it as a holy grail. I'm sure that lenses like the sigma 70-300 and 100-300 will be more satisfying on an APS-C camera than on a 35mm format.

Chris

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by greenwing

Maybe, but it's not full-frame


Chris

[Markulous]

I'd agree with Chris. Why go full frame - especially if you're then resorting to relatively poorer quality lenses? You'll get much more 'bang for your buck' with crop camera and lenses

[chris-p]

+1 for the "why go full frame" question.

Also, if you are sure about full frame, I'd consider hanging on for a while, the D700 replacement is rumoured to be around soon...

[Cathus]

why not go full frame?

[greenwing]

I just think that it's touted as the format that anyone who's serious about photography should aim to have. It's just a different format, really, though the lenses are (to some extent) interchangable. Both formats have their strengths and weaknesses. The biggest weaknesses of full frame are cost and weight. I'd suggest that £2.5k is not really enough to spend on a full-frame body and 2 lenses that do it justice. I get the impression that DJT has decided it's time for him to move to a full-frame body, and will do it no matter what compromises need to be made on the most important part of the kit, the lenses.