First off  I've been using a D7000 for a few years...good camera but want to go full frame.


I don't have any real money in glass and figure I could probably get $1000 selling what I have now.




Looks like I can get the D750 kit for $2800 from a U.S. dealer (with warranty) or go grey market (EBay) for $2000 for the same thing.




Nikon has has a few issues of late out of the gate and that makes me nervous about the grey market but let's face it...that's a good chunk of money.




Anyone recently go grey market and take the chance? Was it worth it?




Also, in regards to the 24-120 lens...see lots of "both opinions" anyone care to give a thought on that lens?




I'm most likely going to stick with 3-4 lenses total but need to start with one for now.




I do a lot of EBay pictures so my 60 macro gets used the most with my D7000 and the 35mm is the next most used.

I would go body only and skip the 24-120.

I bought a grey market body and have been happy.  It works great and saved me $500.

It might be worthwhile to keep your current glass and buy just the D750 body for now. Then you can save up your cash to buy lenses to solve particular "problems" (use cases) not covered by your current equipment.


I can't comment on this part as I've not bought any gray market items.


Sounds like a 50mm and 85mm prime would suit your primary use case. That said, using your current lenses in DX mode will give you predictable results - and certainly usable for eBay purposes. The 24-120mm is a decent consumer grade lens that should work well enough for eBay purposes, but for any significant enlargements for professional purposes, you'll probably find it limiting.

Eventually, I suspect you'll find yourself looking seriously at the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm, but those can come after the body.

My recommendation would be to skip the gray import and go USA import for the NikonUSA warranty (1 yr camera, 5 yr lens).

The 24-120mm f/4 is a good, consumer-grade lens. Obviously, the pro-grade lenses will give you better image quality according to the pixel peepers in the labs. Whether or not you will see the difference will depend on your subjects, the lighting circumstances, and your shooting style.

My recommendation would be to get the kit with the 24-120mm lens. If you later upgrade to pro-grade lenses like the 24-70mm f/2.8, you may want to keep the 24-120mm as a vacation lens when you don't want to carry the f/2.8 zooms.

My main lens is the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 ( D700 and D810 body )

For travel lens I bought the 28-300 VRII and it too soft in the corner even stopped down to F8

I sold that and bought a 24-120 F4 VRII ( the VRI version was a dog BTW ) . Quite frankly I'm surprised how well it holds its own against the pro lenses

The reality is you can often get sharper pictures for interior low light with the 24-120 because of the VR ( I take lots of Cathederal and other architectural when traveling in Europe )

I guess it really depends on what type of photography you do . The reality is in many situations,  the F4  will suite you fine  . For me, I use my 70-200 as portrait lens so I want the 2.8

Center sharpness the 24-120 is surprisingly good .

Again, depending what you are doing, a tiny bit of corner sharpness may not be an issue . For example, subject matter may be in center of frame, or using shallow DOF that your corners will be OOF anyways

What drove me nuts with the 28-300 was the relatively slow focus speed. The 24-120 VRII is pretty darn fast

I think the 24-120 F4 is a very good solution vs 3 primes ( 24 1.8 or 1.4 ,  50 1.4 and 85 1.4 etc )

The reality is there is no cost effective prime solution, since all these lenses will cost  lost more than the 24-120 !

IMO you will find the high iso capabilities of the D750 good enough that you won't need the fast 50 and 24s for low light . For what I shoot, I want the fast lens for shallow DOF for portraits, so I'm bare minimum 85mm, typically 105 or longer

I think you will be happy enough with the 24-120 VRII long term, and eventually supplement with ultra wide ( 16-35 , 17-35 , 14-24 )  and a good portrait lens like the 105 DC , 135 DC or even the 85 1.4

I think this lens will also work great for product photos since the minimum focus distance  / focal length is fine for product photos . Even if you are taking pics of small items you can always zoom in

For most product photography you don't need the 1:1 macro reproduction ratio .  

Sorry , but I have no experience with grey market .

Thanks for all the input thus far.

This has helped me quite a bit.


Right now I'm thinking of picking up the body and going for the 24-70 but did see that the VR model is going to be released in October.


Don't really think it would be needed on that lens so that may make the regular 24-70 a bit cheaper on the secondary market.


Maybe I'm overthinking this.

There is no 24-120mm f/4 VR II, just the 24-120mm f/4 VR. The Roman numerals are the version number of the lens, not the version number of the VR. In this case this is the first version of this lens.

You are probably thinking of the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 VR as the first version, but it is a different lens.

I had a similar thought when the VR was announced. Then I concluded "not likely".    That lens line has held its value well even when newer versions have been released.


Nah. Photography can easily exceed shooting in terms of expense (I can put 3 of my rifles in my rifle bag and just about equal the cost of my camera bag.  ), so I don't think anybody will criticize anybody else carefully considering their photography purchases.  

I have the D750 with the 24-120.  The camera is a beast and a significant upgrade from my D7100.  There is no comparison between the D7100 and the D750 in low light/high ISO use, the D750 is simply fantastic. I typically used primes for the best image but I have been more than happy with the 24-120, which has taken some fantastic images.  For the bundle price it is worth every penny of the $600.

Ok, this is my latest idea

I have a Nikon 60 afs.


Thinking of keeping that adding a Nikon 35 1.8 and a Tamron 70-200 2.8.


I looked into the Tamron 24-70 but the lens seems "good" while the 70-200 seems "great" from most reviews and forums.


I figure I can do a lot with those 3 and at a later date I can sell the 35 and 60 and put that money towards the Nikon 24-70.


Thoughts?

Ditch the 60 macro and go with a 105 or longer.

With macro lenses longer is better, and that is even more true with full frame cameras.

Also, with the full frame a 50mm is a "normal" lens. The 35 will be kinda wide. Not sure what you plan to do with it but keep that in mind.

I was going to keep the 60 for general use, thinking its close enough to a 50. The 35 would be a decent compromise to get a good range up to 70 where the Tamron will be. Fiqure use them until thw Nikon 24-70 is bought and I'd be covered very well. I have used the 60 on a Nikon D600 when I first bought it and was suprised how it held up in non macro shots.

 

Haven't used the 24-120 so I can't comment on that, but you can get the body only from Amazon for 2k.  When people start selling their 24-70s to upgrade to the new model you might be able to find a deal.  

The other option of course is to go with the D610 and save 500 that you could put towards glass (that's what I did) but the 750 IS a very nice camera

I have been very happy with the images I have taken with the 24-120 and that what is on my camera most of the time.  I still have and use the primes but the huge difference in the quality of the images when compared to cheaper zooms I have used in the past is not there, the 24-120 is that good.  I did use my 50 this weekend for a play we attended where the use of faster glass was important, but outside of low light the 24-120 appears to me to be very close to the quality of my primes.

Refurb D610