I've been considering a FX companion to my D500.  Having (2) bodies at some events lets me get wider shots that I can't move back enough for my 70-200/2.8, which is always on my D500.  I was thinking about a D600 paired with a 35-70mm F/2.8D, although I might put my 50/1.4 on it first and see if i need anything wider.  I don't need super speed with the other camera.  Generally it would be for portraits, interactions on deck, cheering on teammates, etc.I used my D500+35/1.8 for team + individual portrait shots last summer, and it was great.  I would think my 50/F1.4 would be even better for this if used with the D600.This combo would be about a $600 investment.  $350 for the D600 and $250 for the lens.  Does anyone else have the 35-70/2.8D lens?

Swimming and Baseball Dad wrote:This combo would be about a $600 investment. $350 for the D600 and $250 for the lens. Does anyone else have the 35-70/2.8D lens?I had two.It's a fine lens, but:1) it suffers from all kinds of ghosts, flares and glares whenever a light source comes close to or into the frame. 2) it suffers from glue delamination in an inner element. It is bound to happen sooner or later, and when it happens, Nikon no longer have the spare parts AFAIK. 3) the push-pull mechanism may not be everybody's darling. It sure wasn't mine. 4) the zoom range is limited, to the point that it makes one question if a single 50mm f1.8 prime wouldn't do the same job being both brighter and cheaper.Apart from these problems, it is a decent lens.These are photos I took with the 35-70 f2.8 and a D610

Swimming and Baseball Dad wrote:I've been considering a FX companion to my D500. Having (2) bodies at some events lets me get wider shots that I can't move back enough for my 70-200/2.8, which is always on my D500. I was thinking about a D600 paired with a 35-70mm F/2.8D, although I might put my 50/1.4 on it first and see if i need anything wider. I don't need super speed with the other camera. Generally it would be for portraits, interactions on deck, cheering on teammates, etc.I used my D500+35/1.8 for team + individual portrait shots last summer, and it was great. I would think my 50/F1.4 would be even better for this if used with the D600.This combo would be about a $600 investment. $350 for the D600 and $250 for the lens. Does anyone else have the 35-70/2.8D lens?I do not have an FX camera (except for my old film bodies), but I remember the D600 had a number of problems, and it was replaced in short order by the D610.JC Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

n057 wrote:I do not have an FX camera (except for my old film bodies), but I remember the D600 had a number of problems, and it was replaced in short order by the D610.It had a shutter that would sometimes throw oil spots on the sensor. It was discussed extensively at the time, just Google "D600 oil issue".AFAIK Nikon fixed this issue at the time, both replacing the shutter or replacing the whole body with a D610. Perhaps most D600 out there don't have the problem anymore by now.

Swimming and Baseball Dad wrote:I've been considering a FX companion to my D500. Having (2) bodies at some events lets me get wider shots that I can't move back enough for my 70-200/2.8, which is always on my D500. I was thinking about a D600 paired with a 35-70mm F/2.8D, although I might put my 50/1.4 on it first and see if i need anything wider. I don't need super speed with the other camera. Generally it would be for portraits, interactions on deck, cheering on teammates, etc.I used my D500+35/1.8 for team + individual portrait shots last summer, and it was great. I would think my 50/F1.4 would be even better for this if used with the D600.This combo would be about a $600 investment. $350 for the D600 and $250 for the lens. Does anyone else have the 35-70/2.8D lens?This lens suffered from blooming and very bad flare . I bought a used copy that I had to return I think the blooming is caused by the adhesive holding elements together detreating,

straitouttahell wrote:Swimming and Baseball Dad wrote:This combo would be about a $600 investment. $350 for the D600 and $250 for the lens. Does anyone else have the 35-70/2.8D lens?I had two.It's a fine lens, but:1) it suffers from all kinds of ghosts, flares and glares whenever a light source comes close to or into the frame. 2) it suffers from glue delamination in an inner element. It is bound to happen sooner or later, and when it happens, Nikon no longer have the spare parts AFAIK. 3) the push-pull mechanism may not be everybody's darling. It sure wasn't mine. 4) the zoom range is limited, to the point that it makes one question if a single 50mm f1.8 prime wouldn't do the same job being both brighter and cheaper.Apart from these problems, it is a decent lens.These are photos I took with the 35-70 f2.8 and a D610Thanks, this is helpful. I think I'll get the body first and see how useful my FF lens (50/1.4 and the 70-200/2.8) are with it and my needs. I saw the photosynthesis site with Nikon S/N's. (601497 - 837839 for 1993 to 2005).  Are these pretty linear, larger numbers = later manufacture?If I buy one on eBay I'll verify the S/N before buying. I'd pay more for a 2000's vintage unit (S/N > 800000), knowing it probably had some more time left before hazing up.

I see you have a 35 f1.8 DXOne thing you may not know, this lens is quite usable on FX, with just a slight crop or with some heavy vignetting in some cases. I got as far as using it on a 35mm F90x film body with a good deal of success.Once you have your FX body you may give it a try. You'd already have 35mm and 50mm covered.

straitouttahell wrote:I see you have a 35 f1.8 DXOne thing you may not know, this lens is quite usable on FX, with just a slight crop or with some heavy vignetting in some cases. I got as far as using it on a 35mm F90x film body with a good deal of success.Once you have your FX body you may give it a try. You'd already have 35mm and 50mm covered.Interesting. so it's similar to a 40mm F/2? Anyone else figured out the exact FF crop for the 35/1.8 DX?

Swimming and Baseball Dad wrote:Interesting. so it's similar to a 40mm F/2? Anyone else figured out the exact FF crop for the 35/1.8 DX?In my experience, it depends on subject distance and aperture. At maximum aperture, you will mostly get away with some accentuated vignetting. As you close down, you'll get black corners, it gets better/worse as you focus closer, but right now I don't remember which direction it went.I'm not sure if I can post links to other pages, but if you Google "nikon 35mm dx on full frame" you will get some more informations.I currently have no FX bodies, so I can't check that for you. I have a Canon full frame body and an adapter, but, being this a G lens, I can close down the diaphragm but there's no telling which actual value it was set to.

Swimming and Baseball Dad wrote:straitouttahell wrote:Swimming and Baseball Dad wrote:This combo would be about a $600 investment. $350 for the D600 and $250 for the lens. Does anyone else have the 35-70/2.8D lens?I had two.It's a fine lens, but:1) it suffers from all kinds of ghosts, flares and glares whenever a light source comes close to or into the frame. 2) it suffers from glue delamination in an inner element. It is bound to happen sooner or later, and when it happens, Nikon no longer have the spare parts AFAIK. 3) the push-pull mechanism may not be everybody's darling. It sure wasn't mine. 4) the zoom range is limited, to the point that it makes one question if a single 50mm f1.8 prime wouldn't do the same job being both brighter and cheaper.Apart from these problems, it is a decent lens.These are photos I took with the 35-70 f2.8 and a D610Thanks, this is helpful. I think I'll get the body first and see how useful my FF lens (50/1.4 and the 70-200/2.8) are with it and my needs. I saw the photosynthesis site with Nikon S/N's. (601497 - 837839 for 1993 to 2005). Are these pretty linear, larger numbers = later manufacture?If I buy one on eBay I'll verify the S/N before buying. I'd pay more for a 2000's vintage unit (S/N > 800000), knowing it probably had some more time left before hazing up.Keep in mind also that *the* true FX companion to the D500 would be a D5. Or a D850. The controls on a D600 are really the same as the D7000.

n057 wrote:Keep in mind also that *the* true FX companion to the D500 would be a D5. Or a D850. The controls on a D600 are really the same as the D7000.I agree. The D850 control layout is almost identical to the D500.

fpapp wrote:n057 wrote:Keep in mind also that *the* true FX companion to the D500 would be a D5. Or a D850. The controls on a D600 are really the same as the D7000.I agree. The D850 control layout is almost identical to the D500.It’ll be like my old D7200, which controls I prefer a little.

Swimming and Baseball Dad wrote:fpapp wrote:n057 wrote:Keep in mind also that *the* true FX companion to the D500 would be a D5. Or a D850. The controls on a D600 are really the same as the D7000.I agree. The D850 control layout is almost identical to the D500.It’ll be like my old D7200, which controls I prefer a little.Then take note that the D7200 was successor to the D7100 itself a successor to the D7000. And the D600 was a D7000 with an FX sensor. All the other FX bodies have controls similar to the D500. Exept the Df, which is a Frankenclone posing as retro.JC Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

with those lenses why wouldn't you just get another D500 or a D7500 or 71 or 72?

A little update:I'm shooting a big swim meet this weekend.  I'm going to borrow a friend's D3400 to have as a 2nd body, putting my 35/1.8 on it (to mimic FOV of a FF 50mm). This body is for non-action candid shots, posed portraits (w/ some fill-flash), etc.Main thing I want to test is whether having (2) bodies at an event like this is worth it, or will carrying it around be more trouble than its worth. Is having it (but not carry around) worth it so I don't have to change lenses?  This can only be answered by trying it out.I'll be at a huge aquatic center with 150-200 swimmers, coaches, and officials all trying to do their job.  I'll be staying out of their way while moving around a lot on a wet/slippery floor. The one thing that'll be much nicer than other pools I've shot at this season is the light.  This place has really good light.The answer of why not another D500 or D7000-series is because for other portrait work (which I've been doing w/ D500+35/1.8), I'd like to pair my 50/1.4 and use the full frame. Since I can get closer, not needing my external flash (and making sure batteries are charged) is also rather convenient.

Swimming and Baseball Dad wrote:A little update:I'm shooting a big swim meet this weekend. I'm going to borrow a friend's D3400 to have as a 2nd body, putting my 35/1.8 on it (to mimic FOV of a FF 50mm). This body is for non-action candid shots, posed portraits (w/ some fill-flash), etc.Main thing I want to test is whether having (2) bodies at an event like this is worth it, or will carrying it around be more trouble than its worth. Is having it (but not carry around) worth it so I don't have to change lenses? This can only be answered by trying it out.I found myself in similar circumstances last summer, when I took pictures of a concert my son and his band gave at his old high school. We were outside, in the school courtyard, after dark, with the usual stage illumination.I had my D500 with the 70-300mm (the full frame version) and my old D90 with the 50mm f/1.8. It was the first time I used two bodies and really enjoyed it. I had the D90, which is lighter and had the shorter lens, hanging from my neck, while I kept the D500, with the longer and heavier lens, across my shoulder from left to right, with the strap at its maximum length. That way I could easily "swing" it up and down as needed. That also avoided that the two cameras would accidentally bump into each other if they were both down while I was moving around. Plus, I have always hated hanging cameras from my neck. I keep the strap on my right shoulder or across from left to right, even when I have only one.While the 70-300m certainly is not a fast lens, the D500 ISO performance and judicious use of shutter speed/aperture, more than made up for the relatively low light environment.In reference to your original question, a used D610 is probably the "sweet spot" for what you seems to want to spend.If you wanted/could spend more, I believe a D750 or better yet a D780 would also be nice FF options to complement the D500. The D780 is the only Nikon DSLR with good video capabilities, if that interests you at all.At some point down the road, I want ADD a FX too to my D500. However, since I already have a D90 as a second body, I have decided to wait a couple more mirrorless generations and then combine two jumps into one, FX and mirrorless.But I am keeping my D500, until I or it die, whichever comes first

If I can, depending on orientation of pool and space, I try to focus on Fly and Breast Stroke.   Free is the least interesting and yet most difficult of strokes to shoot.  If you're trying to catch your swimmers you have to pay attention to if they're right breathers, left, or both and catch swimmers one way or the other.There's nothing like a low level Fly or Breast Stroke shot zoomed in as much as possible.

I’m likely keeping my D500 for a long time too. Even if it dies, there will always be used ones available. But if I make a ton at these meets, then Z9 forum, here I come.I will be shooting for parents that request my services. I have the proper credentials to be on deck and already setup with the meet director. I know certain shots are more interesting and will laser focused on getting those. I doI fall into the trap of thinking my stuff isn’t good when I know I could have done better.  But we need to remember we are not the client. If your client loves the work, that’s all that matters. These images are impossible for these parents to create, and they love them, even if my exposure settings were not ideal or my focus point is on their chin instead of the eye.if you’re interested in what I’ve shot before you take a look here:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4664458granted, these were in insanely great outdoor light, but I’ve got some pretty good shots this winter season. I’ll post some to another post probably in March. I’ll update on how using the (2) bodies went after the weekend.

Swimming and Baseball Dad wrote:Does anyone else have the 35-70/2.8D lens?I bought one  years ago off eBay, only for it to have the dreaded hazing issue from delamination(?) of which there used to be lots of net documentation and complaints in the various forums.I was very disappointed but I didn't have the energy to go through the complaints process to attempt redress and simply binned it, vowing never to attempt a purchase of said lens again.Theres simply too many other choices, for me, to again take a punt on a maybe with a lens well known for lots of problem examples despite liking the lens generally.  Of course YMMV.Best of luck with what choice you make and I look forward to seeing some pics (maybe).

Swimming and Baseball Dad wrote:if you’re interested in what I’ve shot before you take a look here:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4664458granted, these were in insanely great outdoor light, but I’ve got some pretty good shots this winter season. I’ll post some to another post probably in March. I’ll update on how using the (2) bodies went after the weekend.Magic, you've found a great niche.