I posted a question about a week ago whether to get the 5DMKII or the D600 and the overwhelming majority suggested the D600. Took delivery of my D600 and I don't know if it was because I was just shooting inside my house at night, whether it was the lens that I was using (Tamron 28-75), or that I didn't get a chance to set it up to my liking. I wasn't blown away like I was expecting, but I'm pretty sure that I was need to get a few shots under my belt to see. But my original intention was to get the Nikon 24-120 f/4 VR eventually at a cost of $1,300 I believe. But if my findings on the Tamron not being as sharp as I want it to be, I may have to pull the trigger on the 24-120 sooner. But I thought about it, at a cost of $2,100 for the body and another $1,300 for the lens, that's $3,400.
So I'm wondering if I should just get the 5DMKII kit at $2,500 with the kit lens, add let's say a 35L 2nd hand which I see in the $900 to $1,100 range. At that point I'd have 2 L lenses and eventually when the MKIV is released in 3-4 years I can simply upgrade the body then to that or just the MKIII when it becomes either more affordable or I can swing the upgrade. Or whether I should just put more into it now and just get the MKIII with just the 24-105 lens. The difference between a $3,400 package of the D600 and the 24-120 and the $3,749 Adorama package of the 5DMKIII and the 24-105 isn't much when you think about it.
I'm still a beginner relatively, so I'm not even sure if all the advancements of the D600 will be fully utilized by me. Or if even the advancements of the 5DMKIII as when you think about it. As I stated before I don't shoot any fast moving subjects, no sports shooting, mostly take pictures of me and the wife when we go on day trips and wanted something that I can take pictures of my newborn next year. I think that any shortcomings of the MKII I can learn to live with, what I've read is that it's most low light AF and the smaller FPS, but I think I can live with that.
Any thoughts would be great.


