>Anyhow for this thread, re. WA and FX I don't really get it >unless people are actually saying: >- I already have a drawer full of WA lenses and now they will >work as intended,
That's certainly part of it for some people. Not for me, because I don't have such a drawer -- only a tiny part of a drawer.
>- there are better quality lenses (14-24 and 24-70 >specifically) right at this moment for FX. But again there is >nothing technical preventing Nikon from coming out with a DX >nano-coated 16-60 VR f2.8 is there?
I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment about what's technically possible. But there are some pretty nice UWA DX lenses put out by third parties, and I can only assume that Nikon could produce superior lenses of equivalent focal-length and aperture ranges if they chose to.
Mostly, though, my interest is in evaluating the here-and-now because no one seems to guess very accurately what Nikon is going to do in the future with regard to lenses.
>Is the linkage of FX and WA really more about the >current crop of available WA lenses?
To some degree I think it is. But there are also sensor differences that apply at any FOV, to a greater or lesser extent depending on your subject matter and light level.