I realize this lens is made mostly for FX, but is anyone using it with their DX camera, and how well does it perform? Would I see an improvement in resolution and overall IQ over the 16-85VR? While I already have the 16-85, I've been considering selling that lens and getting the 16-35 in place of it. I have a 35mm f2.0, 50mm f1.8, and 70-300VR for the longer lengths. But I may even keep the 16-85 as well for when I want to just carry one lens, as long as I have a DX camera. I shoot solely landscapes with my D300s, using my 16-85 90% of the time. Most of my shots I would say are in the wider range of that lens. I may end up with a D600 or D800 within the next year, depending on what Nikon does with it's DX line. Thanks.
#1. "RE: Nikon 16-35VR on DX camera?" | In response to Reply # 0jpFoto Registered since 25th Jun 2010Sun 30-Sep-12 08:57 PM
I have the 16-35 and whilst (I learned that word here from the new Ryder Cup winners) I think that it's a great lens, but I don't think that you would see an appreciable difference in IQ. It's a super wide for FX and not wide enough for DX. In fact, I purchased a 10-24 since I took only DX cameras on a recent trip to Europe (the Ryder Cup winners this year). My advice would be for you to wait and see what you are going to do regarding your DX/FX plans. In my opinion, it is designed strictly for FX users who want a super-wideangle lens and don't want to buy the 14-24 for whatever reason, and there are some reasons such as the cost and lack of filter threads.
#2. "RE: Nikon 16-35VR on DX camera?" | In response to Reply # 1Sun 30-Sep-12 09:48 PM | edited Sun 30-Sep-12 09:49 PM by F2AS
I just finished watching the Ryder cup myself. Thanks for your input on the 16-35. I think the best thing for me is to stay with DX for the next 2-3 years anyhow, continuing getting the most out of my $1600 D300s. I feel like I'm only just now starting to understand most of its many features. I may go ahead and splurge for the 10-24 like you have, or save a few bucks and get a Tokina 12-24. I think if I had the super wide angle base covered, I would have even less reason to want to shoot FX.
#4. "RE: Nikon 16-35VR on DX camera?" | In response to Reply # 1briantilley Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Mon 01-Oct-12 06:40 AM | edited Mon 01-Oct-12 06:42 AM by briantilley
>I have the 16-35 and whilst (I learned that word here from
>the new Ryder Cup winners)
It was a great weekend, and everyone (on both teams) played their part.
I agree that one would see little if any benefit - on DX - from the 16-35mm over the 16-85mm.
#3. "RE: Nikon 16-35VR on DX camera?" | In response to Reply # 0
I used this lens quite often as a "walk-around" lens on a D7K. It is light and wide enough for my use and very sharp as well. While I've never used the 16-85 I think you would be hard press to tell a difference when looking at a photo. I think the 16-85 is better suited for DX cameras and you would have a much better range. However, if you decide to go FX then the 16-35 is a very nice choice.
Nikonian in Upper Marlboro, MD
#5. "RE: Nikon 16-35VR on DX camera?" | In response to Reply # 3Mon 01-Oct-12 02:32 PM | edited Mon 01-Oct-12 08:39 PM by F2AS
Thanks again. Too many decisions to make compounded by not knowing whether Nikon will be continuing the high-level DX cameras. I'll just keep shooting with my 16-85 for now. Although I know it's a whole other topic, I'm not too sure what to do about the super wide angle range. I would go ahead & get the 10-24 in a heartbeat, but not if the D300s is the last of the semi-pro DX cameras. Plus, the resale value of the lens would plummet.