Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alx" data-source="post: 164681" data-attributes="member: 13868">Apples and oranges, the difference between 16~85, and the 24~70.16mm DX is equivalent to 24mm, a noticeable and useful wide angle.24mm DX is equivalent to only a 36mm lens' coverage, not really wide at all.IF you are using a DX camera, the less expensive 16-24 has a much more useful range, and the 24-70 will be much less useful, besides being much heavier and bulkier.&nbsp; On a DX camera, the 24~70 f2.8 is wasted, the FX coverage not used, and two lens steps less wide than the 16~85.Note, in traditional 35mm terms, lenses were &quot;stepping&quot; down from standard to wide in this pattern;&nbsp; 50, 35, 28, 24, 20, 18.&nbsp; Or something close to that.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; In terms of DX, that requires this progression,&nbsp; 35mm (=52) , 24 (=36) , 18 (=27) , 16 (=24) , and 12mm (=18).&nbsp;&nbsp; So, in FX terms the 16mm is two &quot;steps&quot; wider than the 24mm.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alx, post: 164681, member: 13868"] Apples and oranges, the difference between 16~85, and the 24~70. 16mm DX is equivalent to 24mm, a noticeable and useful wide angle. 24mm DX is equivalent to only a 36mm lens' coverage, not really wide at all. IF you are using a DX camera, the less expensive 16-24 has a much more useful range, and the 24-70 will be much less useful, besides being much heavier and bulkier. On a DX camera, the 24~70 f2.8 is wasted, the FX coverage not used, and two lens steps less wide than the 16~85. Note, in traditional 35mm terms, lenses were "stepping" down from standard to wide in this pattern; 50, 35, 28, 24, 20, 18. Or something close to that. In terms of DX, that requires this progression, 35mm (=52) , 24 (=36) , 18 (=27) , 16 (=24) , and 12mm (=18). So, in FX terms the 16mm is two "steps" wider than the 24mm. [/QUOTE]

Verification