Badgertale Loc: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

One may not be using the entire lens to one's advantage, however, you'd be using the sweet spot of the FX lens which is a plus.

User ID

Just dont believe everything you read.

User ID

Youre quite welcome.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If you are a serious photographer ( value image quality) and do not mind the extra weight and having to carry two lenses You should STAY with the FX lenses ! - If you value light weight and convenience over image quality then maybe a compromised 18-300 zoom is for you.
.

Piraterich

You are the person in charge of the photography you create. The old saying opinions are like… ( you get my drift) everybody’s got one of you are happy that’s all that matters. Experts, professionals, etc all want to express their feelings about your work I learned along time ago the only opinion that matters is yours!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Except my opinion of your work.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

What the #$)# is "a d lens on a f body"? Would it kill you to type the actual designation, use a little capitalization?

A Nikon D500 is a "DX" format camera. That means it uses an APS-C crop sensor. A Nikon D850 is an "FX" format camera, meaning it uses a so-called "full frame" sensor. Nikon makes both DX and FX lenses, too. So does Tokina. Sigma calls their full frame lenses "DG" and their APS-C crop-only DSLR lenses "DC". Tamron calls their full frame lenses "Di" and their APS-C crop-only DSLR lenses "Di II".

Assuming they are Nikon lenses, your 16-35mm and 28-300mm lenses are both "FX" lenses. That means they will work on BOTH FX cameras and DX cameras. In fact, it is the FX cameras that are limited to some extent. In order to get full use out of them, they need FX lenses. You might also say that DX lenses are limited, for use on DX cameras. Yes you can put a DX lens on an FX camera, but it will largely be a waste of the FX camera's image potential. Due to the lens' smaller image circle, you will only be using about 42% of the camera's sensor, which in many cases reduces their resolution below that of most current DX cameras.

With an FX lens on a DX camera there is some cropping of the lens' image circle due to the smaller sensor format. On your D500 camera the 16-35mm will "act like 24-52mm on full frame" and the 28-300mm will "act like 42-450mm on full frame".

There is an argument in favor of using FX lenses on a DX cameras that the "best" part of the lens is used. In most lenses the sharpest part is in the center and the corners tend to have light falloff due to optical vignetting. When an FX lens with a larger than necessary image circle is used on a DX camera, only the central portion of the lens is used.

On the other hand, there are some arguments against using FX lenses on DX cameras too. One is that that the lenses are necessarily bigger, heavier and typically more expensive. DX lenses can be more compact, lighter in weight and cost less. There can be other shortcomings, too. For example, 16mm is "ultrawide" on an FX camera, but only moderately wide on a DX camera. Maybe that's sufficient for your purposes, but if you wanted an ultrawide on DX camera you would do better with a DX lens. It so happens Nikon does offer a wider FX zoom: their 14-24mm. It's heavy at over two lbs, expensive at almost $1750 and it has a convex front element that doesn't allow standard screw in filters to be used on it. But because you have a DX camera you have three Nikon DX lens alternatives: 10-20mm, 10-24mm and 12-24mm. All three go a little to a lot wider than 14mm. All three are smaller than and weigh less than half as much as the 14-24mm. All three can use standard screw-in filters (72mm, 77mm & 77mm respectively).... AND all three are less expensive than the 14-24mm: $307, $897 $ 1147 respectively (and, frankly, even though they cost less than the 14-24mm the last two are ridiculously overpriced... they're currently the most expensive ultrawide "crop only" zooms on the market and really no better than some far less expensive 3rd party alternatives). Plus the 10-20mm lens has VR image stabilization, which all the other three lenses lack.

Another argument against using FX on DX is that any lens shortcomings will be magnified. To make an 8x12" print from an FX camera's image means roughly 8X magnification (assuming no cropping of the image). The same size print made from a DX camera shot will need roughly 13X magnification (again assuming no cropping). Of course most lenses are plenty good enough to make an 8x12" regardless of FX or DX. It will only become a concern with larger print sizes or heavy cropping of the image. But if a lens is marginal on FX it will really suck on DX!

Ultimately there's nothing at all wrong with using the FX lenses you have on your DX camera, so long as they meet your needs. They work fine, as you know. But there may be reasons to consider DX lenses, should your needs change and the lenses you have not fully meet them.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

I use a Sigma 18-300 on my APS-C camera and love it. I wanted an all purpose lens with more than 200mm at the long end. The Tamron 18-400 is 20% longer and 20% heavier. I find the quality excellent.

jimpitt

Thank you. This is helpful. Based on yours and other comments, I'll keep what I have: two F zoom lenses on a D-500. Results has been fine (except autofocus sometimes is still a challenge for me). If I wish less weight and size, I will supplement with a Sony "shirtpocket" for travel, such as cruises.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

I have 2 "shirtpocket" cameras, a Lumix DMC-ZS100 for its' 1" sensor, the DCZS80 for its' zoom range, both Panasonic. The Sony RX100 is considered a great 1" one.

jimpitt

Thanks. Lumix is another name for Panasonic which would send me to Sony for better value.
Appreciate your comments.