I have around 30,000 slides taken from about 1970 to 2006 when I switched to digital (D40, now a D500). Because of my age, they will probably be thrown away someday soon. However I would like to select some for keeping for my family. Quality is important; I appreciate the ideas and hearing of success stories from others. Third party processing seems expensive. Taking a photo of a slide screen image could be time-consuming and lose quality. A reasonably priced slide scanner might be a good option. Thanks.

I use both of what you mention, FX 16-35, and FX 28-300, both new. On my D500 DX body, they give me effective range of 24-450 which is all I need. No complaints. They are terrific! Wondering why not good on a 850 because that is what I would consider for a second body.

Thanks for the wrap up. It's about time. We have concluded that a "normal" lens range is 35-70 mm with agreement that the human eye is about 53mm (and confirmed by my eye Dr. yesterday afternoon). 50 mm was the standard lens in film cams for years for about ten given reasons in this banter, all of which are acceptable. Full frame today pretty much matches these parameters. Bye.

So Kodak preaches a long time ago that in film 35mm - 70mm is "normal." That's 52.5 mm in the middle folks. This whole banter started with discussion identifying roughly 43 mm to 58 mm, slightly narrower than the Kodak infor. 53.5 mm is what I suggested as being the normal human eye. Nikon preached 50, Minolta 55. Sounds to me like we are right back where we started with a whole lot of wild conjecture in the middle of this blog. It seems normal is 35-50, and we can argue all day about where on that line is the "real" normal. My 16-35 (24-52) is considered semi-wide, and my 28-300 (42-400) is normal and semi-telephoto which is all I wanted comment about. I appreciate all the extra highly technical information, although I do not understand most of it. Thanks for the entertainment.

Thanks for all the information. Concludes that the 24 x 36 original film format which diagonally rounds up to 50 mm is why that is "normal" and defines as 43 mm to 53 mm or anything in between. I wonder why Leica chose the 24 x 36 format ..... was that because it is the same as the human eye (rounded down) ???

Great question ..... and the answer need not be too complicated as I remember. Way back in the film-only 35 mm days (I started shooting in the early 70's) this question was actually an argument between Nikon and Minolta enthusiasts. Nikon had a 50 mm standard lens which they said was "normal" because it was the same as the human eye. Minolta had a 55 mm lens and claimed the same. A professional Photography magazine studied the matter and concluded that there were slight variations by race and sex, however the human eye was in between these limits and "averaged" a little over 53 mm. It was generally accepted that anything between 45 mm and 60 mm was "normal:" less than that was semi-wide, and more was classified as "portrait" up to about 85 mm where semi-telephoto began. Of course today's digital format changes everything. I would like to hear what the "new normal" is in today's format of FX and DX. I happen to have an FX 16-35 zoom and an FX 28-300 zoom and feel I have the right mix (except for fish-eye and super telephoto) on a D500 (DX) which I believe gives me an effective range of 24 mm to 400 mm, seemingly perfect for my recreational use. Thanks.

Thanks for your comments.
Understand please that I am a "purist," and only wish to use Nikkor lenses on a Nikon body. I would not mix a Toyota transmission with a Cadillac motor.
Also, while weight is a concern, FX is what I believe generally better quality results of clarity, even on a DX body. Extra weight is worth extra quality. Responses on this site seem to confirm that.
With a current D500, I believe I have the "best of the best" DX and with a plan to move to a FX D850 someday, I want the best lenses for all of my general use.
Summary, a 28-300 FX and a 16-35 FX seems a good complement. That's in DX - FX converted format 42-450mm and 24-54mm. I want landscape and portrait. Summary: 24-450 (16-300 DX) with two good FX lenses. What am I missing? I appreciate your indulgence. Most everyone on this site has had good feedback, and that information is valuable.
Thanks.

I absolutely agree. I am a purist like you and was never considering discounted glass. I feel the same about batteries and filters. Your encouragment is appreciated.

Hello Photography Friends;
I have a Nikkor 28-300 FX zoom which is wonderful !
However, I would like to supplement with a wider format zoom.
Am looking at the 16-35 FX for $1,000. Option is the 16-80 DX for same price.
Am trading-in a 16-85 DX which I am very displeased with. (I was told by the store that it was, for less money, as good as the 16-80 DX which turns out from this website comments is not true.)
Using on a D500.
I have heard on this site that FX glass on a DX body is "never wasted." But however ... I want the best pairing compatibility.
Any suggestions on which is a better choice ? The Nikon narrative on the 16-35 FX is very impressive and convincing, and currently on sale $100.00 off.
Thanks.

I agree with Mike. Get a brand name battery of the manufacturer. Quality control, warranties, etc are a factor to consider. Cheaper batts have shorter life, so there is no long-term advantage. When I got my D500 I bought an extra Nikon batt for $45.00 and it will probably last longer than me. And it won't leak like the Promaster in my Leica.

I am sure there are after market batteries that are good, and less expensive. So I appreciate hearing ideas from photo colleagues. My point was my bad experience with promaster. Not just batteries, everything. And ..... I am also concerned with voided warranties of the camera or lens manufacturer.

As an option I traded for the FX 28-300 in prep for a FX body later (850 dreaming). Best lens I have ever used. I am considering the FX 18-35 for my second lens to supplement. Another option is the very popular and lightweight 18-300 DX for a DX body.

Avoid Promaster for ANY of their products. Junk ! Blurry filters, leaking battery, wrecked my Leica pocket C-Lux.

Skip the 16 85 and get the 16 80. More money, but worth it. Faster and clearer. I have had both.

Warning - A Nikon factory rep said to me a while back that non-Nikon batteries will void your warranty. Why take a chance for a few $'s.