I figure the best bang for the buck by far is the Nikon 16mm to 35mm/f4. For example the optics of the 16 to 35/4 rivals the legendary Nikon 14 to 28/2.8 for half the money. Also, the 16 to 35 will take filters and I don't believe the 14 to 24 does. Finally, look at the review of both lenses and consider that the 16 to 35 goes up to 35mm which is a very important factor for general photography. I shoot almost exclusively landscape and use my Nikon 16 to 35/f4f probably 65% of the time and my 20mm/1.8 the other 35%.

Fellow Hoggers

Again, I am looking for advice. This time on lens filters. Just took delivery of my new Nikon D7200 with a DX 35mm f/1.8G AF-S Standard Lens and a Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm F/3.5-6.3G ED VR lens.
What would you suggest as far as lens filters? Unless one needs a special filter, should I just use a CPL or UV filter for lens protection? I read lots of reviews about filters and there are different schools of thought. A lot of people think filters are just needed for lens protection in the DSLR age.

I am a little befuddled! Thank you in advance for all your valuable advice.
Wolfi

I learned photography with film cameras. For many years I spent time in the optical darkroom and I devoted a good part of my learning to work with medium format cameras.
When digital was beginning to get better, around 2002 or so, I sold my film cameras except for a 1963 Nikon F and a more modern F100 both of which I still own. It has been more than 4 years since I used any of those film cameras.
When I go to Walgreen to pick up my medicines I notice that roll films are scarce compared to the past. They already told me that they do not develop film as often and that it takes time to send it and receive the negatives. The professional lab that I frequent already informed me that they do not develop film any longer. Developing and printing film is more expensive than ever unless one does it oneself and that requires to make it more economical to use film more than digital and do it often.
We can buy today medium and large format cameras and lenses at a fraction of what they used to cost. Film is now more expensive and as I said not all professional labs are doing film like they did in the past. Here in Miami our local newspaper quit working with film many years ago. Where I trained in photography it is all digital now and has been like that for many years.
I remember rolls and rolls of film to be developed at B&H only five years ago but I have not been recently to NY and I do not know how much business they are generating from film.
In short, film is alive but not as easily accessible as it was in the past, at least for me. Printing film is expensive because not all labs are doing it and I find prices with digital considerably cheaper than when I print from film unless the negatives have been scanned and made digital.
I was educated using film and I do like it. I still find better tonalities using film that converting a file to b&w. The beauty of slide film has always been admired but I have not used slides in many years and I do not even know if processing is still available.
Who could ever imagine that prestigious companies like Agfa, Ilford, Ferrania, Kodak and Fuji would eventually get out of the market or reduce the production of film to such low levels.
If film is coming back I do not really know and I have nothing against it. I like it and I want to use it but it is the inconveniences and the ridiculous high prices that are not making of me a believer.
I want to thank you each and everyone of you for your contributions and interesting comments.

Well, I was speaking about my own experience and others that I'm acquainted with, I understand that it's not a 100% across the board, universal experience. :)

I really meant that you never read a post "Hey...I got a Nikon FM2 but I'm thinking of upgrading to a FM3...should I?" posts (followed by 10 pages of "Go for it!") here on the 'hog as you would a digi-cam.

And you are right, even IF you get the hankering for some gear, you won't be selling the car to get it.