A few of you took me to task for saying that the DX user is at a disadvantage to the FX user when it came to the 24mm (equivalent) focal length. We do have a few ways to get to 16mm: 16-85mm VR DX, 10-24mm DX, 12-24mm DX, and the FX 16-35mm and 14-24mm. So it's not that we don't have lenses that'll get us the 24mm equivalent for DX that prompted my comment, it's that they're all sub-optimal in some way. Take out the huge, filterless 14-24mm and all the options are slow (even f/2.8 isn't exactly fast). Thus, anyone who needs to get to 24mm on DX in low light finds that they don't really have a good DX option (and remember, the D300s is already a couple of stops worse than a D3s at high ISO values).
The only photographers that are reasonably happy with the 24mm equivalent in DX are the landscape and casual photographers. That's because the landscape photographers will all stop one of those zooms down to f/11 or so anyway, and the casual photographers will simply like the VR on the 16-85mm and put up with the maximum aperture being somewhat restrained. That leaves the event, sports, architectural, and night photographers all unsatisifed, which is why I wrote what I wrote about DX in the next article.
But to answer a question that did come up: if you had to have 24mm equivalent on DX, what should you use? Casual users: 16-85mm. Landscape photographers: any of the available options.