The 17-55mm would be the champ of this comparison. The only question for you would be whether or not the extra $$ is worth it for you. It is bigger and heavier than the 16-85mm but it is indeed one incredible lens. You certainly wouldn't be dissapointed.
The aforementioned slrgear.com is good so is photozone.de They have tests of both there.
The 16-85vr is a general purpose walk around lens with vr and a slow aperture.
The 17-55 is a standard zoom for event and reportage work.
When you need f/2.8 only one of them will get you there. If I were a landscape shooter I'd own the 16-85 it's reported to be extremely sharp while the 17-55 doesn't do so hot with fine detail at distances approaching infinity.
It would probably be best if you could try both of these lenses out before you buy. See what you think of the image quality and general feel of the lens. I owned both lenses at one point, did extensive testing, and the 17-55mm outperformed the 16-85mm by a long shot. Also, the build quality of the 17-55mm is much better than the 16-85mm which feels cheap in comparison. Keep in mind this is only my personal opinion. You have to make the decision based on your own needs.... All the best.
Depends on what you want. I am not a pro, however I want good quality equipment. So I pro quality stuff. I find the 17-55 range very useful infact it's rarely off my D300 except for when I put the 70-200 vr on or my Tokina 50-135 2.8. I really like fast glass. To be honest I would be hard pressed to buy anything else.
i'll take 2.8 over VR in a heartbeat. I own several lenses, hoping that i can get cheap to 2.8, like a sigma 24-70 or a tokina 16-50. All fine lenses but none of them beat my 17-55 which is glued to my D300.
hmm that sigma 24-70 will come in handy some day i suppose
Thanks to you all for suggestions.
Looks like more of you like 17-55, so i'l probably stick with it.
With this economy i am spending a lot of time at home, bored. Not too much expendable cash.
So, i was thinking maybe to exchange 17-55 and sigma 10-20 for 16-85 and 85mm 1.4.
I know , i know, apples and oranges.
I just always wanted to try that 85mm.
I have been very pleased with the 16-85 and use it most of the time on my D300. I also own the 17-55 but it is heavy and unless I need the speed, the lens I grab is the 16-85.
R. Francois wrote:
i'll take 2.8 over VR in a heartbeat. I own several lenses, hoping that i can get cheap to 2.8, like a sigma 24-70 or a tokina 16-50. All fine lenses but none of them beat my 17-55 which is glued to my D300.
hmm that sigma 24-70 will come in handy some day i suppose
AHA! Are you hinting at an imminent purchase of some kind here Ray? Hmmmm... I wonder what kind of purchase you'd be after... you'd want something cool, something that, I dunno, effects your photography... effects (FX)... hmmm...
Between those two lenses, I'd go with a 17-55 any day of the week. Even if (and that's a big IF) they were similar optically, I'll take the f2.8 and the pro build all day long. I owned the 17-55 for a long time until I needed to get an FX-compatible lens, and it still is one of the best lenses I've owned. I am not convinced my new 24-70 f2.8 has anything on it. They're very similar IMHO optically, and build-wise I'd almost suggest that 17-55 was better. It's a tank, it was brilliant optically, and it sure never let me down. Too bad it wasn't an FX lens...
oobie wrote perhaps you could share with us what you plan to shoot so people could offer a more informed opinion.
I do not have anything particular in mind. Most likely some landscapes, just every day walk around lens.
I own both lenses and they're both excellent. If I'm shooting on my own time and don't need f/2.8 I'll take the 16-85mm which is much lighter, has a better focal range and the benefit of VR. If I'm being paid to shoot, or shooting for my portfolio I'll take the 17-55mm, which has better overall colour, tonality and image quality; but is a heavy bugger so I avoid using it if I can.
I tried the 17-55 and planned to buy it. The lens was good, but not great. I shot with it several times at the store and analyzed the pictures at home.
I tried the 16-85 and was mesmerized. Just as sharp as the 17-55. Decent build on the 16-85. I decided to go with the 16-85 and couldn't be happier. I have the 35 f2, 50 f1.8, and 85 f1.4 for low light situations and portraits.
The 16-85 is a fantastic walk around lens and a better landscape lens than the 17-55. The 17-55 shines as an event lens, but is not an all-around lens.
I think it really depends on what you want to do with the lens. Both are excellent optically. If you are going to be doing a lot of low light work then it is a no-brainer, get the 17-55 2.8. If not, the 16-85 is one sharp piece of kit, lightweight, and has VR. Tough to beat as a walk-around for outdoors shooting.
there's a lot of talk about the 17-55 not being a 'landscape lens'. I think that's true. As you've might have noticed, i also own the Tokina 16-50 and that lens does a lot better for landscapes than my 17-55. I don't know why, it's just something i've (and obviously others) noticed.
