R. Francois wrote:
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.
I have also heard similar comments buy yet I still continue to see paid landscape professionals using the 17-55mm with exceptional results. I have had great results using mine for landscapes and also for potrait type work. I say go with whatever works for your own needs. Having said this, I am also extremely happy with my 18-70mm and will never (never say never...) part with it as a general walkaround lens. My 18-70mm (and of course 17-55mm) outperformed the 16-85mm so much I decided to sell the 16-85mm.
Jammy Straub wrote:
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.
Actually, I found the opposite to be true. The 16-85 suffers from field curvature, so details near infinity are distorted and unsharp in landscape shooting, while the 17-55 renders detail very crisply at all distances, all the way out to infinity.
The 16-85 is a nice walk-around lens because of its small size, VR, and pretty good over-all optical quality, but I certainly wouldn't pick it as the lens to use for landscape work.
Jammy Straub wrote:
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.
An excellent summation. This reflects my findings having owned both. I'm not an event shooter and seldom shoot this focal range wide open so I kept the 16-85 VR.
I have owned THREE copies of the 17-55mm DX. I sold the last one finally because I was so fed up with its spotty focusing issues. I repalced it with the 16-85mm. Now, to be sure, the 17-55mm was stellar when it focused properly, and if I needed 2.8, it was a go to lens. However, I increasingly found that 2.8 isnt that fast, and that a fast prime like my 35mm f/2 was better in lowlight anyway.
I find the 16-85mm to be nicely built, lightand it performs as I need it to. I also prefer the VR for static shots over 2.8 anyway. I like the increased DOF, and if I were to shoot both lenses at say, 55mm and 5.6, the VR definitley has the edge over the former.
Paired with my 35mm f/2, I'm a happy camper. Throw the 55-200mm VR in the mix for a weekend travel kit.
I would be the last person you should pay attention to when it comes to compare these two lenses because I have not owned either but I have seen and heard a lot about the quality of the professional 17-50 f2.8 lens.
In my humble opinion and, as it has already been advised by other members of these forums, if you need the f2.8 aperture you know what your choice should be. For landscape use and based on what I know, the 16-85 will do very well since large lens openings are not a necessity and the lens has been reported to be very sharp in all the reviews I have seen.
I have seen the quality of the professional lens in prints and indeed the image quality is superb.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
I have owned THREE copies of the 17-55mm DX. I sold the last one finally because I was so fed up with its spotty focusing issues. I repalced it with the 16-85mm.
I had the same exact experience like you did. I went through 3 copies of the 17-55 f/2.8 and every one of them had some focusing issue and I was not happy at all with my landscape shots. My 16-85 VR is sharper at any f/stop and focal length and I am very pleased with my ladscape shooting results.
Julius wrote:
I had the same exact experience like you did. I went through 3 copies of the 17-55 f/2.8 and every one of them had some focusing issue and I was not happy at all with my landscape shots. My 16-85 VR is sharper at any f/stop and focal length and I am very pleased with my ladscape shooting results.
Julius
Well, I thought it was just me, because everyone seems to rave on the 17-55mm DX. I'm very pleased that Nikon is releasing some real winers here lately, whether they be consumer oriented or pro. The 16-85 really falls right in the middle, if you ask me, and it really performs within its limitations. Sharp wide open and good thru the whole range.
If its one or the other, the 2.8 aperture wins for me.
However, I don't like the 17-55. I used it for the past year and while its got great IQ and AF speed, it's just too bulky for my liking.
I have a second photographer who shot with the Tokina 16-50 this year. I have to process of both of our cameras. I liked what I saw from the Tokina everywhere except the CA in some cases and the blooming it does with whites. Then I realized, that actually aids my case with wedding/portraits.
I now have two of the Tokinas and sold the 17-55.
Now, if you don't need the F2.8 then the 16-85 seems better for most use. However, if like me you need the faster aperture, then the 17-55 wins, except in my case I went for the Tokinas (and sent them in for calibration which Tokina are great about).
The 17-55 is far too flare prone for me to consider it. While it's quite good at what it's designed for (PJ and event work at f2.8), the stuff I shoot (low-light cityscapes, daylight cityscapes/landscapes) is much better suited to the 16-85VR. I'll take VR over f2.8 any day for low-light cityscapes (Ideally both) and the much better flare resistance of the 16-85VR.
If I was going f2.8, I'd go for the Tamron. It's every bit as sharp as the Nikkor, more flare resistant and 1/3 the price. I don't need the extra build or AF speed.
The 17-55 flares like a Mofo if there is a strong point light source in the frame. I rather like they way it handles the flare though, overall contrast remains high. I've not really noticed problems with grazing light causing flare the hood works very well.
I had the 16-85 and while it was a 'nice' lens, it can't touch the 17-55 for IQ and sharpness, the 17-55 simply blows it out of the water, at least in my opinion. Yes the 16-85 is smaller and has VR, but it does not have the quality of glass that the 17-55 has.
cipsaz wrote:
Bad? Are you kidding me? The 17-55 is a pro lens and beats the 16-85VR hands down.....
Ashley Milne wrote:
I had the 16-85 and while it was a 'nice' lens, it can't touch the 17-55 for IQ and sharpness, the 17-55 simply blows it out of the water, at least in my opinion....
Interesting how the reviews do not support either of these positions.
I've owned both and find them both most excellent at what they are designed for.
MagicNikon wrote:
Well, I thought it was just me, because everyone seems to rave on the 17-55mm DX. I'm very pleased that Nikon is releasing some real winers here lately, whether they be consumer oriented or pro. The 16-85 really falls right in the middle, if you ask me, and it really performs within its limitations. Sharp wide open and good thru the whole range.
