|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
|
![]()
which do you think is a better performer and why ? between the 16-85 and the 17-55
Dave T&T |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
As big a fan as I am of large apertures and available light, I'd have to say the 16-85. It's sharper, has less chromatic aberration, it's stabilized, and it's about half the price.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
|
![]() Quote:
glad to hear that the 17-55 is a stop faster but the vr gives a shooting speed of 3 stops slower, is this correct. i would like to shoot at 1/15 sec. and get tripod sharpness for some reason i cant shoot at less than 1/60 with the 17-55 would you give up a 17-55 in favour of the 16-85 Dave T&T |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
I wouldn't spend $1,384.95 on the 17-55/2.8 when I could get the 16-85 for $629.95. If I didn't need the stabilization, I'd get a Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5, 24-70/2.8 or 18-50/2.8, or the Tamron 17-50/2.8, or 28-75/2.8. If I needed the stabilization, I'd get the 16-85.
What do you want to shoot?
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
|
![]() Quote:
i shoot flash in manual , and to balance ambient light with fill flash, i often see myself at 1/30 sec. if i go with the 16-85 i will get more width and more reach, would i really miss that stop the 17-55 has (2.8 vs 5.6 ) what i did like about the 18-200 when i had it, is that i could have cranked that baby down to 1/8 sec and get tripod sharpness. Dave T&T |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
It sounds like you'd appreciate the VR more than you would the f/2.8.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]() Quote:
But I'm and available light kinda guy.
__________________
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
|
![]() Quote:
Dave T&T |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
Between the two, the 16-85 is the better performer, but for the way I shoot, the large aperture of the 17-55/2.8 would suit me better.
__________________
Last edited by TCav; Aug 19, 2010 at 3:38 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|