better performer

[dafiryde]

which do you think is a better performer and why ? between the 16-85 and the 17-55

Dave
T&T

[TCav]

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.

[dafiryde]

Originally Posted by TCav

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.

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

[TCav]

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?

[dafiryde]

Originally Posted by TCav

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?

i like shooting general everyday photos
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

[TCav]

It sounds like you'd appreciate the VR more than you would the f/2.8.

[dafiryde]

Originally Posted by TCav

It sounds like you'd appreciate the VR more than you would the f/2.8.

one more question on this
if you were offered both lenses , brand new, for the same price
which would you take

Dave

[TCav]

Originally Posted by dafiryde

if you were offered both lenses , brand new, for the same price
which would you take

Me? I'd take the 17-55/2.8.

But I'm and available light kinda guy.

[dafiryde]

Originally Posted by TCav

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.

Originally Posted by TCav

Me? I'd take the 17-55/2.8.

But I'm and available light kinda guy.

i am supprised you picked the 17-55, if you dont mind me asking, why ?

Dave
T&T

[TCav]

Originally Posted by dafiryde

i am supprised you picked the 17-55, if you dont mind me asking, why?

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.