Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 1, 2010, 5:43 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default better performer

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

Dave
T&T
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 1, 2010, 6:45 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

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.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2010, 7:19 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
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
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2010, 8:01 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

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?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2010, 9:19 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
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
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2010, 3:42 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

It sounds like you'd appreciate the VR more than you would the f/2.8.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2010, 6:08 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
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
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2010, 7:32 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dafiryde View Post
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.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2010, 8:44 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
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
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2010, 1:25 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dafiryde View Post
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.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Aug 19, 2010 at 3:38 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:00 AM.