Nikkor 16-85mm f/3-5-5.6G vs 17-55mm f/2.8

[justin_ngo]

Hi,

 

I read in another forum,some people said that " the new Nikkor 16-85 is sharper

and giving better IQ even more than 17-55 " !!!?? IS that true? Or

unrealistic? If it's true, so the 17-55 is not worth at its price??????

I saw great pictures of 16-85 but I'm still doubt about the comment because in

my knowlege, the 16-85 is just a slow zoom ,special at its zoom end,why it's

sharper than a larger aperture lens?

I ONLY buy the 16-85 instead of the 17-55 ( then save a lot of $) IF it's true

that this lens works better than 17-55 in all situations. Would anyone advise

me, particular who have both 16-85 and 17-55?

 

Thank you very much.

I'm having 18-200, D80 and SB-600

 

Sorry if this question is repeated.

[Ed_Ingold]

It sounds too good to be true, right :-)

[ronald_moravec1]

If you do not value quality mechanical construction rather than plastic, the 16/85 may indeed be better for you.

[ilkka_nissila]

What's wrong with plastic? Either lens will be fine if you don't drop it, and neither will likely withstand being dropped without damage.

 

The 17-55 has the f/2.8 maximum aperture which allows you to stop subject movement in low light better than what is possible with the 16-85. This is often required in people photography. The main advantage of the 16-85 is that it has VR, which allows you to shoot hand-held in low light without using a wide aperture, leading to greater depth of field. This is handy e.g. in travel photography. I would not choose the 16-85 a replacement or alternative to the 17-55 - they have different assets and applications.

[youman]

NO! NO! NO!

 

Whoever said that is full of it! The Nikkor 16-85mm might be a great lens But you are talking about a everyday "walk around" lens vs. a top of the line professional lens.

 

Whoever said or told you that, ask them what they are smokin'!

[justin_ngo]

Sorry, I know this seems a comparation between a "walkaround" and a professional lens, but I do not mean somethings like that.

I just want to know which one performs better optical quality ( which I need) in ALL or common situations, regardless the focal range, weight,size and mechanical quality.

 

I'm just a beginer and amateur; however I'm very surprised since some people in a forum said 16-85 performs a better optical quality than the 17-55 dose. So, I would like to get more advives and opinions here.

 

Thank you very much so far.

Thanks

[dan_brown4]

I suspect the 16-85 would give the 17-55 a very good run for the money on IQ, perhaps

even better it.

 

But, the 17-55 is a true professional grade f2.8 Nikkor, and is built to take the rigors of

heavy daily use over a period of years. The 16-85 would probably surpise most in the

area of durability, but I seriously doubt it would last as long as the 17-55.

[ShunCheung]

Justin, exactly how those lenses are compared? It is not all that difficult to make a sharp zoom that goes to 85mm but at maximum f5.6. If they are comparing the 17-55mm at f2.8 against the 16-85mm at f5.6, of course f5.6 is "better," but that is highly misleading and would be comparing apples and oranges.

 

For indoor, existing light photography, you need a wide aperture to help freeze subject movement as well as to let in more light so that AF will work accurately. That is why serious photographers pay a lot of money for the fast f2.8 zoom, but practially none of those zooms is at its best at f2.8.

[southjerseyphotos]

F2.8 There is nothing like it.I have the Nikon 70mm-200mm F2.8 that extra light means alot.It also goes back to what style of photos you are taking and getting paid for.Hey if it works for you then go for it.But try to find some close to you that has it and try it out then make your mind up

[tri-x1]

Again--How many photographers on this forum really need a "professional" lens for anything but bragging rights? If you can afford the 17-55 f2.8 and don't mind the additional weight, go for it. But there aren't many instances where anyone but an absolute expert will be able to tell the difference in image quality between the two lenses.

[pete_s.]

"A Honda Civic does more miles per gallon than a Dodge Viper. And it's much cheaper than the Viper. So which one should I get? The Viper doesn't seems to be worth it's price?"

 

Maybe a lame analogy but kind of the same thing. With a pro lens you pay for lens speed (constant f/2.8 aperture in this case) and quality of material/build.

[justin_ngo]

Thank you, thank you all of you so far.

 

Sorry, I should include in my orginal post:

I photograpth mostly casual, family, parties, landscapes...in both low and good light situations.( not sports)

I already had 18-200, which I think neither a best nor a worst Nikon lens, it's just a covenient lens.

Now, I'm looking a middle zoom lens which must be sharper, give better optical performence than 18-200. I mean a high step from 18-200, especially for indoor shots.

 

Thank you a lot for all interesting and helpful posts so far.

[samuel_padgett]

Shun, photozone.de rates the 16-85 as sharp or sharper than the 17-55 at most focal lengths at the same apertures. I realize this is only one website and only one test.

 

I just bought the 17-55. I'm thinking about adopting a 16-85 as well so my big lens will have a little brother.

[Peter_in_PA]

Early results on the 16-85 are indeed very promising, a little amazing, and who knows... It

might almost justify the needlessly (imho) high price.

 

If I was buying today, I might get it instead of the 18-200... but then again, since they are

the same price, not so sure.

 

But there are a lot of reasons that the 17-55 is better for the pro (especially the event

photog), as noted above.

[ShunCheung]

Samuel, why should any of that result be suprising? In the old days, some really demanding photographers had multiple 50mm lenses, and some still do to this day. They have a 50mm/f1.2 or 1.4 if they need to use between f1.4 and f2 because that is what those fast lenses are optimized for. However, they also have a 50mm/f2 or 50mm/f2.8 which would be superior when stopped down to around f8 and f11.

 

Nobody should be surprised that those inexpensive 18-55, 18-70 and the not-so-inexpensive 16-85mm perform quite well at the small apertures. Their main drawback is that they only go up to f5.6 (or 4.5 in the case of the 18-70 at 70mm); additionally, some of those have poor construction.

 

If some serious photographers would get both a 50mm/f1.4 and a 50mm/f2.8 back in the 1960's and 1970's, it would also make sense for some people to have a 17-55mm/f2.8 and a 16-85 VR, especially since the latter is a bit wider and provides the VR option.

[douglas_greenberg]

I took photos over the weekend at an indoor social event using my D300 and both the 18-200 and 17-55mm zooms. The overall quality of the photos within the 18-55mm. zoom range seems identical to me. Perhaps if I blew up some of the frames to gigantic size I might discern some tiny differences. But in "real life," there was/is no difference. But the 17-55mm. opens up to f2.8, which made some available light shots possible that I could not capture adequately with the 18-200mm., even using VR.

[billy_vanderhoes]

It's certainly nice to think that extra small amount of resolution or corner sharpness will

suddenly transform your mediocre photos into good photography...

[Peter_in_PA]

Billy, I think the point is that they can transform a great photo with mediocre corners or

resolution into a great photo with good corners and good sharpness, or even excellent...

[joe_a2]

Wow. SIXTEEN+PLUS posts in less than two hours. I guess you touched a nerve. :)

 

The main difference will be the ability to creatively use a wider aperture and it's shallower depth of field on the 17-55, as well as the build quality. A relative bargain that opens that creative door is the AF 35mm f/2. The 35mm and any "kit" lens, from the 18-70 to the 16-85VR, makes for a great creative kit for most consumers who occasionally need a fast lens. A fast lens isn't always about available light.

[billy_vanderhoes]

Actually Peter, I think the point is whether or not you need f2.8. If you do then you buy the

17-55mm else you spend less, carry less plus you get VR and get a bit more width with the

16mm.

[shuo_zhao]

>> "...I already had 18-200..."

 

Then you could be better off w/ a faster lens (17-55 f/2.8). If you do a lot of indoor shooting, a fast lens will simply be priceless to you. The 16-85 will not be very pleasant to use in poor lighting, especially at its longer end (f/5.6).

 

The 16-85 is only "potentially sharper" and is 2mm wider than the 18-200, which is already a slower lens.

[penn10]

Quality of a lens is not just sharpness, vignetting, or whatever the technical term you want to throw in here. It's not just about build, weather seal, either. One of the most important thing is the ability to get that shot under extreme conditions like low light. 17-55 will get that shot for you whereas the other will be a blurred picture. VR is never a substitude for 2.8 aperture, never.

 

When you hold this 16-85 in a concert and frustrated with the shots you get, and the other guy with the 17-55 getting excellent results, you will see why he is paying the price difference.

[vivek iyer]

<i>When you hold this 16-85 in a concert and frustrated with the shots you get, and the other guy with the 17-55 getting excellent results, you will see why he is paying the price difference.</i>

<p>

Wrong. The person with a fast prime would have bettered both the zoomers!

[pete_s.]

"Wrong. The person with a fast prime would have bettered both the zoomers!"

 

Exactly what I though when reading that...

[penn10]

Vivek and Peter -- yes, partially correct, but all your pictures look the same, with same angle of view. The guy who holds 17-55 was able to create a variety of wide-angle, close shots, etc.

 

But I made my points right :-)