Which one, 16-85 mm or the 17-55 mm?

[kardo_ayoub]

<p >Hi every one,</p>

<p >After many years shooting with a very basic Sony f828 I feel that I can finally upgrade to an SLR. I have decided to get the Nikon D300 body but now I have a hard time choosing between the following 2 lenses:</p>

<p >Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 or the Nikon 17-55 mm f/2.8</p>

<p >I'm a keen amateur; my photography is a mix of landscapes, portraits and street photography. I'm not making any money from my photography at the moment but it would be nice if I could one day.</p>

<p >My question is do I go for the 16-85mm and get a prime 50mm f/1.8 for portraits and darker situation or shall just get the pro 17-55mm ?( just so you know I don’t have a huge budget).</p>

<p >Could I please have some ideas regarding the speed and IQ of both Lenses?</p>

<p >I welcome any other recommendation since I am new to the SLR world.</p>

<p >Thanks a lot for your advice.</p>

<p >PS. Please don’t put me off the D300, I love the feel of it in my hands and think it’s a great camera.</p>

 

[seanbreadsell]

<p>My opinion, but remembering i don't have any of these lenses although i have tried them in the shops. The 17-55mm is VERY nice, big-ish and heavy-ish and not long enough. The 16-85mm is nicely weighted and covers both ends (can always get a 70-300 to go with either of these lenses one day). The 50mm f/1.8 is brilliant. and if you got the later 2 lenses you would still have money left over for a nice bag and a good tripod. Drawback the 16-85mm won't be as good in low light, easy fixed bump up the ISO or use your 50mm....Saying all this I want to add a 24-70mm f/2.8 to my kit, the Nikkor is way to expensive so I am considering for the first time a Sigma (new HSM model)</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I do believe I'd start with the 16-85, and use some of that difference towards a proper tripod and head. A fast prime, like the 50/1.8 is a no-brainer... but I would ALSO hold off on that until you've done some shooting with the 16-85, and can determine whether you're more likely to want a prime at 50mm, or a more like the new 35/1.8. For portraits, even the 50/1.8 might seem a little short, depending on your shooting style. You may find that you're more of an 85/1.8 guy. The zoom lens is a great way to get a sense for what focal lengths are actually talking to you, so that you know best where to spend your prime lens money.<br /><br />And no, I'd certainly not try to talk you out of the D300! It's a wonderful tool.</p>

[seanbreadsell]

<p>I agree Matt, the D300 is wonderful....nearly as good as my D90 haha :P</p>

[at]

<p>If it was me...the 17-55 f2.8. Easy decision for me. I have little use for f5.6 lenses at any focal length...<br>

even if it has VR. But thats just me. I much prefer a large aperture lens (f2.8) thats gives <em>me </em>the control over the background. Any lens at f5.6 will just takes all that away from you.<br>

For me.....the 17-55 f2.8. I have never used either one but my reasons still stand. I have read that both<br>

are excellent lenses too. Of all my Nikkors I prefer the f2.8 zooms and fast primes any day.</p>

[joel_blacher]

<p>Landscapes...16-85 surprises me with its sharpness and overall IQ (even at 5.6 for close subjects). The other stuff...you will probably find 2.8 or wider to be desirable. Either option will work for you (1685VR+prime or 17-55), but the two lens option will be a bit more versatile.</p>

[rayyeager]

<p>I had both. If you can handle a little weight go with the 17-55mm ... can't beat the quality. If you would rather travel light, the 16-85mm is the choice. Both are nice options ... Ray.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Kardo;<br>

I own both of the lenses you are considering and I love them both. I also have a 50mm f/1.4 <br>

The 17-55 is a fantastic fast lens that is very big, heavy and expensive. I mainly work with it in a studio setting on a tripod. The 16-85 VR is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever owned and the VR works very well. Tho only problem with tis lens is its speed at the long end. As was mentioned a bit earlier, a fast 50 is a no brainer and I love mine. I have not tried the new 35 DX.<br>

I will be honest with you and say that if I had to start over again with the d300 I would get the same lenses. The one thing I wish the 17-55 had is VR so it could function a bit better as a walk around lens.<br>

I have no idea if this helps or not but let me add one last thing. Some people refer to the 16-85 as a "Kit Lens." This can give a very incorrect impression. It is a hell of a god lens at a great price.<br>

The 17-55 is a killer on a tripod.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>For landscape and general I would look at the 16-85mm with a good tripod, for portrait I would use something between 85 and 105mm f2.5 with manual focus and street either a fast prime like a 35mm f2 or wider or 17-50mm f2.8 type zoom.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Kardo - I loved my 17-55 on the D300, but I traded up to the 24-70. Either way - the D300 will be excellent with either lens choice. Since you say you're on a budget - - I'd say go with the 16-85 & the 50mm - - I think that will give you a little more mileage.<br>

As for weight of the 17-55. This little old woman has lugged that lens all over Los Angeles with family visiting for days on end. It's not <em>that</em> heavy.<br>

JMHO<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[kardo_ayoub]

<p>Thanks every one for your advice, so far you have been very helpful. I think I'm leaning towards the 16-85 more and more. I would also like some more information about the autofocus speed on the 16-85 mm, is it fast enough to capture moments in day light, f8? For street photography purposes.<br /> the reason i dont like my Sony is that it takes ages to focus and shoot when you press the shutter release button..<br /> Thanks a lot</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>You will find that either of those lenses will knock your socks off when it comes to focus speed, especiallly with the D300's AF system. Once you get out to the long end of the 16-85's range, though, it is pulling in quite a bit less light, at f/5.6. The D300's AF system is designed to still work well in those conditions, but that just reduces your options when it comes to very low light situations. I've got the 18-200, which I sometimes use in that way, and when I'm in really awful light, I do get better AF performance with my fast primes or the big gun, the 70-200/2.8. But the D300's AF system is quite good, and if you stick with the center AF sensors, even at f/5.6, it's quick quick quick to focus. You'll be very pleasantly surprised, that way, compared to your Sony.</p>

[michaelbrochstein]

<p>I own both (as well as a D300 which I like very much!) and I like them both. Unless low-light issues are constant in your work (which I gather they are not) then my advice since you are budget-conscious is to buy the 16-85 and no other lens initially. By doing this you will truly see how much you need any other lenses and have a better idea what other lenses these might really be - based upon actual experience. I own a 50/1.4 and truth be told, it is the least used lens in my collection. I only recall using it once in the last 5 years. With the improved high-ISO performance of the D300 I have less and less need for it. The prime only has two unique advantages, small size and low weight and the ability to isolate a subject with its limited depth-of-field when used wide open. FWIW, I love my 17-55 and it is my most-used lens on the D300. Having said that, it is not the only lens I use as it is neither short or as long as other lenses. Based upon real use you may find that a 10-20 (for landscape?) or a 80-200 or 70-300 (for sports/wildlife) or a 85/1.4 (for portraits) is really what you need for a second lens. Lastly, try borrowing or renting any expensive lens before buying it to see if you really like it. I did that twice with a 70-200 before buying it. Also, buying a used lens might be a worthwhile endeavor budget-wise.</p>

[paul_tobin1]

<p>Would the 16-85 be a noticeable improvement over the 18-70 f/3.5-4.5? My wide angles for landscape shots are the 18-70 and 18-200, and I've been contemplating better glass to improve IQ and color. The 17-55 would be wonderful, but out of budget and not quite long enough for double duty as a general purpose lens. Thanks. (Oh, I'm using a D70s body)</p>

[sim_m]

<p>I have the 17-55 f/2.8.<br>

My first standard was the 18-70mm, before I sold it I received the 17-55 and managed to compare them together quitely at home. The clear winner was indeed the 17-55 its sharpness is increadible.</p>

[walterh]

<p>If you can afford the 17-55 f2.8 go for it. Just so impressive.</p>

 

[ted_raper1]

<p>I just recently purchased a 16-85 and am very happy with it (on a D200). Yes, it's 5.6 at the long end, but the VR kind of makes up for that, and as stated above you can always bump the ISO a little. I find the lens to be very sharp, well built (not pro build but close), focuses fast and silent. For $600 it's hard to beat.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>given the choice, 17-55. the 17-55 can shoot at 5.6 but the 16-85 can't shoot at 2.8.</p>

[kenray]

<p>While I don't have either of THOSE lenses I do have an 18-50 2.8 Sigma (latest model) and the focus is quiet and swift with the HSM motor and it is a steady lense on one of my 2 D200 bodies. I don't think the quality can be beat by the Nikkor and I KNOW the price can't. It gives you another option.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>given the choice, 17-55. the 17-55 can shoot at 5.6 but the 16-85 can't shoot at 2.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>hmmmh, by the same token: the 17-55 has a bit of a trouble getting to 16 or 85 mm for that matter.</p>

[glen_x]

<p>I love my 17-55. It is <em>heavier</em> than comparable lenses, but is not unbearable. It also balances well on the D300, especially with the battery grip. I love it. I'd marry it if I could.</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>there's another choice the 18-70 dx. costs a lot less than the 16-85. and is very sharp with a excellent build (metal mount).<br>

If your gonna spend almost 700 for the 16-85 go for the 18-200 vr instead. Its almost the same price and much more versitle,</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>I haven't used the 17-55 but from what I've read - and having used other pro lenses that are comparable in overall quality - I think this is a very tough choice even leaving out the issue of price. The 16-85 is a <em>very</em> good lens. It has an extremely useful and versatile range, it performs by all accounts every bit as well as the 17-55, and it has excellent VR. On the other hand, there is no substitute for the wider aperture. It appears to be truly a case of either/or at very equivalent levels of image quality.</p>

<p>Include price as a factor and, for me, it tips the scales and makes the 16-85 along with a couple of primes the better choice. You'd probably want the primes anyway. I like the 35/1.8 and recommend it highly if its minor documented imperfections don't bother you. I much prefer it to the old 35/2. I would not go with a 50mm as a first, only, or even second prime lens.</p>

 

[photo5]

<p>If you want a top quality zoom, get the 17-55mm. If you want a less expensive excellent zoom with VR, get the 16-85mm. You can't go wrong either way. The 16-85mm is fantastic, but a little soft at 16mm, and very slow at 85mm (f5.6). If I were shooting professionally I'd get the 17-55mm, otherwise the 16-85mm is worth it.</p>

[alan_goldhammer]

<p>Weighing in a little late. I also have the 16-85 zoom and it's a wonderful lens. Very good balance on the D300 which helps stabilize it when hand held. I agree with others, get a good tripod, especially for landscapes. My other AF lens is the 24 mm f2.8 which on the D300 is equivalent to a 36mm full frame. I also find great use for my three legacy lenses which don't autofocus but give great results as well: 28mm, 50mm and 105mm, they are incredibly sharp and as long as you don't need autofocus, they are a good choice (you can find great bargains, but just make sure that they have been converted for use on the D300.</p>