Comparison of 17-55 vs. 16-80 lenses

[goldbergbarry]

<p>How would you compare the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 versus the 16-80 f/2.8 lens. Obviously the 17-55 is a bit older, does not have the reach of the 16-80 and cost $500 more but is it optically better?<br>

</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>probably not. the thing is, back in 2003 when the 17-55 was released, Nikon only had 6mp sensors. so it stands to reason a modern update would have been formulated for today's 24mp sensors. also, we may need to clarify "better" and what that means, exactly: sharper in the center? corner to corner? at distance? these are two entirely different optical designs and somewhat designed for different purposes.</p>

[bob_h]

<p>The 17-55 is still a very nice lens, but heavy, and minus any image stabilization. It has held its value quite well. Usually there is a reason for that. In its favor it is 2.8 through the full range. The 16-80 is F4 on the long end, but the VR will help with that. The 16-80 build materials are not as robust as the 17-55. I have always thought that the 17-55 was very sharp and very good optically. Some of the images that I have seen from the new lens tend to make me think that it is optically superior to the 17-55. Considering that Nikon is offering the 16-80 as a kit lens option for the D500 tells me that it should be an excellent lens. Rent both lenses and see which one that you prefer. That way no mistake on which you like better.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>The 17-55mm f/2.8 is excellent, but heavy and expensive. It has a tendency to suffer from flare in some situations. Keep in mind that it is sometimes available used, from individuals, at a huge price reduction. The 16-80 (which I haven't tried) is too new to have many people selling it second-hand.</p>

[goldbergbarry]

<p>I actually own a 17-55 and love it but hearing about the new 16-80 had me wondering if I was missing something. I know, NAS can be a dangerous thing. Thanks everyone!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>you didnt say you had a 17-55 already in your initial post, Barry. in that case, it's a little bit different conversation. which then becomes, is the 16-80 so much optically better that it's worth swapping? not a whole lot of reviews out there of the 16-80 , and the ones which are out suggest mixed results -- which may indicate sample variation might be the determinant between subpar and acceptable corner performance. also the 16-80 has VR but is mostly plastic. if you're satisfied with the 17-55 i'd probably spend that $1000 elsewhere. </p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>With the new information that you actually own the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, there's something I should add. I already wrote above that it is sometimes available at low prices in the used market. I bought mine from a photographer who didn't like it and offered it to me for $400. I already owned a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, which I thought I would sell, ending up with an upgrade. Then I tested the two lenses together. They were rather close in image quality, but the Tamron (obviously) was lighter, was robust enough for the way I handle my lenses, and had more resistance to flare in tough conditions. I sold the Nikon. Hope this helps.</p>

[rconey]

<p>I was on a quest for lighter weight for outdoor stuff. The D800 plus lenses is pretty heavy, and I wouldn't want to drop it in a creek or off a cliff. I got a D5500 and the 16-80 f2.8-4 VR (2 pounds total) and have been very happy with that combination weight and IQ wise. The lens isn't as heavily built as the 17-55 or other pro level lenses but it is well built. I am very happy with it.</p>

[robert_stig]

<p>I would go for the 16-80. Youre trading down. Build is better optics are better. Its like going from a 28-70 2.8 afs to the 24-120 f/4. Thats a downgrade. Keep your 17-55 and get some. Primes for that extra cash u want to burn. Or if you want go for the aigma 18-35 art and and a 50/85 1.8g prime. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>If this thread has put anyone in any doubt about the 17-55mm f/2.8 Zoom-Nikkor's optical quality, then rest assured, it's easily capable of keeping up with a modern 24Mp DX body. Its only drawback is its weight and size. It's now fairly plentiful on the used market and can be got in excellent to mint condition at a lower price than the 16-80mm zoom.</p>

<p>Plus one to spending that spare cash on an 85mm f/1.8 prime or something similar. Maybe even a 90mm f/2.8 Tamron macro, which would do dual service as a portrait and close-up lens.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I'm going to have to stop posting from this old Win Vista laptop. It seems determined to double-post everything!</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I agree with Rodeo Joe. The 17-55 is a superb lens and gets all of the info needed from the 24 mpx. of my D 7100. The sharpness and color are fantastic. I also have to admit that it is a load to carry around all day but was always worth the effort prior to the arrival of my d810. </p>

<p>-O</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I hadn't used my 17-55mm/f2.8 DX AF-S for a couple of years, as I prefer to use FX for event photography and therefore the 24-120mm/f4 or 28-70mm/f2.8. However, since I am checking out the D500, yesterday I used the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX quite a bit. It is still a fine lens on the 20MP D500, and the 24MP D7100 or D7200 shouldn't differ by that much.</p>

<p>Now in 2016, I probably wouldn't pay full price to buy a new 17-55mm/f2.8 DX AF-S, but if you already have it, I would keep using it on DX bodies.</p>

[goldbergbarry]

<p>I'm keeping my 17-55. There's no real reason to switch (other than NAS) and I do love my 17-55. It is an excellent lens and it never disappoints me. I'm used to the size so that it not an issue and it looks good on my D7100. Makes an amazing pair.</p>

<p>Someone mentioned that 85mm f/1.8. I actually used to also own that lens too. I was really superb, until the day that I left it on the benches at a basketball game and forgot about it. Not sure what I was thinking that day as I am never that careless. Dugh!</p>