Lens Comparisson - to buy or not to buy?

[stormcrow]

I’m having a bit of a lens buying dilemma at the moment so I need some advice.

I’ve currently got a Nikon AF-S 16-85mm VR lens which is a great sharp lens however I’m tempted to buy a Nikon 17-55mm which currently gives very little change out of £1000.
I’m aware of the reputation of the 17-55 but has anyone had both of these lenses?
Disregarding the obvious difference of one being f2.8 and the other f3.5/5.6 how much of a difference in image quality is there?

I’m also tempted to get a Nikon 18-200mm mainly to take to this year’s Glastonbury. I know about the creep issues of that lens but I’m attracted to the idea that it covers most of the focal range that I would want and I could probably get away with just that lens and my Sigma 10-20mm.
Again I’m interested in a quality comparison this time between the Nikon 18-200mm VR with my Nikon AF-S 16-85mm VR and my Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR which is what I’m currently planning on taking with me.

Thanks

 

[Wail]

I'd strongly suggest you ignore the Nikon 17-55 AF-S, not because of any fault of its own, but give the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 a close look. It's a wonderful lens and cost wise, it's unbelievable.

As for the 18-200VR, I'd suggest you go with the 70-300VR if you get the Tamron. The 70-300VR is known for its sharpness, light weight, and wonderful image quality. Not to forget you get better reach than the 18-200VR.

 

[boyfalldown]

I’m having a bit of a lens buying dilemma at the moment so I need some advice.

I’ve currently got a Nikon AF-S 16-85mm VR lens which is a great sharp lens however I’m tempted to buy a Nikon 17-55mm which currently gives very little change out of £1000.

just to mention - you can pick up a mint second hand one of these quite easily for £600

Hugh