Nikon 16-85 vs 17-55

michaelg

michaelg

Messages
564
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys,

I currently have a 24-85 f/2.8-4D on my D7000 (in addition to a 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8) but I frequently find it doesn't go wide enough - I realise it's more for full frame but I viewed it initially as "an investment" should I decide to upgrade in future. I probably won't be doing so for a long time in reality!

I'm thinking about swapping it for either the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G or the 17-55mm f/2.8 (the latter probably second hand on p/x at MPB).

Has anyone owned both and if so, is it worth the extra for the 17-55 in terms of quality?

What would you go for and why?

Thanks for any advice anyone can provide!
 
I used to own a 17-55 about 5 years ago when I had a D70s body and the lens was built like a tank but is no doubt the best standard DX zoom if you want the best quality, but it is big & heavy. I seem to remember selling it for almost the same as the new purchase price which I was pleased about ;-)
 
I have a 16-85 which is a good lens and fairly sharp but can't compare it to a 17-55 as never owned one.
 
I had a 17-55, beautiful lens, no doubt about that, but heavy. A weekend walking around London convinced me it was a chore rather than a pleasure to use. I actually part ex'd it for a 16-85vr. I was very impressed with this lens and intend to get another soon.
Very small difference in image quality except for the bokeh. 17-55 wins here easily.

Take a look at a Tamron 17-50 ƒ2.8. ( Non VC is the better lens) Very similar to the Nikon but not quite as sharp at ƒ2.8. Much lighter and smaller though.

Allan
 
Last edited:
Allan is damn right about the weight. I have the nikon 28-70 f2.8 and i really don't want to carry that around walking. I think i will get the 16-85VR or the tamron 17-50 for walk around lens. Also if 18mm is wide enough for you, the 18-200 VR is worth looking as well.
 
I loved my 17-55, I never had any problems with the weight, I carried it around the lakes, snowdonia on multiple occasions, I carried it all around America and Serbia, and I even used to take it to work everyday. The weight is definitely exaggerated.

If I ever returned to DX as my main camera the 17-55 would be the first lens I'd buy. The 17-55 and 35mm are probably the only DX specific lenses I'd buy.
 
Have owed both,and their both great lens,but sold 16-85mm when i brought the 17-55mm,in a way perfer the constant apeture of the 17-55mm F2.8 :)
 
17-55?

Best DX lens Nikon have ever made.Just my opinion I haste to add. Still have mine after all these years, tried many a lens, but still have that one.
 
Thanks for the advice, everyone! Will need to wait and see how healthy the bonus is this year before deciding which to go for! Sadly I'm not a banker otherwise I'd be off out buying a couple of D4's etc! ;)
 
fracster said:
17-55?

Best DX lens Nikon have ever made.Just my opinion I haste to add. Still have mine after all these years, tried many a lens, but still have that one.
Click to expand...

What Ade said ... just to add that it has to be one of my quickest focusing lenses.

The Tamron is lighter, and nearly as sharp, but is slower to focus and is subject to the "getting a good one" statement, but it is a lot cheaper.

I have seen some lovely results from the 16-85 but it is not f2.8 constant, if that is not an issue it could be the option for you, nice range and VR which can be useful.
 
Nikon really nailed it with the 17-55...... a lot of people moan about the RRP and the fact it's massive (and heavier) when compared to mid-range consumer lenses like the 16-85 but it really is an outstanding optic and one that will probably be looked back on as a classic design in years to come when DX has gone the way of the boot....

As an everyday walkabout lens it is truly brilliant, especially if you're looking for outstanding sharpness.
 
Can the 17-55mm f2.8 be used on a full frame?

I'm thinking of getting one (2nd hand) for the D90 but also thinking ahead of upgrading to full frame in the future

Cheers
Trev
 
Scout n' About said:
Can the 17-55mm f2.8 be used on a full frame?

I'm thinking of getting one (2nd hand) for the D90 but also thinking ahead of upgrading to full frame in the future

Cheers
Trev
Click to expand...

Yes and no and yes ... it will mount, and it will work if the camera is set to DX mode (5mp images) or you can use it from around 23mm / 24mm up to 55mm in full frame mode without vignetting (it may have been a touch wider I cannot remember).
 
if you don't use a 18 that much then the 24-70 is good. I use the older version 28-70 and find it ok for most of the time but i do need the 18mm at the odd time. SO what i did was to buy a cheap wide angle and use that during the odd time instead.
 
I currently roll with 2 D90's

Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 marcro version
Sigma 10-20mm
Nikon 10.5 f2.8
Nikon 50mm f1.4
Nikon 60mm Micro f2.8
Nikon 70-300mm VR

Nikon SB900

Have 3 more lenses and another flash I'm selling as I want to upgrade my gear (for faster glass), just trying to think ahead as well :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top