Which one Nikon 17-55 f2.8 or 16-85mm

[kardo]

Hi all,
Am about to purchase my first DSLR I have decided to get a D300 and one of the following lenses
1- 17-55 f2.8 or
2- 16-85mm VR
to start with.
I mainly shoot street and outdoor portrait photography
could you please offer me some advice on the quality of both and do you think #1 is worth the extra £500 or shall I spend it on a grip and some other primes like an 85mm or 50mm. If you recommend any other lenses to start with, good IQ and speed, am all ears.
Please help
Thank you

 

[Wildlight]

I don't know much about Nikon lenses but have heard good things about the 16-85mm VR. You'll be losing two stops of light with it compared to the 17-55mm f/2.8 but it has a better focal range which will be very important when doing street/outdoor portrait photography.
It's pretty sharp and has great build quality plus it's cheaper than the 17-55mm f/2.8.

Joe

 

[boyfalldown]

if you have the cash, I'd go for the 17-55. Its streets ahead of the 16-85 and you will notice the difference.

Its worth looking for a second hand one. As a DX lens it doesn't seem to hold its value against new as well as some other 2.8 zooms

Hugh

 

[DonnaM]

I have the 16-85mm. I am quite impressed with it, the VR helps a lot and it is reasonably small and light. I have no experience of the 17-55 f/2.8 so I cannot comment on that but how do you go about your street photography? Handheld incognito or tripod? The 17-55 is bigger, heavier and more conspicuous but may win out on the low light stakes, the 16-85 would be far better for the candid approach.

 

[alexkidd]

and is the 16-85 that much of a step up from the 18-70 kit lens which has a comparable focal length but no vr and can be wickedly sharp yet may be a lot cheaper?

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

I've had the 16-85mm and unless your pixel peeping you will be hard pressed to tell the differance with IQ, but the 17-55mm has the advantage of constant f2.8...... or what about a 70-200mm f2.8

 

[boyfalldown]

it would *probably* win out in the image quality stakes as well, and the constant 2.8 would help no end for a portrait lens

Hugh

 

[puddleduck]

and is the 16-85 that much of a step up from the 18-70 kit lens which has a comparable focal length but no vr and can be wickedly sharp yet may be a lot cheaper?

No, its not. Actually at 70mm wide open, I found the 18-80 DX a bit sharper (center / corners)

16-85 VR is superb wide, 16mm is already excellent, even wide open.

 

[kardo]

Cheers everyone for the comments.
I like taking candid shots also I dont use a tripod so the 16-85mm might be better as it's lighter, but at a f5.6 can you achieve a nice bokeh or is that too much to ask for, for example at 85mm f5.6 how much space do I need between the subject and the backgroundto get a nice blurred background?

Thanks guys