Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VS Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S
- Thread starter rocky89
- Start date
"Better" is normally answered here: Nikon / Nikkor (APS-C) Lens Tests
They are in difference classes, the 17-55 is more a Pro lens, f/2.8 and quite good.
The 16-85 is a consumer lens, only f/3.5 to f/5.6 (its main problem), less than half the price, and also quite good.
It is not f/2.8, but otherwise, it will not disappoint.
What is you're budget? The 17-55 is more than double that of the 16-85 and it's also a faster lens. What other lenses do you own and what body are you using? When I bought my first camera the D90. The lens decisions I was making was looking into the future. Will I ever go full frame? Well I did eventually. And I'm glad that all the lens decisions I've made will work perfectly on the full frame. It's kinda hard to ask the question you're asking because if it were me I would go for the 17-55 because of the fixed 2.8. But if you ask someone trying to save $ well then they will choose the 16-85.
Last edited by a moderator:
As the other gentlemen have said, you have a lot to consider and they are not really comparable. Having owned the 16-85 and researched the two I can tell you the 16-85 is probably a better landscape lens and the 17-55 is better for everything else (especially people/events). The 16-85 really gives the 17-55 a run for it's money in every area except speed and bokeh, with the obvious edge in range. They are about equal in resolution statistically and the 16-85 really has a solid build quality for a consumer grade lens, the 17-55 has a pro build. Check out this thread on the 16-85:
http://nikonites.com/telephoto/7374-nikon-16-85vr-thread.html#axzz2ZS8RlaBy
http://nikonites.com/telephoto/7374-nikon-16-85vr-thread.html#axzz2ZS8RlaBy
I own an older version 70-300mm lens, and my current camera is the Nikon D7000.
I noticed on my last trip, I need a lens for close range shots, which is less than 70mm.I recently bought a 16-85. I researched quite a few lenses before I decided on this one, I briefly thought about the 17-55, but because of the price, lack of VR, and less zoom range, I ruled it out pretty quickly.
I also considered offerings from Sigma and Tamron, I was very tempted by their lenses, the prices were right, VR was available, as was f2.8.
But in the end I went with the 16-85 Nikon, there were just too many good user reviews out there for this lens.
I am happy with my decision, for me the VR makes up for the smaller aperture, and the range covers my needs for a walkaround lens.
But your mileage may vary.
I also considered offerings from Sigma and Tamron, I was very tempted by their lenses, the prices were right, VR was available, as was f2.8.
But in the end I went with the 16-85 Nikon, there were just too many good user reviews out there for this lens.
I am happy with my decision, for me the VR makes up for the smaller aperture, and the range covers my needs for a walkaround lens.
But your mileage may vary.
I wish I had thought to mention the advantages of a f/2.8 pro lens. Probably few of us are ever interested in actually shooting at f/2.8. However (seen in the lens test link before), lenses typically suffer substantial vignetting (dark corners) at widest apertures - maybe as much as a full stop of light falloff in the corners at widest apeture. Also typically more distortion, and also less sharpness out to the edges of the frame (at widest apertures). Wide apertures simply use a wider extent of the glass diameter, harder (and more expensive) to correct away from center.
So what f/2.8 really buys us is the ability (like when using bounce flash) to shoot at f/4 or f/5.6 (for the available flash power), but still be stopped down one or two stops, instead of wide open if the lens only goes to f/4 or f/5.6. IMO, this is the usual advantage of a f/2.8 lens. And it is not insignificant, but it does cost dollars.
Outdoors in bright sun (at f/8 or f/11) there would be much less difference, however more dollars can still buy a slight amount of greater sharpness.
So what f/2.8 really buys us is the ability (like when using bounce flash) to shoot at f/4 or f/5.6 (for the available flash power), but still be stopped down one or two stops, instead of wide open if the lens only goes to f/4 or f/5.6. IMO, this is the usual advantage of a f/2.8 lens. And it is not insignificant, but it does cost dollars.
Outdoors in bright sun (at f/8 or f/11) there would be much less difference, however more dollars can still buy a slight amount of greater sharpness.
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
Can't comment on the 16-85, but I bought the 17-55 last year for my D7K and it's an awesome lens. Constant aperture beats variable aperture in a "which one is the best?" contest any day of the week. But depending on how serious you are, what you shoot and what your budget is, will determine what you should buy. Any time I was concerned with coverage, I used the 18-200. When I am concerned with best possible quality, it's 2.8 glass.
In May, I added a D600 to my kit, along with a 24-70, eliminating the need for my 17-55. If you decide to go with the 17-55 and would consider a mint, used lens, mine is available for $900.
In May, I added a D600 to my kit, along with a 24-70, eliminating the need for my 17-55. If you decide to go with the 17-55 and would consider a mint, used lens, mine is available for $900.
I only own 1 regular 70-300mm lens. Thus, why I want to upgrade.
Not to make this more difficult, but..., take a look at this one and the review:
Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (Nikon) - Review / Test Report
Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (Nikon) - Review / Test Report
Another member is considering the Tamron and it seems to rate right up there with both Nikons. This version also seems to beat out their newer VC version. Check them all out on Photozone.de I really like the analysis page and final verdicts have been accurate to my experiences.
17-55 is the best DX zoom.
No tamron 17-50 or Nikon 16-85 compares with it. The tamron is very slow focusing even hunting in low light, but the quality of images is good (the no VC version). 16-85 is somewhat faster focussing but lacks the f 2.8 aperture that is important to some people. But then it has VR so in case you film a lot, that comes very handy.
Now-days with the level of high ISO performance of the 7000 and 7100 there is no need to go FX as it was in the past, to have good images at high ISO. If budget is no problem I would definitely go for the 17-55, I might very well consider a second hand one. But then you can get stunning images with the other 2 as well. So whatever you choose is good.
Hope it helps.
No tamron 17-50 or Nikon 16-85 compares with it. The tamron is very slow focusing even hunting in low light, but the quality of images is good (the no VC version). 16-85 is somewhat faster focussing but lacks the f 2.8 aperture that is important to some people. But then it has VR so in case you film a lot, that comes very handy.
Now-days with the level of high ISO performance of the 7000 and 7100 there is no need to go FX as it was in the past, to have good images at high ISO. If budget is no problem I would definitely go for the 17-55, I might very well consider a second hand one. But then you can get stunning images with the other 2 as well. So whatever you choose is good.
Hope it helps.
Last edited:
Dennis Kussener
Senior Member
Well I own a 17-55mm, It's build like a tank. It's a real pro lens the 2.8 is gorguis. But it's an old lens. don't get me wrong, I love it. But it lack's a little sharpness sometimes at 2.8 on my D7100. I've tested it on a D7000 of a friend of mine and the shots where actually sharper.
Actually the MUCH cheaper sigma 17-50mm f2.8 has better sharpness than the nikon 17-55mm. But its a plastic lens...
If you're happy with your varaible aperture 70-300, I guess the 18-85mm would do just fine.
At F8 the 16-85 scharpness won't be that much diferent as the 17-55 I guess
Actually the MUCH cheaper sigma 17-50mm f2.8 has better sharpness than the nikon 17-55mm. But its a plastic lens...
If you're happy with your varaible aperture 70-300, I guess the 18-85mm would do just fine.
At F8 the 16-85 scharpness won't be that much diferent as the 17-55 I guess
I have both the Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS and the Nikon 16-85mm VR.
I bought the Sigma 17-50/2.8 new and then bought a new in box D7100 and 16-85mm VR for a good discount so now I have both.
Not sure if I'm going to keep the 16-85mm yet but I can how it would be useful to have both. For outdoors/landscapes it is a bit lighter for hiking with and has a bit more useful range.
I bought the Sigma 17-50/2.8 new and then bought a new in box D7100 and 16-85mm VR for a good discount so now I have both.
Not sure if I'm going to keep the 16-85mm yet but I can how it would be useful to have both. For outdoors/landscapes it is a bit lighter for hiking with and has a bit more useful range.
Mycenius
Senior Member
I have noticed this too (softness in some shots). I picked up my 17-55 second hand (as new) the day I got my new D7100, and I didn't get the chance to try it on my D90 as I had already on sold that a few days before. Fantastic lens - it's my day to day carry-around - and I took 95% of my shots on my month long USA trip recently with it. But it does sometimes give soft or 'unsharp' images for some reason, when other times it's super sharp... I suspect it's the higher resolution sensor (24MP) on the D7100 highlighting some very minor inconsistencies that show up in certain rare occasions?
On the sharpness side I took this image playing around the very first day I got the lens (this is a crop of about 20% of the original)
Camera: D7100
Lens and Filters: Nikkor AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED (No Filter)
Film and/or ISO: ISO 100
Aperture: f/2.8 @ 55mm
Shutter speed: 1/1000