Reading mode: Light Dark

16-85 vs 17-55 vs 50 1.4

Go to last post
etto72

etto72

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
410
Reaction score
82
Location
NY, US
I got the 16-85 two days ago and what i can say is that the lens is just outstanding!!

Surely not for action and not for isolating effect,but i can definitely say that this lens is worth all the money

Please look at those samples and tell me what you think

http://idisk.mac.com/ettorecausa-Public

The pictures were taken using a D300 attached to one strobe
The 3 lens were tested at 5.6 and 8
No tripod and VR was off

This test is not done completely as it should be,but it shows off quiet well what this lens can offer in terms of IQ when compared to the 17-55 2.8 and the 50 1.4

Thanks
Ettore
 
I downloaded them all and to my eyes they all look similar.

I'm assuming that pic 2 is the 16-85 @ f/8 and pic 4 is the 17-55 @ f/8. I actually like pic 2 a little bit better.

Distortion doesn't seem to be a problem with any of them. It would be fun to see the
16-85 vs the 17-55 @ 17mm to see if there is much distortion difference.

It seems that since the 70-300VR came out that fast pro lenses give wider apertures but at similar apertures the pro and consumer glass isn't a lot different.

Great post, keep them coming!
--
d80russ
 
Thanks for your post. Looks like the 16-85 has a fair amount of pincushion distortion at 50mm or your bookcase has warped. However, it does look sharp, and I'm still thinking about picking one up for walkaround and wideangle. PT Lens should be able to correct the distortions. I guess I've been spoiled by my 35 f2 and 60 micro with their very low distortion.

Regards, Ed
etto72 said:
17-55 f5.6
17-55 f8
50 f5.6
50 f8
16-85 f5.6
16-85 f8
Click to expand...
 
etto72 said:
I just posted other samples:

http://idisk.mac.com/ettorecausa-Public

vs 17-55 at 16m-24m-35m-50m f8
vs 60m 2.8 f8
vs 85m 1.8 f8

The 16-85 is just fantastic!!!!!

Enjoy
Click to expand...
For your test: 16-85 vs 17-55 at 16mm 24mm 35mm 50mm (Aperture at F8),

it seems that the 2 lenses are of equal sharpness at 16mm, 24mm and 35mm. However, at 50mm, the 16-85 perform a little bit better (sharper).
 
etto72 said:
I got the 16-85 two days ago and what i can say is that the lens is
just outstanding!!
Click to expand...
etto72 said:
The pictures were taken using a D300 attached to one strobe
The 3 lens were tested at 5.6 and 8
No tripod and VR was off
Click to expand...
so you are telling us, that the stopped down lens + hand held comparison are all rather similar. But hat does not tell us anything about the lenses, just your ability how good you can hold the camera.

I guess, a detail tripod test would reveal some minor differences. The performance of my 17-55DX usually takes little jumps when put on a tripod. It degrades again hand held.

I guess the message is: itf you are a mainly a 5.6 or f8 handhelded shooter, you can forget the 17-55DX. If you are like me and want to use a standard zoom at f2.8, I would have a problem with the 16-85mm
 
The photos taken with the Flash strobe would surely show the same result even if they were made with a tropod!!

All the picture are sharp,so what you say doesn't make a point!
FrithjofA said:
etto72 said:
I got the 16-85 two days ago and what i can say is that the lens is
just outstanding!!
Click to expand...
FrithjofA said:
The pictures were taken using a D300 attached to one strobe
The 3 lens were tested at 5.6 and 8
No tripod and VR was off
Click to expand...
so you are telling us, that the stopped down lens + hand held
comparison are all rather similar. But hat does not tell us anything
about the lenses, just your ability how good you can hold the camera.

I guess, a detail tripod test would reveal some minor differences.
The performance of my 17-55DX usually takes little jumps when put on
a tripod. It degrades again hand held.

I guess the message is: itf you are a mainly a 5.6 or f8 handhelded
shooter, you can forget the 17-55DX. If you are like me and want to
use a standard zoom at f2.8, I would have a problem with the 16-85mm
Click to expand...
 
Etto,

Thanks for going to all of the trouble with these tests.

They helped me a lot and I appreciate it!
--
d80russ
 
Thanks Etto.

You've made me feel even better because I just recently sold 17-55 (tired from it) and ordered 16-85. I hope I'll get good one.

When I have it I'll run tests again my 50/1.4 and 85/1.4
 
How's the low light shots with it? 5.6 is pretty slow when talking about low light. Boosting the ISO compensates? I too am on the brink of purchasing either the 17-55 or the 16-85. I keep teetering between the two.

I will be getting a 50 1.8 or 1.4 along with it for the D300.

Thanks for the shots.
 
SLCanada said:
How's the low light shots with it? 5.6 is pretty slow when talking
about low light. Boosting the ISO compensates? I too am on the
brink of purchasing either the 17-55 or the 16-85. I keep teetering
between the two.

I will be getting a 50 1.8 or 1.4 along with it for the D300.

Thanks for the shots.
Click to expand...
The VR of the 16-85 works very well and that makes this lens ideal for low light situation with the advantage that you can have decent field of view(ideal for group portrait)

Once more if you need to freeze actions the 5.6 is really slow,than the 17-55 is clearly a better choice

To isolate subject even the 17-55 at 2.8 is not ideal,i would rather take a prime like 85m or 50m

To tell you the true if i would be you, i would go for the 16-85,and with the money you safe i would get a prime like the 50 1.4 or 1.8(that is not very expansive)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top