17-55 or 16-85 or FX?

Started Nov 3, 2008 | Discussions thread
Intrepid24 Contributing Member • Posts: 536
I prefer the 16-85mm VR

When I shoot at the wide end, I strive to maximize depth of field.
The 16-85mm VR replaced my 17-55mm f/2.8. Yes, I compared them.

The lack of field curvature distortion at the wide end, and extensive DOF at small apertures with the 16-85 VR, suit MY shooting preferences at the shorter focal lengths.

The 16-85 is Nikon's only lens at the 16 and 17mm focal lengths to feature VR capability, and the VR assist makes this one terrific indoor lens in museums, churches, and the like.

Aside from its truly excellent landscape capability, my aching back thanks the light weight [but still very good build quality] of the 16-85mm VR.
I'm pleased; it delivers very fine images.

The 70-200mm F/2.8 is my go-to lens for longer focal lengths and minimal DOF.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
hmz
D5
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow