it sure is a great lens for me, very sharp and love the constant aperture. . .it's a hunk of glass for sure, but currently the fastest nikkor DX only lenses with the largest zoom factor. . .I'm not sure when they'll introduce a new one, and if they do, whether it'll have VR, but for now, it's been a great asset for my day to day shooting. . .

Just to clarify what Heartyfisher said, VR will get you 3-4 stops (no more than three in my experience). This means that if you shoot at 1/60th of a second without motion blur, you may be able to shoot at 1/8 using VR. That's all well and good for stopping camera shake, but it won't also stop your subject from moving. Now a church won't move very much in 1/8th of a second (unless your on the San Andreas fault on the wrong day)

People and animals are much less sedentary. For that, you will still need to shoot at large apertures in order to bring your shutter speed up to a level where there is no apparent motion.

As for the two lenses, I'd probably go for the 17-55. Assuming you already have the 18-55, I don't see much point in the 16-85 unless you really need the extra range (in which case you can get more range for cheaper by getting the 55-200. EDIT: Or the slightly more expensive 18-200

I'm a huge fan of constant aperture lenses. I hate it when my aperture changes while I zoom (I usually shoot close to wide open). The only gotcha with the 17-55 is that you will be investing a lot of money into a DX lens. Only you can say whether or not that makes sense for you. DX isn't going anywhere anytime soon, but for me at least, I don't think I'll be buying another one.

if you have a lens on your camera for travel and you need to take a low light image say in a church, you would probably be using the wide end. At the wide end F3.5 is only half a stop slower than the F2.8. However you gain 3-4 stops using VR so for most practical uses the 16-85 is probably better as a general lens. However, there will be times when you want faster glass and VR wont help. ( stage and events eg, disney land? disney on ice? kids singing or performing on stage. Indoor basketball/volleyball) Thats when a 50 f1.4 or 70-200 F2.8 VR will be the best option. So depend on what you use the lens for.

Love the 16-85. The size, weight, zoom range (24-127.5 = impressive) and great sharpness makes this the lens that is usually on my D90. I tend to shoot with aperture priority and shoot at f8 for depth of field, so the faster lenses don't impress me much. If I need to work in natural light, I use the 35/1.8, although I've take shots of city lights hand-held and the VR (and good technique, he said modestly) gave me remarkable results.

Based on all of the comments regarding the 17-55mm vs. the 24-70mm lens, what are everyones thoughts with regards to the 17-55mm vs. the 16-85mm VR lens?

Is it worth the extra money for the F/2.8 fixed apperture of the 17-55mm over the 16-85mm VR lens?