Search results
17 lis 2012 · The real actual visable difference is that the 16-85 is wider and that last 2 mm is significant for some people (me for instance), just as the extra reach is of the 18-105 is for others. This summarizes one of the claims why 18-105mm wins in Cost-to-Image-Quality ratio over the 16-85mm, and why the 16-85mm wins with its wider end over the 18 ...
3 sty 2012 · I had the 18 - 105 and then bought the 16-85 because of all the favorable reviews. Other than build quality, the 16-85 did nothing more, and was no better, than the 18-105. The fact is the 18-105 kit lens is a good zoom lens on dx cameras.
29 gru 2008 · I had a chance to compare 18-105 with 16-85 and found that 16-85 was MUCH superior to 18-105 in all aspects: sharpness, contrast and colors. 18-200 is also better 18-105 as I recall. 16-85 is the best consumer lens for now, I believe.
Simply stated, my 18-105 is exceptionally sharp at all focal lengths and apertures; even more than my 16-85. The 16-85 is built better, has a metal mounting ring, and is slightly faster focussing. I realize that these lenses have some sample to sample variation but my questions are as follows;
The 16 85 is a little wider, the 18 105 is a little longer. If I think myself I prefer the extra 2mm at the wide end, because according to my needs it is much more useful. It would be even better to be wider, like 10-15mm. The 20mm at the long end doesn’t give so much difference in real terms.
9 maj 2013 · In my opinion, the 16-85/18-105 is about as sharp as it is going to get with a f/3.5-5.6 crop frame lens. As for better overall IQ the FF 24-70 f/2.8 is about as good as it will possibly get with a zoom but, it has a rather limited range and hefty price tag.
I think it more or less comes down to versatility and build quality, which the 16-85mm lens wins in. Even though the 16-85mm has a shorter max focal length, it makes up for that with a wider wide-angle, which in my opinion makes a much larger difference than having a bit extra for telephoto.
