Search results
17 lis 2012 · I have both. The 18-105 is very good, but the 16-85 VR is better. In fact, the 16-85 is the best lens Nikon makes for the DX format.
3 sty 2012 · I've been contemplating both these lenses recently. For what it's worth, DXOMark puts the 18-105 sharper than the 16-85 at wider focal lengths, while they have the 16-85 sharper at longer focal lengths. Which is a little ironic, if you think about it.
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;
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.
15 paź 2008 · According to the review, the 18-105 is much better than the 18-135 at reducing chromatic aberration. Since the D300 automatically process that out, I don't have a basis for comparison there.
11 lis 2010 · Verdict. Specification. Costing only £230, this standard zoom from Nikon doesn't cost too much, but offers a useful 5.8x zoom range equivalent to 27-157.5mm on a 35mm camera. The lens also...
