Search results
4 cze 2010 · Na Twoim miejscu 70-300 uzupełniłbym 16-85, darując sobie 18-105. Chodzi właśnie o ten szeroki kąt, te dwa milimetry od dołu wbrew pozorom robi różnicę. A górny zakres i tak Ci pokrywa trzysetka.
According to my perception, the 16 85 is better at the wide end, the 18 105 is better at the long end. If you have no idea which end would you use more, most people use wide end much more like makes landscapes, family shots. The long end is used for portraits (head and shoulders, or from a distance), or telephoto.
3 sty 2012 · The only thing you get from a 18-105 is a distance scale in/on the lens but give up 85 -105 at twice the price. I doubt if there is much difference in weight. Both the 18-105 & 16-85 share the same 67mm filter size. Handy when you have a 70-300 VR lens so you can share filters between lens.
17 lis 2012 · Yes, the 16-85 is a bit sharper but the 18-105 VR is a very good lens. If you're on a budget, get the 18-105 VR, you can't go wrong.
2 paź 2011 · The 18-105 lens is very good, and certainly it is the better value. The 16-85 will offer advantages, but they come at a price. If those matter to you you will not be disappointed with the results.
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.
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;
