16-85VR vs 18-105VR Chart comparison - Am I wrong?

On the linked chart comparison at digital picture, it appears at focal lengths from 24 mm, 500 mm and 70mm the 18-105 appears to cpmpare very favourably and marginally best the 16-85, using f8 as an example for 'best' aperature.

Am I wrong? If not, then is the price difference between the two for the slightly wider lens and build quality? Or probably the colors, contrast etc are further considerations that makle the 16-85 a better 'quality' choice?

Will the differences in resolution, given the size of the charts, not be apparent on say, 8x10 or 11x 14? Probably not, correct?

--
.....Just from an amateur......

Oops link

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=660&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=665&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1
--
.....Just from an amateur......

The 16 to 85 is a great focal range, but not a great lens. The 18-105, 18-70 are better and the combination 18-55, 55-200mm is a better value with equivalent IQ.
--
Canon A2E, Sony R1, Panny TZ5, & Nikon D5000.

These have been compared probably more than any other two lenses I can think of and you'll get responses all over the map including those that say the 18-105 is better (it's not). You are on the right track when you talk about the total package including build quality, range, contrast, focus speed, etc. The 16-85 is definitely the better lens but whether it's worth the difference in price is a more difficult question.

I suggest you use the search function here. The many advantages of the 16-85 have been discussed in many threads. These two are probably the most discussed lenses on the forum.

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

I own both lens and use the 16-85 almost every time for better color and contrast. My 18-105 is sharper in the center than my 16-85 but only there. I just used my 18-105 on my D300s this morning and it looks washed out compared to the 16-85. It normally lives on my D90. For the price the 18-105 is excellent but I would choose the 16-85 personally.

James

Thanks fo all your suggestions and replies I think I am getting a feel for the difference but will also do as you suggest and search and read.

Thanks!
--
.....Just from an amateur......

I own the 18-105mm and have been borrowing a 16-85mm for several weeks. The focal range of the 16-85mm is wonderful and for what I personally would look for in a core lens the range is ideal. But as much as I wanted to like the 16-85mm thus far I am frankly underwhelmed by it. I actually really would like to "love" this lens, but I just can't.

My 18-105mm overall delivers a better image. By better, I simply means it looks better when I look at the "whole" image at normal viewing distances. I am currently using a D80 and shoot only RAW.

The 16-85mm colors seem a bit flat compared to the 18-105mm and the the images. The images from the 16-85mm tend to be consistently "darker" than those from the 18-105mm and appearing almost slightly underexposed. Strangely, even at low ISOs the images form the 16-85mm appear to have more visible noise than those from the 18-105mm. Operationally I find the lens focuses more slowly than the 18-105mm and I don't feel the VR is as effective as it is in the 18-105mm.

That all said, these difference are actually minor and it could be that I simply have not used the lens enough. Since this is not my lens, it is also possible that it is not the best copy. Or, it is possible it is a better match for the newer cameras. In any event, for nearly double the price of the 18-105mm I really was expecting more and would have expected the 16-85mm images to be noticeably better than those from the 18-105mm. They aren't, at least not for me.

Schaf

scaf

Your observations are interesting. I find the 16-85 does register a fair bit darker on my D90 than the 18-105 so usually that camera has the 18-105 which seems to suit it well. On my D300s I do not see the same thing, the 16-85 looks excellent and the 18-105 a little washed out. It almost looks like the D300s meters the 16-85 better than the D90 does. Just my own observations

James

I haven't been around long enough here to have read all the discussions on these. As an 18-105 owner, on a D60, I can say the most obvious downside is its distortion.

18mm shows clear barrel distortion, and 105 is kinda wacky. I've learned to correct the wide with PTlens when it's bad. And I've learned not to zoom too far. So I'm probably using it to 85. More advanced bodies will correct for these in-camera from what I understand, and am looking forward to that day.

It's dang sharp though, and I've never noticed color or exposure issues. The 16-85 tempts me. Would very much like wider angle. Less distortion. Better VR. If you can swing the budget, I'd probably recommend the 16-85. If not, there's no shame in the 18-105.

The price of the 16-85 puts me off too. I'd like to go down to 16, but I wouldn't fork up an extra 300 bucks for it.

Do people have a hard time with distortion in the 18-108? I use Gimp so the distortion correction is pretty easy, I don't know how hard it is in PS.

--
Steve

It takes more than optical superiority to make a good lens- built quality count a lots, anyone can screw a lens together off an assembly line but better materials, advanced features, solid feel a 18-105 is not - I know I have both. If Nikon put metal mount, active VR, M/A switch, distance window, better sealing on the 18-105 it would cost the same as the 16-85. One advantage of the 18-105 over the 16-85 is that the former is a kit lens so Nikon sell ton of it where as the 16-85 is ...an optional extra so to speak therefore Nikon aim a bit higher and sell for a bit more money and so in terms of the economic of scale the 18-105 beats the 16-85 hand down.

16-85, owned it, sold it. Great build, feels real good on a D300. As someone mentioned above though, I was just a little underwhelmed with the lens. I'm not a sharpness freak, so when I say mine seemed a little soft, it probably was. My biggest thing was the range though, and this is just a personal thing. For a walk a bout, it just wasn't quite long enough for me.

The 18-105 will probably be my next lens purchase based on comments. If it performs, then it's really a better value for the money for me, than the 16-85.

Now, some people value the extra 2mm wide. But if I'm going wide..... I use my Tokina 11-16.

Best,

Don

Interesting James. Since I have an "old" camera I have not been able to compare the 16-85mm and 18-105mm on a new body. I think my dad has D200s or something like that. I should them both on his and see how they compare.

Who knows, maybe the next rev of the 16-85mm (whenever that might be) will be slightly better. I guess if I wanted this lens I would shop around for a good condition used one. I would not pay full price for. It just is not good enough to justify the full price IMHO. Not that it is horrible. It certainly is not. I just don't feel it delivers the value it should.

Schaf

If you're saying that you think your copy of the 16-85 was faulty then maybe you will be happy with the 18-105. Otherwise I think you set yourself up for disappointment if you're underwhelmed by the 16-85 and think the 18-105 will be better. I can buy the argument that the 16-85 isn't worth the extra cost but to somehow think the image quality of the 18-105 will be superior in any measurable way is just wishful thinking.

A reasonably close call, but the 16-85 is sharper and has better contrast:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=660&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=665&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1

At 35mm, it tests at least as well as the 35mm 1.8, although obviously slower.

Have shot extensively with both lenses with a D7000. Both are good lenses but the 18-105 offers much more bang for the buck. IQ is similar. The 18-105 may be a bit sharper. I kept the 18-105; returned the 16-85. The 16-85 is the only lens that I have ever returned. It simply did not do enough to justify its price. It was also a relatively slow lens which made it good for outside photos but not so good for taking photos indoors with average to below average lighting. However, as others have properly noted, the 16-85 possessed better build quality than the 18-105, especially with the metal mount.

As i've owned two 16-85's, an 18-105 and an 18-70 and my mate has an 18-55 and 55-200.

The 16-85 is easily the best from 16-50, where the 18-105 (and 55-200) start to catch up and take over.

The 16-85 for me is about the wide end and has better build, CA, distortion and VR to boot. Its a pretty decent 85 as well.

I do feel it is a little overpriced but I've bought my ones used and got good deals.

The differences are more noticeable on my D7000 than D300.

The 18-70 was a good lens about 4-5 years ago.
--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz

Jerry R said:

The 16 to 85 is a great focal range, but not a great lens. The 18-105, 18-70 are better and the combination 18-55, 55-200mm is a better value with equivalent IQ.

Click to expand...

Simply not true. I have owed the 18~70 and 16~85 and still own the 18~55 and 55~200. The 16~85 is ahead of them all on build quality and IQ, plus I like the fact it goes to 16mm.

I own the 18~55 and 55~200 because my kids use them and they found the 16~85 was a bit heavy. If it was for me though I'd still own the 16~85 and only consider the Sigma 17~70 OS as an alternative.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

How fast is the 16-85 focus, good enough for fast sports in good light and how compares to 18-105?

Thanks
--
.....Just from an amateur......