If, following your logic, there is no such thing as better vallue for money, because the value depends on individual needs and preferences (with which I agree), then there is also no such thing as a better lens, for the same reason.
Not true, because one is subjective and the other is objective. "Better lens" is based on technical measurebators and no matter how we twist and turn something which is technically better is better, however "better value for the money" is not possible to measure because it is very subjective.
The other way round, if you insist that a lens can be better than another in absolute terms, then in comparison with its cost it also has a value for money which you can compare with another lens.
...but how can you think that anyone can decide on what value a certain picture quality has or what value a certain feature has for anyone else than ourselves? You can not value angle of view, CA, sharpness, distortion, weather sealing, build quality, distance scale or any other feature except looking from your own point of view. Nikon already set the price for that, if you are ready to pay for then you value those features, if not then you don’t, but only you know how much value those features have
TO YOU , you can not tell anyone else how they should value those. There is an economical value in less PP for those who get paid for their images, and there is an emotional value for those who have photography as hobby. The emotional value can be in less PP and nicer images, but also in the bragging rights, allowing one to brag about what a nice lens they have. Economical value is directly connected to your own wallet; emotional value can not be set equal to or compared with economical value. Nobody should tell you how you should look at your images and that you should not value this and that feature in your images or your gear, that's entirely up to you.
So, since you agree that most amateur photographers won't see a difference in image quality between the two lenses, for most of them the 18 -105 is better value for money unless they need 16mm or weather sealing.
The majority of people can not even afford those lenses, nor do they care. They buy a cheap camera to take pictures, that's all. The OP was clear that he was ready to pay more for a better lens. To deny that the 16-85 is better than the 18-105 is just pure childish nonsense and sure, with that logic, everyone should shoot with the 18-55 because even the 18-105 is expensive and is not worth the extra. The OP was clear that he values the higher quality, so why try to convince him that he is stupid? It’s his money, his images and his camera. All that he values are exactly worth as much as he values them. I expressed what I think and not told anyone
NOT to value the long end, the 20 mm extra between the 16-85 and the 18-105 and I told that
to me the 2 mm is worth more at the wide end than the 20 at the long end. That’s one of the reasons for why I actually bought the 16-85 and not the 18-105, but that’s my opinion and I am not telling everyone that the 2 mm is worth more than the 20, everyone has the right to make up their own minds about the value of that.
Only someone who doesn't value money would reject the concept of value for money ;-)
For crying out loud!
The concept of value for the money is personal. The fact that one has more money than somebody else has nothing to do with "doesn't value money". You seem to argue for the sake of argument concerning this stupid common sentence. With your logic we should all buy the cheapest car and noone should buy an expensive nice and comfortable one just because the cheap one is "better value for the money". Better still, we should all drive second hand cars since they are even "better value for the money"... If we don't do that then we don't value money so we don't deserve anything... sounds insane and illogical to me.
