16-85 vs. 18-105

Started Nov 17, 2012 | Discussions thread
SeanOnt Regular Member • Posts: 110
Re: 16-85 vs. 18-105

BobSC wrote:

Brian wrote:

. I wonder how much difference this amounts to in real world shooting of family pictures.

I doubt anyone responding so far really read this sentence. It won't make any difference at all.

For me, the 16-85 is more attractive than the 18-105 because I frequently shoot buildings and the 16 is wider, but it also has less barrel distortion. By the time you take the distortion out of the 18, it's really more like 20, and there is a huge difference between 16 and 20.

For family photos that won't make any difference at all, because the little barrel distortion in the 18 won't make any difference. If you look at Thom Hogan's sample photos of brick walls, the distortion is pretty obvious. How often do you take photos of walls? I actually do, so for me that kind of thing matters. For most people it really doesn't.

So for me, it's a more difficult call. Less distortion, but twice the cost. For me, this decision is made easier by the fact that I have an 8mm fisheye, and the distortion is really easy to correct. So I can always shoot a building with the fish and be done. If you don't routinely shoot architecture I'm not sure what the attraction of the 16-85 vs the 18-105 would be.

Great answer.. I own the 18-105 and it is great for family shots and every day use. I've always wanted the 16-85 but could not afford it when I got my camera. If you can easily afford the 16-85 then yes I would get it other wise get the 18-105..

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow