Astrophotographer 10
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 13,956
- Solutions
- 11
- Reaction score
- 6,160
On an A6000?
Also I take it the 18-105 is larger and heavier.
Greg.
Also I take it the 18-105 is larger and heavier.
Greg.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What's better the 16-70 F4 or the 18-105 F4?
- Thread starter Astrophotographer 10
- Start date
This question has been asked and answered many times. You should use the search and you'll find many threads with the same topic. There's been reviews and comparisons of the two lenses and they've been discussed at length, way too much info that I could repeat in this short reply.
Search is your friend.
Search is your friend.
rsplatpc
Forum Enthusiast
tarunlohumi
Leading Member
I can vouch for the 16-70 which is a fantastic lens, but I don't own a 18-105 hence cannot really give you a comparison.
Astrophotographer 10
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 13,956
- Solutions
- 11
- Reaction score
- 6,160
Thanks for the replies and the link.
It seems the 16-70 is preferred but the 18-105 does fine in some ranges.
Greg.
It seems the 16-70 is preferred but the 18-105 does fine in some ranges.
Greg.
Dutchpepper
Senior Member
I wouldn't say its preferred the 18-105 users just haven't showed up get ;-)
There really isn't much different's in IQ ones a little wider and the other a little longer
The price was a big factor for me, for the price of the 16-70 you can get the 18-105G plus a really nice prime!
I'm more than happy with it and have got some wonderful shots I like the feel of the 18-105G on the a6000 and it is my go to lens
Craig
Craig, your shots on flickr are a testament to the quality of this lens AND your photographic skill ... I am envious of both!
Dutchpepper
Senior Member
Thank you JohnNex, you are very kind, I just keep trying to get better
Craig
SideshowSurfer
Active member
- Messages
- 90
- Reaction score
- 42
Looking at your flickr, I'd say your go to lens is the 32mm f/1.8! But yes, your pics are beautiful and inspirational, and the post processing is exquisite and tasteful (and I'm guessing, time consuming?!). I'm curious what you use for post processing?Thank you JohnNex, you are very kind, I just keep trying to get better
Craig
http://www.flickr.com/photos/loubella/
Arizona Sunset
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,797
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 1,667
I've owned both.
I think the 18-105 is the most underrated lens in the APS-C catalog. Folks here bash for software correction but it is a workhorse, lightweight, well built, sharp, dead silent, internal zoom, wonderful zoom range in APS-C mode, and highly effective OSS, and works as a great video lens to boot. I've kept it waiting for an A6### as a B-can to the S II.
The 16-70 got sold when I couldn't tell the difference between it and the kit lens one stop in. It's about the size of a baseball so nicely sized. But. Nobody but you will know you used it over anything else if you aren't shooting at f4. If it were f2.8 I'd have a different opinion perhaps but to me it's a yawner without an f4 zoom to compliment it.
with your money. Do extensive research to avoid spending on rumor and specs rather than on actual in-use results.
You will find it very hard to find a established review that says anything other than that the 16-70 is less than it should be. You will also find a lot of official reviews stating the 18-105 is better than it's price would indicate.
I've had both. Will never buy a 16-70 again. It's the only lens I have ever owned (I've owned A LOT of lenses) that at a specific focal length is consistently blurry to the point of being useless. All this is confirmed in every major review.
My tip: walk into a shop and try them both. The size difference is not very great, another point that speaks in favor of the 18-105 (which has great close focus at 70-80mm too!)
You will find it very hard to find a established review that says anything other than that the 16-70 is less than it should be. You will also find a lot of official reviews stating the 18-105 is better than it's price would indicate.
I've had both. Will never buy a 16-70 again. It's the only lens I have ever owned (I've owned A LOT of lenses) that at a specific focal length is consistently blurry to the point of being useless. All this is confirmed in every major review.
Loading…
www.dxomark.com
My tip: walk into a shop and try them both. The size difference is not very great, another point that speaks in favor of the 18-105 (which has great close focus at 70-80mm too!)
Last edited:
Dutchpepper
Senior Member
Thanks mate, appreciate it, 32mm f1.8 will be my go to I think, just got it, early Christmas presentLooking at your flickr, I'd say your go to lens is the 32mm f/1.8! But yes, your pics are beautiful and inspirational, and the post processing is exquisite and tasteful (and I'm guessing, time consuming?!). I'm curious what you use for post processing?Thank you JohnNex, you are very kind, I just keep trying to get better
Craig
http://www.flickr.com/photos/loubella/
but the 18-105G has been my walk around lens and I enjoy it very much.As far as post processing goes I only spend about 5-10min no more.
I had been shooting only jpeg up until the last few months, moved from PS Elements to LR.
I start off with the camera set to "vivid" just like the colour "punch"
In Elements and LR/PS I like to use a combo of Topaz and Nik plugins. Topaz Detail, Topaz Clarity and Nik Color Efex are the ones I like the most
Craig
http://www.flickr.com/photos/loubella/
Last edited:
I rented the 18-105 for a few weeks for travel. Optically it's a great lens, but I wasn't a fan of its motorized zoom. I prefer a manual zoom. I found the power zoom on the 18-105 to be a bit laggy and slow. I don't have a problem with the powerzoom on the 16-50 kit lens, but I think because the 18-105 is a larger zoom with a larger zoom range the powerzoom makes it feel slower and more sluggish. Also, the 18-105 resets to the 18mm focal length every time it powers down or goes to sleep, which I find rather annoying since I turn the camera on and off quite a lot to conserve battery power. I really like the 18-105 from an optical standpoint, but I just wish Sony would make a non-motorized manual-zoom version.
Greg, take a look at my reviews and comparison on my blog regarding the 18105 and 1670 if you want to get more info.
My quick summary is: The 1670 has less distortion, somewhat smaller and lighter but still no contest to the 1650 regarding portability. The IQ at the sides is poor, at 24 mm all over the frame is the low point for this lens and the probability to get a decentered dud is not neglectable.
The 18105 is large but surprisinlgy light (I am 190 cm size
)the zoom operation feels IMHO better than the mechanical one of the 1670 which has a point inbetween of large resistance. The distortion should be corrected in raw for best results, the lens excels the 1670 from 35 mm upwards, especially with over the frame IQ. More important to me is the low DOF capability of this lens with f4 at 105 mm roughly equalling 50 mm f2. I found the 1670 to deliver uninteresting shots in that regard. Furthermorem the 18105 is an internal zoom so no dust sucking.
Arizona Sunset
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,797
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 1,667
dr jim
Veteran Member
+1
Arizona Sunset
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,797
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 1,667
Donny out of Element here
Leading Member
- Messages
- 996
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 578
I've taken thousands of images with 16-70 and never ever I found it to be blurry to the point of being useless.
Size difference is probably THE major difference noticeable right away at first glance. It is later when one realizes pluses and cons of each lens.
IMHO you are clearly biased. For some reason several 18-105 owners are very aggressive when it comes to 16-70 comparisons. This is so clear that anyone can see it.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum