16-105 or new 18-135

Started Aug 5, 2012 | Discussions
matts1809 Regular Member • Posts: 476
16-105 or new 18-135

I am interested in IQ only but considering the new 135 zoom new cost the sam as a second hand 16-105 I am wondering which one has the better IQ for stills.

Any thought or links will be apreciated.

Stflbn Veteran Member • Posts: 3,116
Re: 16-105 or new 18-135

Plz show me a new Sony 18-135 for same average low price as old Minolta 16-105?

 Stflbn's gear list:Stflbn's gear list
Sony RX100 V Sony RX10 IV Phase One Capture One Pro Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5
Kzoozoomer Senior Member • Posts: 1,493
Re: 16-105 or new 18-135
2

Show me a Minolta 16-105.

 Kzoozoomer's gear list:Kzoozoomer's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 +1 more
sye46 Senior Member • Posts: 1,071
Re: 16-105 or new 18-135

Kzoozoomer wrote:

Show me a Minolta 16-105

Lol!

tqlla Veteran Member • Posts: 3,883
Re: 16-105 or new 18-135

Reviewer Kurt Munger was not impressed. His review stated that the 18-135 was similar to the 18-250 in performance.

But you do get the SAM motor, which is quieter for video.

 tqlla's gear list:tqlla's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Sony Alpha a99 Sony a99 II Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +9 more
OP matts1809 Regular Member • Posts: 476
Re: 16-105 or new 18-135

tqlla wrote:

Reviewer Kurt Munger was not impressed. His review stated that the 18-135 was similar to the 18-250 in performance.

But you do get the SAM motor, which is quieter for video.

Thanks this is the type of info I am after. I started this post in a hurry. I have noticed the SONY 16-105 sell second hand for around $450AU & the new SONY 18-135 sells for around $550 with warranty.

I have the secret hand shack if I want to cover a longer range but to get a wider shot I only have the 18-55 SONY kit lens which is a versatile lens but when I compare the IQ to one of my minolta's it is flat and fuzzy & I find myself wanting a little more zoom.

Enjoy

Trollmann Senior Member • Posts: 1,311
Re: 16-105 or new 18-135

The 16-105 is not the best lens in the world, but it is not bad either. As a compact travel zoom it fullfills my needs (lazy, do not want to lug a lot of stuff around). The 18-135 should be in the same league optically.

What may be more important: is the 16 mm wide end something to consider (to me the wide end is more important than the tele end), or is the 135 mm reach more important? To me the 16-105 is a perfect match, others would prefer the 18-135.

Here is a picture taken with the 16-105 at the Weser delta in northern Germany. Low contrast light (it did rain a few minutes later).

OP matts1809 Regular Member • Posts: 476
Re: 16-105 or new 18-135

Trollmann wrote:

The 16-105 is not the best lens in the world, but it is not bad either. As a compact travel zoom it fullfills my needs (lazy, do not want to lug a lot of stuff around). The 18-135 should be in the same league optically.

What may be more important: is the 16 mm wide end something to consider (to me the wide end is more important than the tele end), or is the 135 mm reach more important? To me the 16-105 is a perfect match, others would prefer the 18-135.

Here is a picture taken with the 16-105 at the Weser delta in northern Germany. Low contrast light (it did rain a few minutes later).

Do you have the 16-55 kit lens to compare the 16-105 too as I am interested to know how much difference there is in IQ

Trollmann Senior Member • Posts: 1,311
Re: 16-105 or new 18-135

Had a 18-55 kit lens but never used it so I gave it away - guess the 16-105 is better than the kit lens from what I have read. The 16-105 show some CA in the corners, especially if the corners are a thad out of focus - but that is usually easy to correct in post processing. That is typical for lenses in this price class.

From what I have read the new f/2.8 16-50 mm kit lens is without doubt better than the 16-105 lens.

splashy
splashy Senior Member • Posts: 2,038
Re: 16-105 or new 18-135

My 18-55 never produced a nice picture.

18-55 rating 8.25
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1272/cat/83
16-105 rating 9.67
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1126/cat/83

Actually I want(ed) to buy the 18-135 too and pictures made with this lens and shown here look good, I saw 2 reviews 1 is Good and 1 is not so good (Kurt)

I guess I wait until Dp or Dyxum publish a 18-135 test, else the 16-15 seems a good option.

 splashy's gear list:splashy's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R III +1 more
Michael Fritzen Veteran Member • Posts: 5,247
Re: 16-105 or new 18-135

Hi,

some years ago I got the 16-105 which substituted on an A700 both a Minolta 24-85 and a Sony kit 18-70 - and improved both IQ and versatility in comparison to both.

But a comparision with the 18-135 will be hard. Considering IQ I don't know if there exists already sufficient experience. Considering range it depends a lot if the range towards wide end is more important for your shooting or the extension towards tele. For video the SAM of the 18-135 may be interesting. Anyhow when looking for a really versatile one-lens-solution (as an addition to the "normal" gear) I'd have a closer look on the 18-250(270) offers.

Other comparisons with the 16-50 or the 18-55 kit are difficult because their main point are different: 16-50: f/2,8 speed, IQ - at the cost of range and 18-55: low cost and reasonable IQ (better than 18-70) - at the cost of range both on wide and tele side.
--
Cheers,
Michael Fritzen

Stflbn Veteran Member • Posts: 3,116
Re: 16-105 or new 18-135

Anyone confident in making comments to this comparison yet?

 Stflbn's gear list:Stflbn's gear list
Sony RX100 V Sony RX10 IV Phase One Capture One Pro Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5
splashy
splashy Senior Member • Posts: 2,038
Re: 16-105 or new 18-135

No,  but I can tell you, the 18-135 is a very nice lens.

 splashy's gear list:splashy's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R III +1 more
Mylex Junior Member • Posts: 45
Re: 16-105 or new 18-135

I was looking for more range for my A65, I already have the 16-50 and LOVE this combo. I wanted something longer for my trip to Chicago, specifically the architectural boat tour Im taking. I narrowed it down to the 18-135, minolta 24-105 and minolta 28-105 rs. I found a shop that had both minolta's and they would let me pay a deposit to shoot all three for a day to see which one I liked more.

For my preference focus speed and sharpness were the main things I was concerned about. While I will say the colors of both Minolta's had more pop and an almost 3d like effect it wasnt enough for me to make up with how much slower they were. I couldnt tell a huge difference at f8 on sharpness so I went with the new 18135. Its not on my camera as much as my 16-50 but thats because Im not normally in a focal length longer then 50 now.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads