16-85 vs 18-105

[greybeard]

I've had it for a while and the newness has worn off, I can give you an honest comparison to the 18-105. The 16-85 is slightly noticeably sharper across the board where as the 18-105 is pretty soft at the long end. The VRII works well but I can't say it is any better than the VR on the 18-105. The build quality is head and shoulders better. There is nothing cheap about the look or feel of this lens. It comes with a metal mount, rubber mount gasket and a tight precise feel that complements my D7000. Is it worth it? It depends on what you are wanting. I was not happy with the plastic feel of the 18-105 and so I'm happy with my purchase and have no remorse. If however, you are after a big improvement in IQ, don't waste your money, while there is a slight difference, it isn't worth the price. (imho)

 

[gryffinwings]

I've had it for a while and the newness has worn off, I can give you an honest comparison to the 18-105. The 16-85 is slightly noticeably sharper across the board where as the 18-105 is pretty soft at the long end. The VRII works well but I can't say it is any better than the VR on the 18-105. The build quality is head and shoulders better. There is nothing cheap about the look or feel of this lens. It comes with a metal mount, rubber mount gasket and a tight precise feel that complements my D7000. Is it worth it? It depends on what you are wanting. I was not happy with the plastic feel of the 18-105 and so I'm happy with my purchase and have no remorse. If however, you are after a big improvement in IQ, don't waste your money, while there is a slight difference, it isn't worth the price. (imho)

What would you get that has better IQ then? The only thing I can think of that would be better is the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8, not sure if the Tamron and Sigma alternatives are better than the 16-85mm.

 

[greybeard]

I had the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC and it wasn't as sharp as the 18-105. The 17-55 f/2.8 is faster but I doubt it is all that much sharper. In my opinion, the 16-85/18-105 is about as sharp as it is going to get with a f/3.5-5.6 crop frame lens. As for better overall IQ the FF 24-70 f/2.8 is about as good as it will possibly get with a zoom but, it has a rather limited range and hefty price tag.

 

[gryffinwings]

I had the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC and it wasn't as sharp as the 18-105. The 17-55 f/2.8 is faster but I doubt it is all that much sharper. In my opinion, the 16-85/18-105 is about as sharp as it is going to get with a f/3.5-5.6 crop frame lens. As for better overall IQ the FF 24-70 f/2.8 is about as good as it will possibly get with a zoom but, it has a rather limited range and hefty price tag.

And after that I assume that primes are going to be the sharpest you can get right? Thanks for the info. I'm trying to come up with a list of lens to buy for a future purchase of a D7100.

 

[batmura]

I am shotting an 18-105 and I was thinking of checking out the 16-85. Thanks for the information.

 

[SeanE]

I have found the 16-85 to have nearly identical center sharpness to the 18-105 and its also very close to the 18-200 in their overlapping ranges. The 16-85 does have better corner sharpness and lower distortion though. But if you already own a good copy of the 18-105 then I would spend my money on something else. I sold my 16-85, maybe I had a bad copy but it was not sharper than my 18-105.