Nikon 16-85 vs Nikon 18-105

J

jimbobc

Messages
291
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I currently have the 18-105 and am considering the 16-85 mainly for image quality. Is the quality much better or is not worth the extra expense? Are there better options for price and range?

Thanks,

James
 
Hi James,
I had the 16-85 for about two years and it was very good for the type of lens that it is. I used it on a D3x for school portraiture because I found the 24-120 mk1 to be awfull.
I use this website for reviews and tests, and found the reports to be fairly accurate.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr
I haven't used the 18-105, so can't make any comparison, but the photozone site should give you the info,
Hope that helps
 
reports I've read say the 16-58 is excellent but BIG £££££

Dave in Wales had one...maybe he could send you some sample images as he did for me when i was considering one...a helpful man..(y)

BUT i decided on a Nikon 18-70 at 1/3 the price [from here ]

john
 
I can't comment on the 18-105, although I had heard people say how good it was - for the money, but put the 16-85 next to the 18-70, then there really is no comparison - I have both the 18-70 and the 16-85.

It's quick to focus, and it's pin-sharp. It's my main lens now - the one that stays on the camera pretty much all the time. It ain't that cheap. but I'd say it's well worth it.
 
I had both at the same time just to compare and I could see no difference in IQ at all (and I spent ages trying!).

The big difference is the build quality, the 16-85 just feels better in the hand and is more robust; the small difference is the range.

Being a kit snob I sold the 18-105. In retrospect, a mistake - particularly since I have still to actually use my 16-85 in anger. I seem to shoot everything on my SLR with a 35mm f1.8, a 50mm f1.4 or a 70-300VR.

Anyway, go for the 18-105 secondhand, get great IQ and save yourself £200 (use that to buy yourself a s/h 50mm f1.4 and keep the change!:)).
 
davek said:
...............................

Anyway, go for the 18-105 secondhand, get great IQ and save yourself £200 (use that to buy yourself a s/h 50mm f1.4 and keep the change!:)).
Click to expand...

he already has the 18-105....;)
 
fatphotographer said:
Hi James,
I had the 16-85 for about two years and it was very good for the type of lens that it is. I used it on a D3x for school portraiture because I found the 24-120 mk1 to be awfull.
I use this website for reviews and tests, and found the reports to be fairly accurate.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr
I haven't used the 18-105, so can't make any comparison, but the photozone site should give you the info,
Hope that helps
Click to expand...

Why would you use a DX lens on a FX camera :thinking:

I realise the D3x has lots of pixels so it's DX mode will still have decent resolution but it seems a little odd...
 
Nawty said:
Why would you use a DX lens on a FX camera :thinking:

I realise the D3x has lots of pixels so it's DX mode will still have decent resolution but it seems a little odd...
Click to expand...

The D3x has a 10million+ pixel crop mode which is fine for prints that will only be printed to 10x8.

I needed a zoom to get a variety of crops from one shooting point for a shool portrait job. The distance from me to the subject, and then the subject to the background, in the space I was given to shoot, meant that I needed a 40 -120 mm focal range. I have had 4 copies of the 24-120 mk1, and they were all soft. The 24-120 f4 wasn't available at the time, and kit bag included 8mm, 14-24mm, 50mm, 105mm, 80-200mm, 200mm, 500mm

There where 2 options.

1 -buy a used 24-70 at over £1k that wouldn't get used much, and use the camera in crop mode.
2- buy a used 16-85 to use in crop mode for a third of the price. There were also a couple of jobs each year where I didn't like taking expensive glass, so the 16-85 was better suited.

The 16-85 is an excellent little lens for crop cameras, the 24-120 f4 was obviously better suited, but wasn't available when I needed that particular range of focal length. I sold the 16-85 when the 24-120 f4 came out.

It is all good having the "standard" focal ranges - something to 24, 24-70, 70-200, but in the real world the there are often times where your subject falls in the 18-50, 50-100, 100-300 range, and the manufacturers don't really cater for that at pro level - ie, full frame / @2.8 or wider.
 
Last edited:
I've found the 16-85mm excellent. It was a big improvement on the 18-70mm I had for image quality and the extra zoom range. The 16mm compared to 18mm is a surprisingly big difference. I'm on to my 2nd 16-85mm (replacing one which was stolen) and would get another one should I ever need to.

I have no experience of the 18-105mm. Hopefully some more people with first hand knowledge of both will chip in.

Maybe try to test them side by side some way.
 
I had the 18-105 which came as the kit lens. The plastic mount on the first one broke after two days so I returned it for a new one.

Put off by this, I bought a 16-85 and did do some side by side comparsions with the 18-105mm. The 16-85 is a fair bit sharper, particularly in the corners wide open. It also has better build quality and a metal mount. I wouldn't say there ia a big difference in IQ, but I did find the 16-85 better and liked the fact that it went wider. It is probably my most used lens.
 
redhed17 said:
I've found the 16-85mm excellent. It was a big improvement on the 18-70mm I had for image quality and the extra zoom range. The 16mm compared to 18mm is a surprisingly big difference. I'm on to my 2nd 16-85mm (replacing one which was stolen) and would get another one should I ever need to.

I have no experience of the 18-105mm. Hopefully some more people with first hand knowledge of both will chip in.

Maybe try to test them side by side some way.
Click to expand...

How is the 16-85mm better for image quality over the 18-70m? What benefits does it bring?
 
Boldonian said:
How is the 16-85mm better for image quality over the 18-70m? What benefits does it bring?
Click to expand...

It seemed sharper than the 18-70mm for me. :) Never did any side by side comparisons so just my feeling about them. The biggest improvement for me was the extended range. The extra 2mm, 16mm compared to 18mm was a big difference, and the 85mm nicely overlapped with my 70-300mm lens and had the effect of me having to change my lenses less often. The 18-105mm may have a larger range, but for my the 16-85mm gets the mix just right. :D
 
I do quite like my 16 - 85, its my walkaround lens now, sharp, fast AF.

As mentioned, it does feel well built and like it could cope with the odd mishap if things should go wrong. I wouldnt want to try it on purpose though obviously :)
 
I have the 16-85 and think it's superb, it pretty much lives on my D90. I also bought an 18-105 to compare in case I was missing out on something. I didn't get on with the 18-105, didn't do a side by side comparison but I was never that happy with pics I took with the 18-105. Guess it's possible I'd just gotten used to the 16-85, and also it could be a touch of gear snobbery ;)

Thought I'd keep the 18-105 to use on my D40, but it wasn't a good pairing, the lens just felt a too big for the wee D40, and I couldn't see any improvement in image quality over the 18-55 kit lens, so I sold my 18-105 as it was gathering dust. I rarely use the tele-end of my lenses, so the extra reach of the 18-105 wasn't an issue for me, I do however like w-i-d-e shots, and find that the extra 2mm at the wide end of the 16-85 just makes it that bit sweeter for me.

I notice that the 16-85 is now retailing at around £450, which is a lot for a variable aperture lens, but the build-quality is a cut above the entirely plastic 18-105. Whether it's justifiable depends on your financial situation, but if you can afford it, go for it. If I ever break mine I'll buy another one without any hesitation, and the only other lens I can say that for is the 35mm f1.8 :)
 
Interesting thread, does anyone know if the 16-85 is any better than the Sigma 17-70?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top