User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: 18-105 and 16-85

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    15 Apr 2009
    Location
    Caboolture, Qld
    Posts
    70
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    18-105 and 16-85

    Hi all

    I'm helping a mate get some new Nikon gear.
    I myself have the 18-105 and find it a great everyday lens for the price, but thought I'd check out the 16-85 as well, and found that it's over twice the price.

    Can anyone please explain why the (as I need to learn)
    Nikon 18-105mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX is about $400.00
    and the
    Nikon 16-85mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX is about $850.00

    As I thought they were virtually the same build and everything with a different range.

    Pep
    Nikon user........ Yeah by choice!!!!

  2. #2
    Perpetually Bewildered fillum's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,119
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just had a quick look at the specs. (18-105mm, 16-85mm). They have different construction:-
    18-105mm: 15 elements/11 groups, 1 x ED element, 1 x aspherical element
    16-85mm: 17 elements/11 groups, 2 x ED elements, 3 x aspherical elements
    I assume that ED and aspherical elements are more expensive to manufacture than standard elements.

    The 16-85mm should theoretically perform better than the 18-105mm with regard to issues like chromatic aberration, however I don't know how either lens performs in practice.



    Cheers.
    Phil.

    Some Nikon stuff. I shoot Mirrorless and Mirrorlessless.


  3. #3
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    15 Apr 2009
    Location
    Caboolture, Qld
    Posts
    70
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by fillum View Post
    I just had a quick look at the specs. (18-105mm, 16-85mm). They have different construction:-
    18-105mm: 15 elements/11 groups, 1 x ED element, 1 x aspherical element
    16-85mm: 17 elements/11 groups, 2 x ED elements, 3 x aspherical elements
    I assume that ED and aspherical elements are more expensive to manufacture than standard elements.

    The 16-85mm should theoretically perform better than the 18-105mm with regard to issues like chromatic aberration, however I don't know how either lens performs in practice.



    Cheers.
    Thanks Fillum (btw, love your name, i know someone who can't say film he has to say fillum!!)

    When you put it like that, it makes a lot of sense

    Quote Originally Posted by wildenikon View Post
    If you can find plenty of the folding stuff i'd go the straight 85mm and look at the 17-55mm as well. this would give you two superb lenses that will last a life time. And yes, quality and workmanship cost more.
    Unfortunately the "folding stuff" is pretty well accounted for!!!

    But this will be a great kit that he can build on in the future once he knows what kind of lens' he'll need
    He may even buy (in the future) a 24-70 and a 70-200 then i can (hopefully) borrow them

    Pep

  4. #4
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,701
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peppe View Post
    ....

    Can anyone please explain why the (as I need to learn)....
    Why indeed!

    2mm at the wide end!! That's why.

    I also wanted this lens as an option for my son, but the price is just silly for a consumer grade lens. Build quality does feel better(or did feel better from memory, as I only had a brief play at the store.. no pics, and the $800 price tag put me off anyhow).

    Anyhow I ended up getting the 18-105 for my son, I use it occasionally(rarely).

    IQ from the 16-85 will be slightly better.. but definitely not double the price worth!

    Something I suspect may also happen is focal length shortening as you focus closer at the long end of the focal length range.. which is almost certain to be more prominent with the 18-105mm compared to the 16-85mm.

    What happens:
    The lens makers specify the focal length range in their normal manner, but that this only has to be true for focus at infinity. So your 18-105mm is 105mm when you're focused a long way away.. say 5meters or so. But as you begin to focus closer the FOV changes and no longer looks like a 105mm lens any more.. and probably more like a 90mm lens.
    REMEMBER this is only when you focus closer. It's cheaper to design the lens in this manner than to fool around with more exotic lens formula which then adds a price premium.

    I have no idea on how the 16-85 is affected by this focal length shortening, but the 18-105 looks more like a 90mm focal length(just a guess) when you zoom to 105mm and focus close.
    This is by comparison to both my 105mm macro and my 70-200 Tamron lenses.

    As another point of reference, it's commonly acknowledged(and accepted) that the Nikon 18-200VR looks more like a 135mm lens when at 200mm and close focused.

    One thing about the 18-105mm that I really don't like is the way in which the zoom gear is very weak, where if you touch, and place any inward pressure on the front of the lens(eg using filters), you get zoom creep(inwards). I haven't yet seen any normal zoom creep from mine(but I hardly use it) in that when you direct the lens downwards at a short focal length it gets automagically longer by itself!
    Only in that sense is where I have reservations about the built quality of the 18-105mm.

    having said that the 18-105 is the best value for money Nikon lens currently available!
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  5. #5
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    15 Apr 2009
    Location
    Caboolture, Qld
    Posts
    70
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow thanks for that arthurking83,
    I may need to re-re-read that to fully grasp it, but i get wat you're saying.

    And i agree the 18-105 value for money, great lens

    Pep

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Beaches, Sydney
    Posts
    2,338
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    .

    having said that the 18-105 is the best value for money Nikon lens currently available!
    I'll see your 18-105 and raise you a 55-200 at half the price....

  7. #7
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,701
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Oh! of course.. another great value for money lens and as you say cheaper too.

    But it's really limited starting @ 55mm.

    if you had to get only one lens due to budget constraints, the 18-105 offers a lot more 'everyday' usability than the 55-200 does.
    (but your point was happily accepted.. my bad was not using the correct context)

    If I had the choice between a single 18-200(@ $800) or the drudgery of swapping lenses, I'd take the drudgery any day.. 18-105 plus 55-200 make for a better alternative(even for travel) I think.

  8. #8
    Member James02's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Nov 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just to add a few things.
    The 16-85 also has
    1. A metal mount instead of plastic
    2. A focal scale window
    3. Metal inner barrels instead of plastic
    4. Much tighter to zoom or focus
    5. Sharper on the edges.
    6. New generation vr
    7. Focus ring seems to be able to make finer adjustments

    There is quite a bit of difference. The 18-105 is excellent for the money and iq is very good. Centre is hard to tell the difference at all. I just don't feel that the 18-105 is near as solid or durable. I own both by the way.

    James

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    04 Oct 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Only you can decide whether it is worthwhile paying the extra for the 16-85mm.

    It is better constructed and generally considered a very sharp, versatile lens. The 16mm wide-angle also gives it an advantage.

    Most people will quite happily live with the 18-105mm and if you already have that as part of a kit, I'd probably advise saving your money for a flash or other accessory unless you really want the wide angle. For me? I started with the 18-55mm kit lens and wanted something better and love my 16-85mm and 35mm AF-S as my two most commonly used lens.

    Being a slow'ish lens, the DoF meter on the 16-85 is a bit superflous.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •