Photoclubalpha

Anyone any views on this lens ? I would see this as an everyday allround lens or is the 18-250 more versatile.

I just received my A700 with the mentioned lens as an upgrade to A100 with 18-70 kit lens. I did not try sufficiently the new lens, but it feels more robust, and I do like it's internal focus. From the few pictures I've taken, I can definitely say it's far better than the 18-70 kit lens.
Can't say anything for the 18-250.

Many thanks, how do you feel about the focal length a good all round every day length?
How do you like the 700?

It's less than a week that I received my A700, and the first impressions are for a sturdy body. You might read about the A700 a lot, but consider the articles of David, here on this site and that of M. Hohner on http://www.mhohner.de
As for the lens, let me put it this way: was in Beirut (Lebanon) for the New Year holidays with my family and along with my A100 + 18-70 kit lens. Except for a couple of shots where I needed a bit more tele or slightly more of a wide view, all pictures were with that lens (more than a thousand!). If I had the 16-105, then everything would've been excellent.
And by the way, it's quite quick on the A700 (didn't try on the A100, but I will).
IMHO, I think the 16-105 should be better than the 18-250 IQ wise and usage (the extra 2mm worth it). Anyway that's how I see it

I just made a couple of test images on my A350 at my local Jessops shop compared with the 18-70 kit lens. I compared at 35mm f8 to give both lenses a good chance. The 16-105 is in a different league to the 18-70 Much better resolution no CA that I could see even at 100%. It is now well on my list, I need to try a 16-80.

I went ahead and purchased the 700 with the 16-105 and really can feel the difference to the 100. Not had a great chance to try the lens out well but am please with the overall impressions.

Thanks for all replies

Congratulations and happy shooting.

We have just bought a 16-105mm here at photoclubalpha. I have taken a few shots and it looks MUCH better than the 18-70mm, and in some respects it betters the 16-80mm. Lack of vignetting is very impressive.

David

David Kilpatrick wrote:We have just bought a 16-105mm here at photoclubalpha. I have taken a few shots and it looks MUCH better than the 18-70mm, and in some respects it betters the 16-80mm. Lack of vignetting is very impressive.

David

I would be very interested in a comparison David. I think the A350 deserves a better lens than the 18-70mm

I must confess that the 16-105 at a f-stop greater than 5.6 (value wise, not opening) results in a quite sharp picture. Haven't tried at maximum yet, but whenever I do will inform.
The only weak point I have found so far is the looseness of the front ring (the one just behind the hood collar. It has the "DT 3.5-5.6/16-105" inscription). But anyway that doesn't alter by no means the IQ.
As for the bokeh... well not bad at all, just take a look at:
1- http://harmar.photoblogs.am/index.php?showimage=2438
2- http://harmar.photoblogs.am/index.php?showimage=2439
Both shot at the tele end.

Nice. I love a good bee photo.

Thanks Vidgamer and BTW we already ate the cherries, big ones but without any chemicals nor fertilizers. mmmm tasty... Wish I could serve you all.

David Kilpatrick wrote:We have just bought a 16-105mm here at photoclubalpha. I have taken a few shots and it looks MUCH better than the 18-70mm, and in some respects it betters the 16-80mm. Lack of vignetting is very impressive.

David

Then maybe you can help me make my (final answer) decision on a zoom/walk-around lens!!!

I've been waffling around between the Tamron 17-50, Sony 16-105, 16-80 and 18-250.

The 17-50 or 16-80 seem to best complement my current lens/prime collection and might satisfy me most in quality? Though I'm reading many conflicting reports on the 16-105 and 16-80. I've come to set a pretty high standard of quality with the primes I've got. I intend to keep my small/light 35 or 50 and/or the 135 close at hand most of the time, even on hikes.

Criteria..... general walk-around, hiking, vacation, and mostly outdoors. But... I'll also depend on this for my best "wide" shots as I will use this lens for tourism publications. It needs to really deliver at around 16-70mm, and be competent longer than that (re the Sonys).

I've tried the Tamron for a day, and I think for my outdoor purposes it's too short, and I already have fast/indoor lenses.

The 18-250 feels a little too all-purpose especially as I have gotten used to the beercan and 200f2.8 quality (though not as portable, obviously). But maybe it's good enough between 18-70?

I like the focal length of the 16-105 best. And some say it's better than the 16-80. Hmm. I want someone to confirm for me that it'll be capable of sharp and colour-rich landscapes at mid-aperatures, particularly at its wide end. Or is the CZ better, particularly at its edges?

Help me end this madness.

Can't say much about 16-80 Z, except that it should be great wide open. Have seen it only in pictures
Owning 16-105, I can insist on its good IQ. Once at f/8, it's excellent, but wide open and at wider end, well... If you rely on manual focusing and take your time for shooting, then you can compensate those drawbacks.
Overall, it's a nice lens and I do trust DK saying that in some cases it surpasses the Zeiss one (hope am not changing David's words).
You have to try it anyway.

The 16-80mm has more visible sharply defined colour fringeing towards the edges, but this is on very sharp detail. It can be removed and DxO Optics Pro 5.2 now has the 700 and 350 bodies plus 16-80 and 16-105 on its database for auto correction in raw conversion - probably a very good solution. The 16-105mm has less sharply defined colour aberrations, but less sharp detail too as you approach the frame edge. Its extreme corners are quite mushy. But - it does not vignette, or cut off badly with some filters, and the 16-80mm does.

All told - I chose the 16-80mm to take with me not the 16-105mm last week. We also took the 18-250mm.

David