16-105 or 16-80 carl zeiss?

[bianzi]

hi can someone advise which is a better walkabt lens?

[TME]

Originally Posted by bianzi hi can someone advise which is a better walkabt lens?

Both lenses are the same in terms of being a walkabout lens... the CZ seems to be better in terms of IQ and sharpness... but the 105 has better reach... the decision would be made by your pocket, not the difference in the lenses... IMO not much difference, not substantial enough to win over the wallet's argument...

[bianzi]

ya was thinking of it is worth to pay for carl zeiss? cos 16-105 has better zoom.. so not sure if there is a big difference in the quality of the pics taken... saw review on the 16-80mm as compared to the kit lens and it seemed like it is not worth the hefy price tag

[TME]

Originally Posted by bianzi ya was thinking of it is worth to pay for carl zeiss? cos 16-105 has better zoom.. so not sure if there is a big difference in the quality of the pics taken... saw review on the 16-80mm as compared to the kit lens and it seemed like it is not worth the hefy price tag

A longer zoom may result in poorer image quality because it means that there are more elements within the lens, and therefore more areas for errors resulting in a less than sharp image - i.e. optical abberrances.

So you will also have noticed that top glass usually never exceeds 3x optical zoom and the best lenses tend to be primes... and also very high quality zooms are often very expensive, a lot more expensive than the primes... and they tend to be very bulky too (of course another reason is that expensive zooms have larger apertures which calls for larger glass elements).

The 16-105 has its faults, but so does the 16-80. IMO the 16-80 is rather overpriced even for a CZ cos it does not substantially outperform the 16-105 from most of the reviews I have seen... generally speaking, for most of us, the 16-105 will suffice... but often we would want to own the more expensive lens for the greater face it gives us...

[bianzi]

does people normally go for 2nd hand or new ones?

[TME]

Originally Posted by bianzi does people normally go for 2nd hand or new ones?

It's pretty difficult to find a second hand 16-80 cos it's very expensive and few people own it. Those who do aren't likely to let it go... The 16-105 is more recent and less available. It's not cheap either and most newcomers to SONY are using the kit lenses... the other bros who have been here since Minolta times are usually already using full frame lenses and so don't buy the 16-105...

I would say most people tend to go for new lenses... myself, I prefer to buy second hand lenses cos I usually don't go for expensive lenses, nor buy lenses when they are first launched... this might of course change in the near future... hahaha...

[unimatrix]

well.. with the kind of price that 16-105 or 1680 is selling, you can probably consider sony 18250 too.
that's a good travel lens, quite acceptable for a normal walkabout lens too right?

[bianzi]

think i prefer wider angle

[TME]

Originally Posted by unimatrix well.. with the kind of price that 16-105 or 1680 is selling, you can probably consider sony 18250 too. that's a good travel lens, quite acceptable for a normal walkabout lens too right?

The 18-250 is a good travel lens but the 16-105 will easily best it by virtue of having fewer elements and therefore less optical abberrations and sharper images. There is a reason why the 16-105 is much more expensive than the 18-250. Although IMO I do not think that the premium that the 16-80 commands over the 16-105 is sufficiently justified by the CZ coating cos the optical performance is not too different.

[Drudkh]

Originally Posted by TME the other bros who have been here since Minolta times are usually already using full frame lenses and so don't buy the 16-105...

I think those who owns 7D or A700 or both may consider either of the 2 to use. I'm considering buying the 16-105 as I like wide photos. I've always use the 16mm fisheye for most of my shots and I like it very much. Now, I'm not sure if I will like what comes out from the 16-105 although I like the range very much.

[TME]

Originally Posted by Drudkh I think those who owns 7D or A700 or both may consider either of the 2 to use. I'm considering buying the 16-105 as I like wide photos. I've always use the 16mm fisheye for most of my shots and I like it very much. Now, I'm not sure if I will like what comes out from the 16-105 although I like the range very much.

Well bro, you've got to give a big discount to sharpness lar... 16mm prime vs 16-105mm no fight... bound to be slightly soft at 16mm for the zoom... some more you quite use to using high end primes... must discount discount a lot in expectation...

[Atarandas]

Originally Posted by TME The 18-250 is a good travel lens but the 16-105 will easily best it by virtue of having fewer elements and therefore less optical abberrations and sharper images. There is a reason why the 16-105 is much more expensive than the 18-250. Although IMO I do not think that the premium that the 16-80 commands over the 16-105 is sufficiently justified by the CZ coating cos the optical performance is not too different.

Yeah i realise the longer zooms which are low quality are usually quite cheap . I saw one Opteka 650-2600mm selling for USD 300 on AMazon . Its for Alpha cameras , i wonder what the picture will look like.

[unimatrix]

Originally Posted by TME The 18-250 is a good travel lens but the 16-105 will easily best it by virtue of having fewer elements and therefore less optical abberrations and sharper images. There is a reason why the 16-105 is much more expensive than the 18-250....

that's not true.. assuming you're comparing price of new lenses, the price of the 2 lenses are the same in sony website.. here

I wouldn't dismiss the 18250 so easily as a poorer performer.
i think sal18250 has been rated as a decent lens, much better than its 18200 variant.
so far, i have not seen a comparison that gives the 2 lenses (18250 vs 16105) a side by side comparison though.

it all boils down on what you want to get from your lens, with 16-105 you get a bit more on the wide angle side, with 18250 you get more zoom.

[koolbeep]

i'll go for SAL16105.. longger zoom hence CZ1680 is a little faster in apperture. SAL18250 is not that bad too... saw similar photos taken with SAL18250 and CZ2470 which i thought at first are similar =))

try out all three first then choose what you want

[TME]

Originally Posted by unimatrix that's not true.. assuming you're comparing price of new lenses, the price of the 2 lenses are the same in sony website.. here I wouldn't dismiss the 18250 so easily as a poorer performer. i think sal18250 has been rated as a decent lens, much better than its 18200 variant. so far, i have not seen a comparison that gives the 2 lenses (18250 vs 16105) a side by side comparison though. it all boils down on what you want to get from your lens, with 16-105 you get a bit more on the wide angle side, with 18250 you get more zoom.

The difference between a 16mm and a 18mm wide end is quite substantial... the wider the lens, the more important the focal length is...

I did not check the prices locally but the oversea prices mentioned in many forums have the 16-105 a little more expensive... it's interesting that SONY has the prices the same...

Check out the product comparo:
http://www.sony.com.sg/product/Compa...odels=SAL18250

The 18-250 has one more element and a few more groups due to the longer zoom range... so I expect the 16-105 to perform a little better, especially with regard to sharpness, flaring and ghosting.

[maximize]

i will prefer the 16-105 as to 18-250 if budget is the issue as CZ is out... unless u hv the habit of shooting at telephoto range then 250 will give u a good reach... i like wide more... but too wide can give u a lot of prob when later u need to pp quite a bit due to prespective distortion.. so it really depends on what u like to shoot...

if its general then i would suggest go ahead with the 18-250... later u can get a UWA lens to cover the rest...

[Titan10k]

Found an article about CZ 16-80 vs Sony 16-105 here: http://newcamerareview.com/sony_cz_1...05mmid222.html

Conclusion is more or less same as we drew here: the CZ image quality is a bit better, but the Sony is cheaper and has more reach.

[Gonkie]

Found this link from the Dyxum forums for anyone who is interested in the comparisons between the 16-105 and the 18-250.

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/0...lpha-kit-lens/

[ongll]

CZ16-80 is my choice... The color and the 'faster' aperture e.g. 3.5-4.5 is a good balance. It's light too. I saw the current model are better in the sense that less or no zoom creep anymore.

[Getz10]

Tested both lenses months ago.....
Center sharpness/AF speed I would give it a draw while weight wise not much diff.
For image quality, CZ only wins in edge sharpness when step up. Can't remember wat aperture Sony one has at 80mm, but the reach/price cover the loss on tat. Never really test on the colours but CZ r known to be give higher contrast.

Overall, i believe Sony 16105 has an edge over the CZ 1680 (even thou I have the CZ) since u using as walkabout lens. Nicely price, better reach and could put the CZ counterpart to shame at times