Sony AF DT 16-105mm F3.5-5.6 A-mount lens reviews

reviews found: 87    1 2 3 >>
reviewer#10609 date: Oct-21-2012
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:SAL1855
SAL2470z
Tamron SP 70-300
price paid:400 USD (used)
positive:Very Sharp
Excellent contrast and colors
Solid build quality
Great zoom range
Fast AF
negative:Little overpriced
Aperture drops quickly
comment:I got the SAL16105 used on ebay as an upgrade to the kit lens SAL1855 for the Sony Alpha a65. After a lot of research and comparison to the Zeiss SAL1680z, I decided to go for this lens. The primary reason was the cost and better range for travel use. Used prices for this lens are about half the price of the Zeiss.

After a couple of days of shooting I am impressed by the image quality. Pictures are very sharp and show high contrast and color saturation in RAW, and require minimum PP. Build quality is good, the lens has a nice heft to it and balances well on the a65 body.

I was also surpised by the quick AF with the in-body motor. Focusing is a little noisy but quick and accurate. I shot a soccer game in Continuous AF mode with the central AF points active. Most of the pictures are sharp. Compared to the Tamron SP 70-300 that I normally use for sports, the Sony lens AF is much more accurate. Even though the Tammy has the in-lens USM motor, it seems to struggle with AF on fast moving objects. I have never been able to use AF-C mode with the Tammy.



reviewer#10555 date: Oct-3-2012
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:KM 18-70
KM 17-35
Sigma - 17-70 F2.8-4.5 DC
Tamron 28-75
price paid:300€
positive:build quality
IF
fast AF
negative:MF with 1/4 turn
no SSM nor SAM
apperture
comment:I have just received this lens I bought for test purpose
Build quality is good
The lens is well balanced with the A700 and its grip

It feel more solid than the Sigma - 17-70 F2.8-4.5 DC

AF is fast and accurate. I have not had any bad focus up to now



I will add more information after more pictures

What I can say now is that on the Alpha 77 the lack of apperture is acceptable. I am more than satisfied of the result
reviewer#10438 date: Aug-8-2012
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.3
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:SAL 18-55
SAL 35
TAM 60 macro
SAL 70-300G
price paid:350 GBP
positive:Stopped down to f8 it produces excellent results
negative:Soft at edges wide open
This is my second one, the first one stopped focusing
comment:As disappointing as it was when my first copy stopped working - I had no hesitation in buying a second one.
I found the difference between this and SAL 35 prime to be very hard to see in real use. It too is a good lens but I returned it since I saw no real advantage yes it is faster...

OK I went and got the SAL 35 - got it for a great price and the advantage is it is faster and very good quality

The Tam 60 macro is noticeably sharper but it is not a zoom and too slow
reviewer#10436 date: Aug-7-2012
sharpness: 3.5
color: 5
build: 3
distortion: 4
flare control: 5
overall: 4.1
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sony DT 18-250mm F3.5-6.3
Sony DT 18-55 F3.5-5.6
price paid:780 USD/600EU (NEW)
positive:- Sharp in center! full range
- Fast auto focus (with A700)
- Great range(all arround)
- Compact/solid/robust build
- Focus ring don't rotate
- Warm color/good contrast
- Flare resistance.
negative:- Aperture drops VERY soon!
- Poor border/ext. Border
sharpness stopped down:
16-24, 50-105mm!
- Horror border sharpness
open apareture 50-70mm!
- Zoom creep/no zoom lock but.
- Bad zoom/focus ring
(dirty magnet, reversed)
- Tiny zoom ring
- High CA 16-24mm/70-105mm
- Vignetting 16mm/105mm
- Overpriced.
comment:
missing
reviewer#10275 date: Jun-8-2012
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sony 18-250 f3.5-6.3
Minolta 28-135 f4-4.5
Sony 18-55 f3.5-5.6 SAM
Konica Minolta 18-70 f3.5-5.6
Sony 35mm f1.8
Minolta 50mm f1.4
Minolta 50mm f1.7
Minolta 50mm f3.5 macro
Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 EX
price paid:£275 (used, as new)
positive:Sharp.
Superb range on APS-C.
Reasonably small and light.
Utterly reliable and consistent.
negative:Could be brighter, maximum aperture slightly limiting in low light.
Slight corner softness at full aperture.
comment:I really love this lens. Despite currently owning around a dozen lenses for my SLT-A33, this is on my camera around 80% of the time. Over the years I have probably owned around 40 to 50 lenses at one time or another - this is my favourite lens of all, bar none. As far as its possible to form a strong emotional attachment to a small inanimate piece of glass, metal and plastic, its happened to me. The only lens that has come anywhere near is the 50mm prime/'standard' lens I got with my first SLR in my teens (a Minolta SRT101, I think) but that was just puppy love and doesn't compare to the deep mature emotional bond I feel for my 16-105.

Its not a criticism, the lens is what it is, but the only thing I would change if I could would be to increase the maximum aperture to f2.8. Then it would be near perfect, except that that would almost certainly necessitate an increase in size, weight and cost....

This covers such a valuable range on APS-C, that the only time I ever need to take it off my camera is either when I need to go long telephoto, ultra wide or very low light, other than that the 16-105 is more than up for whatever task I want to throw at it.

Centre sharpness is outstanding in my opinion, in a different league to the 18-55 or 18-70 kit lenses, visibly better than the Sony 18-250 or Minolta 28-135 and directly comparable to the 35mm and 50mm primes - its that good. Corner sharpness does drop off, especially at wide apertures, but is still very acceptable. CA is commendably low. Build seems excellent. Flare control, especially compared to my older Minolta lenses is very impressive. Distortion is remarkably well controlled in my opinion for a lens with such a good range (vastly less than the Sony 18-250, which has horrendous distortion).

I would love to be able to compare it directly to a CZ 16-80, a Sony 16-50 or a Tamron 17-50, but I don't own any of these lenses and unless (horror of horrors) my 16-105 dies, I feel no desire to stray away - if it did die, I would almost certainly buy another as none of the 3 lenses mentioned above have the same super-flexible range. I also find it hard to believe that IQ would be significantly improved, when the 16-105 is so close to top quality primes already.
reviewer#10271 date: Jun-7-2012
sharpness: 5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.2
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Minolta 35-105 ori
Minolta 28-135 ori
Minolta 24-105
price paid:380 USD ( USED)
positive:Build is acceptable
Good range for aps-C dSLR
Sharp
Light weight
negative:62mm filter ring
comment:I got this lens from Dyxum member. This lens is like new condition. I like this lens because this lens has good range in APS-C dSLR. this lens should be equivalent to Minolta 24-105 in FF.

Auto focus is fast but little bit noisy as it is screw drive.

Great for indoor work with flash, it deliver sharp image from f5.6 onward.

This lens is a keeper for APS-C. It is suitable for everyday used. Great walking lens too with close MFD.


Highly recommend to buy this lens !! Comparing to 16-80 CZ, i still prefer this lens.
reviewer#10215 date: May-16-2012
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.1
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:24-85
28-135
price paid:USD 450 (new)
positive:Very flexible range
Good Build
Compact
negative:Vignetting at 16mm open is very strong in the corners.
Filters are very problematic because of the vignetting.
comment:I like this lens very much - it's always with me when travelling - very flexible range.
It's sharp for such a wide zoom range.
I bough mine with the A700 as a kit and it's always with me when i need to go light and compact.
The only aternative is the Zeiss 16-80 but i prefer the additional range of the 16-105.
reviewer#10210 date: May-15-2012
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sony 16-50
Sony 18-250
price paid:£490
positive:Everything - for walkabout lens very good
negative:None so far
comment:I deliberated for a while over this or the 18-250. After trying both in store I decided that:
1 - this felt more solid than the 18-250
2 - IQ appeared better after an hours testing of the two
3 - CA and flare obvious with the 18-250 but not with the 16-105 (over the hour or so of testing)

So I bought the 16-105.
I already own the 16-50 and compared to this :
Sony 16-50 with the A77 is better than the 16-105 between 16 and 50mm. Better in terms of speed, IQ and obviously having F2.8 available. It is also weather resistant. But, the 16-105 gives that much more flexibility and nothing is bad between 16mm -105mm, just not quite so good as the 16-50 up to 50mm. So, as far as I can see this lens is going to give me greater range and only some loss in IQ, but not huge (from what I have tried so far). I will know more with greater use but so far the results are promising.
reviewer#10170 date: May-3-2012
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.8
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:- minolta 35-105
price paid:
missing
positive:-very sharp
-weight feel right
-strong build
negative:- slow
- too sensitive manual focus ring turning angle
comment:i dropped this lens 2 times from 1 meter hight ! so i send this lens to sony center for a check if it still work well.
-and the answer is "yes, the lens still work correctly and accurately"

I love the sharpness of this lens.

The thing i don't like about this lens is that it is too slow and the focus ring turning angle is way too sensitive.
it;s too hard to manual focus with this lens.
reviewer#9967 date: Feb-23-2012
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 5
overall: 4.8
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sony 16-50 f2.8 SSM
Sony 16-80 CZ
Sony 18-55 SAM
Sony 18-250
Sony 18-200
price paid:420 USD (used)
positive:-very sharp
-very versatile range
-nice colors
negative:-filter vignette at 16mm although I put the slimmest one I can find.
- distortion is strong but can be corrected in PP
comment:A great upgrade from 18-55 kit lens. Performs better in every way. Colors are on par with modern Sony designed lens. Not the same tones as Minolta colors.

Images are sharp even wide open and very sharp stopped down. Works best for day light shots. The lens is a bit slow to use in low light so I would take 16-50f2.8 with me instead for low light and indoor.

Distortion is very strong at 16mm but about the same as other zoom lens that starts at 16mm. Can be corrected with post processing. So watch your horizon at 16mm.

Image quality is far better than other alternatives with variable aperture including Sony 18-55, 18-200, 18-250, except the CZ 16-80, but only slightly. However the CZ is more expensive and has an issue with build quality of the focus ring. So it's up to you if you would like to sacrifice a bit of pixel quality for a more versatile range, cheaper price especially 2nd hand, and seemingly less headache with QC problem. Since I have already 16-50f2.8, 16-105 is clearly a better option to me where I don't need constant f2.8.

In a nutshell, a solid quality / top value for the price paid period.

See my photos with Sony 16-105mm f3.5-5.6 DT SAL16105 on my Flickr collection at: www.flickr.com/photos/lifeispixels/collections/7215762820...
reviewer#9949 date: Feb-19-2012
sharpness: 5
color: 4
build: 2
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 3.8
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:SAL 18250
price paid:663 Euro (new)
positive:Sharp, very good for such a zoom.
Very good zoom range (travel, architecture)
negative:built
comment:I mostly use this lens because of its range and sharpness.
Bought it in 4/2008. Since then about 20 to 30 thousand shots with it.

Zoom flange pretty slacky.
First repair in 9/2011: Focus didn't work any more. Very ugly screaming noise when inserting the battery into the camera (A700 resp. A77).
Same fault again in 2/2012: Zoom stucky, same noise. Lens no more usable, another repair needed.
Next repair: lens ok, since then about 5000 shots without a problem.

I do use (D)SLRs since almost 40 years, I never have had a lens repair - except the SAL 16105.
reviewer#9749 date: Jan-3-2012
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:- 16-80Z
- Tamron 17-55 F2.8
price paid:325 USD (used)
positive:- Cheap
- Sharp
- Usable range
negative:- F3.5~ F5.6
comment: Is my daily walk around and multipurpose lens.
Always couple with SAL30M2.8 for daily shooting.
While couple with 85 F1.4 / 135 F2.8 for event shoot.
Build quality is much better than 1680Z, while have consistent sharpness compare with Tamron 17-55.
Worth to keep 1 copy for multipurpose use.
reviewer#9657 date: Dec-2-2011
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Minolta 28-135
Sony 18-55
price paid:480 USD (used)
positive:Sharp
Very versatile
Build
Size
negative:Non yet
comment:This lens is a keeper. It hardly leaves my A33 anymore, except for when I need more tele. I bought it used, but it's like new. The Sony lenses may not always look impressive, but the more expensive ones like this one are very well designed and built. It is a major upgrade from a kit lens, fits perfectly with my Sony 70-300 G.
reviewer#9563 date: Nov-3-2011
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 5
overall: 4.3
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:SAL18-70 kitlens
price paid:370 EUR (used)
positive:Incredibly versatile
great reach
good colors
negative:narrow MF-angle
slip in focus/zoom-ring
speed
comment:I have no big lens collection to compare with, but compared to the kitlens bought along with the a100, this lens blows it away!
The range covers almost everything you need, except long tele, an amazing travel lens!
The sharpness is very good compared to other zooms, but not prime-worthy.
The lens is quite slow - F4 is reached already at 18mm or so, so not ideal for low light.
The travel in the focus ring from closet to infinity range is way too short, so MF is nigh on impossible.
There is some vignetting, but only what can be expected from a wide angle lens - easily corrected in PP.
Build quality could be better, but considering the price it is really good.
reviewer#9556 date: Nov-1-2011
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 5
overall: 4.8
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sigma 18-125
Sigma 17-70
minolta 24-85 (original)
Minolta 35-105 (original)
price paid:300 GBP mint (no hoo
positive:Sharp, even at max aperture
Good colour
Build
Range
IQ
negative:Max. aperture
Expensive
Not full frame.
comment:Superb IQ and sharpness 16-80. Even at 105 it is still sharp (compared against 35-105 @ f6.3 and the 35-105 is acknowledged to be a very sharp zoom lens. At f6.3 the Sony is only stopped down by 1/3 of a stop, whereas the 35-105 is stopped down 1 full stop)

In brief, although it is expensive, it is a very useful lens. Only trouble is I need to keep the Minoltas for my Dynax film camera.

Distortion is there, particularly @ 16 mm but it is better controlled than many other zooms covering wide angle on APS-C.

Generally, between 18 and 80, it produces awesome IQ.

O
reviewer#9485 date: Oct-10-2011
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 3
flare control: 5
overall: 4.1
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I used to own this lens
compared to:18-200 Sony
18-55 Sony
17-50 2.8 Tamron
price paid:$500 USD (IIRC)
positive:Very useable range
Good resolution - sharpness
Good build quality for the price
negative:Not enough range for wildlife
Could be faster
comment:I bought this lens used from a web site. I beleive I paid $500, If I Remember Correctly. It was in excellent condition. I was torn between this lens and the Carl Zeiss 16-80. Kurt Munger convinced me that this lens was the better choice. Having since handled a 16-80 in person, I'm glad I went with the 16-105. I'm not paying more for a lens that feels less well made. The Zeiss felt cheap, and the IQ was (again, according to Munger) very close.

Overall, I was very pleased with this lens. It gives good sharp images. Not outstanding, but very good. The zoom range really worked out well. I had been coming from the 18-200 Sony, and I hardly ever missed the extra 95mm. And there was no comparison between the 18-200 and the 16-105 in image quality; the 16-105 was worlds ahead, and better built. The only time I missed the extra reach was when trying to get a photo of a bird or deer.

Besides the obvious (if this were an F2.8 constant aperture...), there are two primary drawbacks of this lens. One is vignetting. Unless you are stopped down fairly hard, the corners will be noticeably darker than the center of the shot. Sony Image Data Converter doesn’t do a great job of fixing that for this lens, either. I usually fixed it with the smudge or clone tool. One more note; the vignetting wasn’t exactly symmetrical. The upper right corner had the most, followed by the upper left. It was rarely noticeable on the bottom edges, but that’s probably because it shows up more in the sky than on the ground. The other drawback is the distortion. It’s not simple barrel distortion; it’s moustache distortion, which isn’t easily fixed in the editor I use, Photoshop Elements 9. If isn’t bad enough to be an issue for landscapes or any shots that don’t have straight lines near the top or bottom of the shot.

Overall, I really liked this lens. My copy died when I dropped it on stone. I replaced it with a Tamron 17-50 F2.8, but I’m sure there will be times I miss this lens.
reviewer#9468 date: Oct-3-2011
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 3
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 3.8
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sal 1855
Minolta 35-105 old
price paid:250 (old)
positive:versatile zoom range
sharp centers
negative:overpriced if bought new
soft corners
heavy
zoom is not smooth
comment:I am not going to repeat what has been written before, just have a look at my positive negative summery.

Soft corners are generally considered as negative, however, I often don't really need sharp corners and if so, I just use f/8. I am satisfied with this lens and I won't resell it, it has a terrible useful zoom range for traveling, weddings etc. Indoors, I use my powerful hot-shoe flash. This lens hardly leaves my camera. However, I wouldn't pay 600 $ for this lens, I rather bought a 16-80 CZ.
reviewer#9331 date: Aug-12-2011
sharpness: 4
color: 3
build: 4
distortion: 3
flare control: 3
overall: 3.4
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sony AF DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6 (SAL-1870) kit lens
Minolta AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5
price paid:579 Euro (new)
positive:Sharp
quick focus
zoom range
negative:Very expensive
bit heavy
tight zoom ring
embedded on camera flash drops shadow at wide end
comment:I bought this lens because i wanted a D lens with big focal range that stay permanently on camera and i looked to upgrade from the kit lens (DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6)that came with my Sony A200. So influenced from that i read here in DYXUM.COM forum , i decided to buy it.
Also i am owner of some 62mm filters (uv, polarize, close up) from old Minolta 28-105 F3.5-4.5 lense and i din't wanted to be wasted.
Generaly i expected much more for this price. i expected to take good photos without the need to play with a lot of settings. I am disappointed with this lens, i expected much more. It is sharper than Sony AF DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6 but it bothers me the tight zoom ring and the shadow that emebeded on camera flash drops at wide end. I am new in digital photography but i thing some compact digital cameras with 2.8 lens takes much better photographs in auto mode.
Compare to my old Minolta 28-105 F3.5-4.5, i think that Μinolta glasses is far away better.
reviewer#9152 date: Jun-18-2011
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.4
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sony 18-70mm DT (kit) zoom
Sony 75-300mm SAL75300 zoom
Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 UWA
price paid:450GBP (new)
positive:Zoom range
Compact design
Fairly effective lens hood
Wide angle at 16mm
negative:Price is a bit steep maybe?
comment:After a long search for something as an upgrade from my 18-70mm DT kit lens, I finally decided on the 16-105 due to its wide angle capability and zoom range. I have to say it hasn't disappointed me! Due to reading through previous reviews on here, I bought a 62mm slim UV filter and have tried taking pictures at both extremes of the lens focal length and cannot see any vignetting!

It took a little while for me to get used to the extra weight of the lens, it feels a bit heavier than even the SAL75300, but still balances my a580 quite well so I'm happy with my purchase.

I'm still looking to purchase a hyperzoom at some point in the future but for the mine and industrial tours that I take part in, this lens is the business combining wide and short telephoto qualities with crisp, clear images.

With this lens I may not need to carry my 10-20mm Sigma as much due to its wider capability. So that makes for either a lighter load to carry or shoving a prime lens in there for more arty shots.

I really have no complaints!
reviewer#9098 date: Jun-6-2011
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 4
overall: 4.3
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I used to own this lens
compared to:Minolta 50mm f1.4
Minolta 50mm f1.7
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Sony 17-70mm (kit lens)
price paid:400 (used)
positive:sharp
relatively light
negative:color, I don't like it
comment:This is great lens for landscape and street photography. It's not good for portrait. And it's great for some one who likes Sony color.
reviewer#8974 date: Apr-29-2011
sharpness: 5
color: 4
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.4
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to: Nikon 17-35, Tamron 17-35 and 28-75, Canon 24-105.
price paid:£350.00
positive:Much sharper than I expected from some reviews, Nice build, compact and a decent range.
negative:None for me for the money
comment:I was expecting a poor relation to the CZ 16-80 - which I have to say I have not owned, All I can say is I have owned some decent pro grade glass of other makes and this holds it own very well indeed. It sits on my A55 as a standard unless I need UWA or Tele, and I see absolutely no need to 'upgrade'
reviewer#8852 date: Apr-1-2011
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 3
flare control: 4
overall: 4.3
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:No alpha's, but:
Zuiko 14-45
EF 28-80
price paid:Kit lens with A700
positive:Versatile!
Very sharp in center!
Fast auto focus(with A700).
Bokeh.
Great starter lens!
negative:Slow aperture!(hits f4,5 at 22mm)
Corner sharpness(good when stopped down).
comment:Although this lens is too slow(f4,5 already at 22mm), I really like it. It's versatility makes it a perfect kit lens, but one needs a flash indoors.
reviewer#8665 date: Feb-17-2011
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.3
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:18-55
price paid:EUR 390 (used)
positive:+ range
+ sharpness
+ colors
+ AF
negative:- build quality of zoom and focus ring
- maximum aperture
comment:A great walk around lens. Extremely sharp in the center (not so much in the corners...). The AF is fast and very accurate, even in low light. The only thing I was a bit disappointed with is the build quality of the focus and zoom rings, which are not very smooth. Nevertheless, the overall build quality is very good and the lens is better than the Sony 18-55 in every possible way.
reviewer#8546 date: Jan-19-2011
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I used to own this lens
compared to:Sony 18-70
Tamron 17-50/2.8
Sony 24-105
price paid:kit with a700
positive:- Price (Kit lens)
- Very versatile Range
- Compact
negative:- Zoom and Focus rings
- slowish aperture
comment:A very decent kit lens for the a700. Build quality is not the best out there, but a very good piece of kit. Range is incredible, it's a perfect walk-around lens. Ideal as a one-lens solution when you need to go light on trips and such.

Zoom and focus rings are pretty tight. No zoom lock, but then again, when zooming is so tight, it's not really needed.

I found flare control to be an issue when the sun is just out of the frame, using my hand as a sunshield somewhat helps.

It was a it redundant with the Tamron 17-50/2.8, so I ended up trading it for a Sigma 10-20
reviewer#8509 date: Jan-12-2011
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 3
flare control: 4
overall: 4.2
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:18-55
18-70
16-80 CZ
Tamron 17-50 Di LD
price paid:400 USD (Used)
positive:- Sharp Enough
- All Arround
- Fast AF
- Accurate AF
- CZ Wannabe
negative:Apperture still 3,5 - 5,6
comment:Nice All Arround Lenses , giving me a sharpness and beutiful color , compared to Tamron 17-50 .
reviewer#8469 date: Jan-2-2011
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 5
overall: 4.6
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:-18-55
-mino 28-135
price paid:400 USD (mint)
positive:-sharpness
-colors
-range
-wide
negative:-vignetting w/ filters
-not feel very solid
-plastic (although good one)
-A bit heavy
comment:I've been using the 18-55 for a while, and wasnt satisfied. So i decided to buy this lens after seeing reviews. I bought this lens for $400 mint with extras, so its a pretty nice deal.

The IQ is very nice, sharpness is ok, flare is not a problem with a hood, and colors are kicking! Even my friend told me that the sharpness is better than its big bro, the bluey 16-80. Sadly for me red is translated too much in my a550. Because of its very wide angle (which works for me), it shows extremely disturbing vignetting @16mm when combining uv w/ cpl at once // using an thick filter frame. chroma is hard to see, but visible when making silhouette photographs. The zoom ring also pretty hard (actually useful to avoid unwanted barrel extension) and not feel very solid. Distortion just not a problem for me, it gives a pleasing effect!

The front lens doesnt rotates, which helps me a lot.
I enjoyed photographing landscapes and potrait with this lens, and the results are pretty amazing. Brought this thing to lake toba, Indonesia, and it always satisfies me. For me, the weights, the size, and the aesthetics of this lens matches my a550 perfectly.

HIGHLY RECOMENDDED
reviewer#8361 date: Dec-6-2010
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 3
flare control: 4
overall: 3.8
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I used to own this lens
compared to:KM 18-70mm
50mm F1.4
30mm F2.8 macro
price paid:RM1600
positive:Excellent range
Generally sharp
Good colour
negative:Weight
Stiff zoom ring
A little soft at zoom end
Distortion at wide end
comment:Feel balance and good with D5D and A300. A bit off balance with A55. A very good travel lens due to its range if you don't mind the weight. The distortion is not an issue for landscape and group photo. This lens is for you if you like the pros and can tolerate the cons of above.
reviewer#8238 date: Nov-12-2010
sharpness: 3
color: 4
build: 3
distortion: 3
flare control: 3
overall: 3.2
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:CZ 24-70
Tamron 70-200
Sony 70-300
Sony 70-400
price paid:
missing
positive:
missing
negative:
missing
comment:
missing
reviewer#8152 date: Oct-28-2010
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.1
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:18-55 DT zoom
28-75 Minolta AF
price paid:599 USD (new)
positive:
missing
negative:
missing
comment:I have gone through several Minolta lenses trying to find a combination
that works in terms of desired zoom range, image sharpness and pricing.
As with the old engineering adage, you can usually have two out of the
three - go ahead and pick. So, I needed to go up in price to see if a
more modern Sony APS-c lens would give me better performance.

Anyways, my latest iteration involves the very low-cost 18-55mm vs. the
expensive 16-105mm zoom. The kit lens is an additional $100 when you buy
the body. The 16-105 costs six times as much when purchased stand-alone.
Is it six times better?

The answer is no, not really. If I had to guess, it is may "two or three
times" better. Too bad it costs $600. Diminishing returns strikes again.

It may be I may have a particularly good copy of the 18-55 kit lens, but
it is really quite excellent. Testing center and corner sharpness only,
through a range of 18-55mm and through f-stops from 5.6 through 11, the
16-105 is generally better at 35 and 55mm focal lengths, often MUCH
better in the corners. However, at 18mm, it is really a toss up.

I am going to keep the 16-105 because i really need the extra reach for
much of my work, and it really is a sharper lens. However, the 18-55 is
decent and makes a great all around lens at a very low price.
reviewer#8123 date: Oct-20-2010
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 5
overall: 4.8
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:CZ 16-80, Tokina 28-70 F2.8, Sigma 17-70, Minolta 24-85, Minolta 28-105
price paid:au$535
positive:Ideal range for a daytime walkabout, solid build, really sharp from 16mm right through to 105 when stopped down a little, good colours, Sony ADI capable, filters don't rotate, fast and accurate focus. IQ is nearly identical to the CZ 16-80.
negative:Needs a large third party collapsible hood to get optimal performance, the Sony one is too small and dims the corners when wide and doesn't stop flare when long. It also needs a high quality thin filter if you want to avoid vignetting when shooting wide, but so does the CZ 16-80. I prefer to use it without a filter, relying on the big rubber third party hood to protect it.
comment:This is what a kit lens should be but isn't. It is a very forgiving lens, and like most that aren't "G" lenses it does need stopping down a little - it is definitely a lens for daylight unless you have a good flash. When coupled with the Sony 58AM with its ADI and off camera wireless capability it becomes a brilliant indoor portrait and general purpose lens. I have better lenses, more suitable for low light without flash, and when necessary I will use them, but most of the time I have this lens on one of my Alpha bodies. It is definitely one of my preferred lenses, always with me when I travel.
reviews found: 87    1 2 3 >>

rating summary

lens image
  • total reviews: 87
  • sharpness: 4.59
  • color: 4.62
  • build: 4.32
  • distortion: 4.07
  • flare control: 4.52
  • overall: 4.42

to add your review
you need to login