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

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: gmanmi review date: October-21-12
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: fute77 review date: October-03-12
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: Philipb review date: August-08-12
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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

sharpness: 3.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: Savage2k review date: August-07-12
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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:

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5	user: andyken review date: June-08-12
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: superx2won review date: June-07-12
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: ch1waner review date: May-16-12
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5	user: Hols52 review date: May-15-12
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5	user: witee.w review date: May-03-12
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	- minolta 35-105
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.

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: lifeispixels review date: February-23-12
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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...

sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 2 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: Pallanza review date: February-19-12
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5	user: boyzone review date: January-03-12
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: Joe Blokes review date: December-02-11
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: Tjeiken review date: November-03-11
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: derekw review date: November-01-11
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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

sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 5	user: HiDesert review date: October-10-11
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: cessna2k review date: October-03-11
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 4 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3	user: angelo review date: August-12-11
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: balacau review date: June-18-11
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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!

sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4	user: trongkien review date: June-06-11
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: JohnJ review date: April-29-11
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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'

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 4	user: Zaxon review date: April-01-11
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: br127 review date: February-17-11
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: Rusty review date: January-19-11
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4	user: wiel_sam review date: January-12-11
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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 .

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: ge or die review date: January-02-11
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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

sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4	user: countmoo review date: December-06-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3	user: gustav7117 review date: November-12-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	CZ 24-70 Tamron 70-200 Sony 70-300 Sony 70-400
positive:
negative:
comment:

sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: rcolman review date: October-28-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	18-55 DT zoom 28-75 Minolta AF
price paid:	599 USD (new)
positive:
negative:
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.

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: DarkScribe review date: October-20-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
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.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5	user: MarsX review date: October-07-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Minolta 24-85/3.5-4.5 RS Minolta 28-105/3.5-4.5 RS Minolta 50/1.7 Sigma 28-200/3.5-5.6 Macro
price paid:	400$
positive:	Great all-around lens size and weight builds fast AF great colors and sharpness
negative:	distorsion, vignetting on wide only for APS-C
comment:	You must use a SLIM filter for this lens. Not a "negative", because this lens have a very wide end. This is the best kit lens for Sony DSLR. Stopped down to F8 and softness, vignetting and CA will disappear.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: vidhyadharan review date: September-04-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Minolta 50 1.7 Tammy 70 200 f2.8
price paid:	Came as kit lens
positive:	good walk around lens good range Good build quality Nice colors and good sharpness Fast AF
negative:	Dark corners at wide angle with filters f3.5 - Need to have flash for indoor shots unless u have a steady hand
comment:	This lens came as kit lens with my A700. It's on my camera 90% of the time. Very good IQ and useful range. AF is good even in dull light situations. Downside is dark corners while using filters and f3.5 (need a flash for indoor shots unless u have got a steady hands)

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: lenswideopen review date: July-05-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Sigma 17-35
price paid:	299€ (display model)
positive:	Sharp very useful range robust built fast and accurate AF
negative:	not the best for low light filter gives dark corners
comment:	Very nice lens which I use most of the time. I first bought it for my KM5D where it already performed very well. With the fast A550 it's even more fun. It's a perfect walk around lens with a very useful range for most occasions. The only down side are dark corners with a filter on at 16 mm.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5	user: ecsh review date: June-20-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:
price paid:	500.00
positive:	Compact size
negative:
comment:	Nice all around lens on my A550. The range works well for me. Nice colors, and fast focusing.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 4	user: genf review date: June-08-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	KM 18-70 (old kit lens)
price paid:	part of kit
positive:	Sharp on most of its range. Excellent reach. Compact in size. Fast and accurate AF.
negative:	Distortion.
comment:	I bought this lens together with my A700. It is on my camera 90% of the time. I am very content with it. It produces sharp pictures overall. A bit softer when zooming in, but not much. It is a definite improvement on the older 18-70 kit lens which I used on my KM5D. Faster AF, more reach, sharper. The one main disadvantage is distortion. Pincushion distortion on the tele side, plus barrel distortion and vignetting on the wide-angle side. When you like straight lines, this is a nuisance.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: evangelos k review date: May-13-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	17-70 28-85 50 1.7
price paid:	a700 kit
positive:	Color! Fast AF
negative:	Aperture drops VERY soon
comment:	I give the 16-105 a stellar review because, seriously, it is pretty much all I need at this range, and the results are great. Close to excellent sharpness and the color is outstanding. Several hundreds of pictures I have taken with this lens (so far) simply blow me away, especially for the reasonable price it goes for. Everything is there, the sharpness, the reach, and again, the color!!!

sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 5	user: LeeOsenton review date: April-28-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Minolta 50mm f/1.7 Sigma 28-135mm f/3.8 - 5.6
price paid:	500 USD(new)
positive:	Amazing range and excellent results in a wide range of conditions.
negative:	Forget about the maximum f/3.5 aperture, the maximum drops to f/4 as soon as zoom moves past 18mm, and quickly gets to f/4.5 after that.
comment:	This lens is wide enough, long enough, sharp enough, and fast enough to be a great walk around lens. It is a jack of all trades, but master of none. Indoors, you will need a flash or tripod. The maximum aperture of f/3.5 is a joke, this lens gets to f/4.5 before hitting 30mm. It auto focuses very well, even in low light. I complain about this lens, yet I use it more than any other lens. Kit lens owners beware, you will want this lens if you try it, the Sony 18-70mm is awful compared to this. I do not have the Zeiss 18-80mm lens for comparison, but many have stated this lens achieves nearly the same performance and adds the extra range. I selected this lens based on that and have no regrets.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: hg102 review date: March-15-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Minolta 24mm f:2.8, Minolta 50mm f:17, Minolta 50mmf:1.4, 35-105 f:3.5-4.5,
price paid:	$385 USD used
positive:	Zoom Range size quick focusing
negative:	APC only Mild distortion at 16-24 mm
comment:	I really like the focal length range and ergonomics. I originally rated this lens higher but after using Minolta 200mm f:2.8 G, 80-200 f:2.8 G HS and a few others, I realized this lens isn't up to the Minoltas immage and build quality. That said it is still my goto lens for general out door shooting

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 4	user: tommyrider review date: March-10-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Zeiss 16-80
price paid:	Trade
positive:	Usefull Range Nice build Sharp Good colors
negative:	-Distortion at the wide end (as expected in a zoom with this range) -Some people underrate this lens.
comment:	A good companion to any aps-c alpha body.I used to own two zeiss 16-80 copies and all I can say is the 16-105 comes very close to it in terms of IQ.I guess the sony has better construction.THe zeiss has slight more saturated colors and micro contrast.Bokeh is ok wide open @105mm.Depending of the backround.Its hard to say wich is the best.I guess ,they are different options.Both are excelent walkoround zooms.Sometimes is nice to have the extra range,with very little compromise.

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4	user: StormK review date: March-05-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	18-70 kit lens 70-210 kit lens beercan big beercan
price paid:	472USD
positive:	Sharp Focal range Colors contrast
negative:	Zoom a bit stiff any filter gives dark corners a bit slow
comment:	This lens is perfect except when it comes to distortion at 16mm but that is to be expected. Also it really is impossible to use filters uv or cpl alike without getting dark corners at wider apertures. That said i think it's a marvel and together with a sharp beercan, who needs anything else. Except maybe a fast prime. Highly recommended!

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4	user: tcat1346 review date: February-05-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Minolta 28-135mm Sony 18-70mm
price paid:	360 USD (Used)
positive:	Range Build Sharpness Very Fast Focus Color Rendition
negative:	Slight Flare @ Wide End
comment:	Picked up this lens to use for various events I shoot, many of which are held in Arboretums and Conservatories. Range is perfect for my purposes. Color rendition similar to my Minolta lenses. Well built and easy to handle, even though it is slighty heavy (I don't consider that a major problem, considering the results). Will be shooting in Europe in June for a month, and it will reduce the equipment I'll need to take along, which is always nice when traveling. Will post some samples when I return.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: Ivanhoe review date: February-04-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Sony 18-55mm Sony 18-70mm
price paid:	EUR 376
positive:	Nice range Build quality Flare control
negative:	Barrel distortion Weight
comment:	This is a great travel lens due to its very nice range. The lens is a bit heavy, but the build quality is excellent. Much better than the 18-55mm. Be careful with filters, as it vignettes easily at 16mm.

sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: zhihui review date: January-23-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	tamron 17-50 f2.8 sony 18-70 cz 16-80 minolta 28-70 G
positive:	very good range very sharp wide open from 16 - 30 mm fast focus focus accurate color is pretty good affordable
negative:	3.5 - 5.6 aperture
comment:	tis is the best standard zoom lens that i own.... i used tamron 17-50 for over 2 yrs, and finally sold it to replace this one. the sharpness is better than tamron when wide open, colour is cool,like cz 16-80 colour... the focusing speed and accurately is better than tamron also...accurate in low light condition but need to use together with flash... i recommanded tis lens to anyone who are need a affordable standard zoom,and really want to perform well in 16-30mm...

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: finnt review date: January-12-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Minolta 24-105 D, KM 18-70
price paid:	370 euro in A700 kit
positive:	Well build, good range, nice design
negative:	Not really anything, price considered
comment:	Best WA lens I ever had. Sharp, perfect range.

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: SvenJTD review date: January-09-10
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	SAL 18-70 SAL 75-300
price paid:	400eur (new)
positive:	Focal length, sharpness, colour, build
negative:	None
comment:	A bit slow focus under some light conditions.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: ianb review date: December-10-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	CZ16-80
price paid:	L620 with A700!!
positive:	Solid Build Very Good range Image Quality almost matches CZ16-80.
negative:	Slower lens than 16-80 but not much else other than some edge CA in difficult lighting.. easily corrected
comment:	I wanted another A700 body only, but had to take an ex display combination with this lens for L620! Compared with what I paid for my first body this means the lens was a snip at L30! Compared with the CZ16-80.. It is not quite as sharp as the CZ, and has some edge Chromatic abberation, and stops down at lower focal lengths, but all in all I am really impressed with this lens. It is beter build quality with no zoom wobble or creep. The extra reach is a great advantage. If I had to choose just one of these lenses, I have to say it would be a very very difficult choice. THe decision is between very slightly better image quality, and extra 20mm of reach.... Your choice. In very cold and very damp conditions, the lens suddenly decided to enhance the magenta... I was both worried and surprised but as others have shared it is a temporary blip... I'm not changing any of my ratings as a result. I would thoroughly recommend this lens. (Now Sold with my backup a700 to make cupboard space for the A900.) Ianb

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5	user: Vancouver review date: November-17-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:
price paid:	600 CAD$
positive:	Range Color Build Price
negative:	Occasional vingnette on wide end
comment:	This lens is often compared to CZ 16-80 and this is for a good reason; it s performance. I agree with people here. To get a700 with this lens is the best value kit. I made a mistake not to get mine with the camera. I planned to buy a CZ 16-80. When I got to the store and start comparing with this lens. I decided to not buy anything and come home and do more research. I finally went with this lens. It s 120$ cheaper and the IQ is very very close, longer reach. Why not? It is a very sharp lens. I have read that this was Sony's attempt to mimic CZ work and did a good job with it. If you plan to get a CZ, do try this first.

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: zabaz review date: November-17-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	zeiss 16-80
price paid:	350 eur
positive:	big zoomrange sharp cheap
negative:	not usable on ff
comment:

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: CaptainChet review date: October-19-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	18-70 mm Kit Lens
price paid:	590 USD NEW
positive:	Overall a great lens! I have no complains except as noted below.
negative:	Vignetting at 16mm is noticeable, especially if you use a regular filter.
comment:	This lens is much sharper than I expected. There is no comparison to the 18-70mm kit lens. For me, a good purchase. The build quality is fine, as good as can be expected for this construction. It does get a little long when fully extended but manageable. I'm shooting with a A700 and can easily hand hold it to 1/10 (1/15) sec at full zoom. As mentioned above, the vignetting at 16mm is noticeable. This could bother some so be aware. I've been able to PS most of it out. Not using a filter helps. I need to try a thin filter to see if that helps. Overall, I like this lens and I'm pleased with my purchase. (PS.. Started using Minolta products with the SRT101 and never left the fold. That's a long time with one brand!)

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: gonzales.ni review date: October-12-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Tamron 28-200
price paid:	300 USD
positive:	Great all around lens. Sharp and great color.
negative:	none
comment:	The build is great and I use this lens all the time! Great all around lens.

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: ghmcs review date: September-23-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Sony 18-200 Minolta 35-105
price paid:	450 USD (used)
positive:	useful zoom range small size and weight very sharp
negative:	price new
comment:	This lens is on my camera 80% of the time. The zoom range and relatively small size and weight make it an excellent choice for every day use. Extremely sharp at f/8 and smaller, and I would say above average up to f/5.6. I just used this lens for 2 weeks straight on holiday, quite often at the extreme focal lengths, and I was very happy with the image quality.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: lafustera review date: September-23-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	kit lens
price paid:	280 gbp (new)
positive:	Most useful Zoom range Price Build Great range
negative:
comment:	I was looking to buy a cz16-80mm lens to replace my kit lens, But saw this on rgb tech website (uk) for 280 gbp so i promtly ordered it , I had to wait 4 weeks for delivery . I am very impressed with this lens , it is almost always on the camera (A700)

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: Hugo review date: September-15-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Sony 18-70 Minolta 28-135
price paid:	350
positive:	Very sharp Reasonably lightweight Great range Jack of all trades
negative:	Nothing much, really... price maybe, could be faster
comment:	Awesome lens. Bought it as a walkaruond lens for my A300. I was looking for a wide angle lens, and the 18-70 kit lens was just not cutting it, plus the added range was a side benefit. I own the mighty 28-135, but its weight can become an issue, and 28mm isn't that wide on an APS-C camera. I snagged one off eBay for a lot less money than what they go for these days. Lots of reviews say it compares to the CZ 16-80 with added range benefit. Sounds about right. This lens is always on my camera, so much that I'm contemplating selling the 28-135mm I had all the trouble in the world finding... I'm giving it a 4 in color even though I'd prefer 4,5, if it was available. Likewise, I'd give it a 4,5 in build rating if I could, so as it is, it evens out.

sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: maveric review date: September-09-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Sony AF 18-70 F3.5-5.6 Sigma EX 24-70 F2.8
price paid:	a700 kit
positive:	Range Build Size and Weight
negative:	Noting that should surprise you (slow ...)
comment:	Perfect for a walk around lens. If I don't know what I'll be shooting this is the lens that goes on. I haven't really used either the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 sins I got this lens. I don't feel that I miss the extra stops on my a700. This lens is really amazing for a kit lens. But would I buy it separately? Maybe not, a little expensive.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: keith_h review date: September-08-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	28-85 28-75/2.8
positive:	Focal range, versatility Compact and light Sharp
negative:	Vignettes @ 16mm
comment:	I have had this lens over 12 months now and it never leaves the camera. Images taken with this lens on the the 5D or a200 are sharp and with pleasing colours. Focus accuracy and speed have never been an issue. Build is adequate. The best thing I think is the utility of the focal lengths. This makes the lens extremely versatile for many situations compared to the 28-75 or 28-85 neither being wide or long enough for my use. The few stops extra of the 28-75/2.8 have not been missed either since as noted elsewhere, the Sony bodies can bridge the gap in other ways. I bought this lens on vacation and paid a significant premium but have never regretted it. I am extremely happy with the performance this lens delivers.

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: paulevans review date: August-02-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	18-70 KM 28-135 f4-4.5
price paid:	with A700
positive:	Sharp, very sharp in fact Great range Solid build
negative:	Slight barrel distortion at wide end Slight vignetting wide open
comment:	As kit lenses go, this one is the best! Covers most eventualities and does it well enough. No complaints.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: marcosfg review date: July-27-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	tamron 17-50
positive:	Zoom range sharp colours
negative:	3,5-5,6
comment:

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5	user: skm.sa100 review date: July-18-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	SAL 18-70. Min 50 f/1.7
price paid:	400 USD (new)
positive:	Range. Weight. Price.
negative:	Not much I can think of. Maybe have F/4 constant?
comment:	This is my first lens review and a pretty unscientific at that. After I got the 18-70 for the kit lens and realizing that I'm not able to get full value from the camera due to this lens, I started to look around. I read a whole lot of reviews and compared prices and ended up deciding on this lens. Perhaps the only better standard zoom out there is the CZ 16-80. Well, there's the Tamron 17-50 and a couple of other standard zooms which are of good quality but I wanted a good range. I got a brand new copy with free shipping for 400 USD. I love this lens. The range translates to a 24mm-157.5mm!! That's an amazing range for a single lens. It covers a wide variety of shooting situations. Pictures come out tack sharp, but you need to stop down a stop or two for best results. Center sharpness is good througout wide open. Personally, I couldn't justify spending a further $300 for the CZ, and get a smaller range. Importantly, I rarely print poster size and almost never pixel peep. I'm an amateur hobbyist without the exacting standards for pros. Hence this lens is great for me, given the sharpenss, colors and range. The bokeh is sweet but not as good as the 50mm F/1.7.

sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: Otakar review date: July-17-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:
price paid:	kit with A700
positive:	my first lens good range build 16 mm on wide end
negative:	vignetting at 16mm even when using slim CPL filter but expected manual focusing not great aperture range - min 5,6 at 105 mm filter diameter 62 mm not too often
comment:	When I decided to buy A700 camera (my first DSLR) and when I considered a lens with good ratio price/ performance, there was only one choice - this lens. Other notes: good as start lens, very practical zoom range, good combination with A700

sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: marathonianbull review date: June-22-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Sony CZ 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 Sony 55-200mm f/4-5.6 Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro Minolta 50mm f/1.7 Minolta 70-210mm f/4 (Beercan)
price paid:	(Part of the A700 kit)
positive:	+ SUPER fast, accurate focus!!! + VERY sharp centers (3D-like effect!) + Warmer colors than w/ similar Sony CZ + Perfect focal range + Sturdy + NOT overpriced...
negative:	- Compared to Sony CZ 16-80mm, 1/3 f-stop slower until 54mm; 2/3 f-stop from 55mm to 80mm... On the other hand, Sony's cameras offer many ways to offset this. NOT a real-life disaster!
comment:	I was quite pleased with Sony's 16-105mm, rightfully dubbed Cosina's "Modified Edition" of the popular Sony CZ 16-80mm... The 16-80mm may be optically sharper on the edges (at least IN THEORY - at some focal lengths and apertures ONLY) and slightly faster with 1/3 f-stop difference until 54mm or 2/3 f-stop difference from 55mm to 80mm, BUT.. Sony's latest creation has succeeded where its Zeiss sibling has strayed: This lens reproduces Minolta's magic better by offering WARMER, PUNCHIER COLORS (as opposed to more blueish / neutral ones) as well as SHARPER CENTERS! By the way, I have also noticed that my A700 tends to focus more accurately in the middle zone of a scene (spot AF / spot metering areas) with the 16-105mm mounted (!?) While both models suffer from low-to-moderate distortion at extreme focal lengths (Sony > CZ), the 16-105mm has inherited more efficient control over ghosting and flare! To sum up, pictures from the underdog often look as gorgeous as those from the pricier CZ 16-80mm design. The trick here is to get to know the lens' sweet spots (see Blur Index at: slrgear.com), something that may seem like a hurdle at first yet become a huge advantage in the long run. The 16-105mm will never be uniformly as sharp as my Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro, nor as bright as my Minolta 50mm f/1.7, but its brisk, precise focus behavior, handy focal range, and colorful output make it an ideal travel zoom to own; a real 'swiss-knife' lens! (If you already own Sony's wonderful 16-105mm, a word of advice: it would be REDUNDANT to add Sony's CZ 16-80mm to your collection, as well as pointless to get rid of your 16-105mm in order to fund the purchase of the aforementioned CZ!)

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: andrewlamwc review date: June-16-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Sony/Carl Zeiss - Vario-Sonnar T* DT 16-80 F3.5-4.5 Sony - AF DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6 Minolta - AF 24-105 F3.5-4.5 D Sigma - 18-200 F3.5-6.3 DC
price paid:	340 USD (new)
positive:	+ Most useful Zoom range + Price + Build + Good colours + 16mm
negative:	- Distortion at 16mm
comment:	Has tried this lens in a Sony promotion activity and found the zoom range and picture quality is so nice while that time I was using the 18-70 Kit. Even replaced the kit lens with 16-80ZA and have a Sigma 18-200 as always on lens. I still missing this lens but the price $450 is too high for me. Found someone who purchase A700 kit but sold this lens. Then it brow away the Sigma 18-200 and become my walkaround lens. It out perform to Sigma 18-200 in all aspects except the zoom range. It's acceptable for me, as 80% of picutre I'm taking with range below 105, to give up some range with far better picture quanlity.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: Alpha2008 review date: May-10-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	18-70
price paid:	EUR 320 (new)
positive:	Zoom range Price tag Flare Weight
negative:	Comparatively slow Distortion
comment:	Like many others before, I bought this "premium kit" lens to replace the standard 18-70 kit lens. I probably was lucky to get a new copy of the DT 16-105 for only EUR 320. For that price this lens with its highly practical zoom range gives you a great bang for the buck. Particularly, having 16mm instead of 18mm at the wide end is sweet for landscape photography. The comparatively low weight of the 16-105 makes it a nice walkaround lens. While it's not built like a tank, build quality seems to be perfectly fine to me. I also like how flare is handled. It's better than what I'm used to from the kit lens whose flare control I already found more than decent. As others have mentioned, distoration is visible, in particular at the wide end, even though coming from the 18-70 I don't consider this a huge issue. Compared to the Sigma 17-70 or the (far) more expensive CZ16-80, aperture speed may be slower, but I'm into landscape photography, so this is no deal breaker either.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: wbreda review date: May-10-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Sony 18-70 DT
price paid:	EUR 376
positive:	Nice zoom range Weight Build quality
negative:	Barrel distortion
comment:	I bought this lens as a replacement to the 18-70 kit lens. Compared to this lens the build and picture quality is much better. Also the zoom range is very nice. I don't like changing lenses too much, but did not want to resort to a hyperzoom. In this situation this is a great 'compromise' lens. The barrel distortion on 16mm is noticible in some shots (horizon) but correctable in post processing if necessary. It is a bit slow (3.5 is only at 16mm). Filters do need to be low profile to avoid vignetting.

sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: Mr_Canuck review date: April-30-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	CZ 16-80 Sigma 17-70 Minolta 35/2 Minolta 50/1.7 Minolta 28-135 Tamron 17-50 Beercan
positive:	Unique and useful zoom range. Nice build, size and weight. Good colours.
negative:	Slow aperture. Wide barrel distortion. Average bokeh.
comment:	This is a nice generalist lens that covers a lot of ground. I like that it's 16mm at the wide end but this is hampered by the barrel distortion to some extent. Colours are pleasing enough. When stopped down it produces quite sharp images all around, so it's good outdoors and for landscapes in decent light. Wide open you'll see fuzzy corners. It's not a portrait lens as the bokeh is average and it's got a pretty small aperture across its range. That's probably the most negative aspect; it ain't a bright lens. Doesn't compare to higher end and classic Minolta glass in terms of smoothness and that special 'look'. But if you've got another indoors option for available light shooting, and if you aren't worried about portraits with this lens, it's a good walk-around for hiking, vacations and general shooting. It's quite comparable to the Sigma 17-70 but you get more length but don't get as much close up function, and it's slower. I've now got a CZ 16-80 and prefer it quite a lot over the 16-105 in terms of speed, contrast, colour, bokeh, but not build.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: maxfarphoto review date: April-24-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Minolta 28-135 f4/4,5 Sigma 12-24 f4,5/5,6 Minolta 17-35 f2,8/4
price paid:	A700 kit
positive:	Nice range Light weight Flare control
negative:	Slow Price (out of a kit)
comment:	I got it in the A700 kit. I like the range and, best of all, flare control. It is compact and well build but no as fast as it would be. Compared against Minolta 28-135 it looses hands down (but Minolta is my favourite lens). Sharpness stopped down is really good, a bit soft wide open. A good buying if you get it in the A700 kit, little bit pricy if bought alone.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: araujo.emanuel review date: April-12-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Minolta AF 35-70 F3.5-4.5 Sony - AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 Sony AF 18-70 F3.5-5.6 Sigma AF 90 F2.8 Macro Minolta AF 28 F2.8
price paid:	$450
positive:	Size, build quality, fast focus, super sharp, Nice colors, range, very wide
negative:
comment:

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5	user: i2o3l review date: April-03-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	- SAL 1870 - SAL 75300
price paid:	470 USD (new)
positive:	- Nice Color and Sharp - Nice Bokeh
negative:	- None
comment:	I want to find a lens to replace my 1870 and when I dig up the web to find some review, most of all had pointed this lens to be a great one. I searched my local store and found one that sell with a very bargain price. This lens is quite amazing. The sharpness is great and the image quality is as great as you expected. The color is great and got very nice bokeh. And yes, you might find little vigneting on 16mm wide open but it is unnoticeable. The lens range is also more than enough to be carried as a walkaround lens. It is really worth the money :) updated!, I took this lens on my vacation and try a night shooting with it. The flare control is good and the picture is soooo sharp even at low light, if I wanna replace this lens with other, the only thing that came up on my mind is CZ16-35 :)

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: lyn review date: April-03-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Sony 18-70mm DT, Sigma 28-200mm DG Macro, Sony 55-200mm, Sony 70-300mm SSM
price paid:	420 USD (new)
positive:	Sharp, Compact, Solid, Color
negative:
comment:	This is amazing for a kit lens. Great sharpness and color overall. I comment on the weight because I hike and back country ski at high elevation. All of my photography is nature/wild life and I pack everything in, but this lens is worth it. I would have purchased the 16-80CZ, but after reading many reviews on this site, and several other user reviews, I picked this lens up. I'm glad that I did. Just got back from Italy and my copy of this lens did incredibly well! If you're debating whether or not to go with this or the CZ comparable find a sharp copy of this bad boy and you will love the range as well as performance.

sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: Anssisa review date: April-02-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	M 28mm F2.8 So 50mm F1.4 M 80-200 HSG M 85G
positive:	- a good compromize that works as a holiday lens. - compact lens with great range
negative:	nothing that you do not know about when buying the lens (the aperture is not the greatest etc, but these are lost to gain range and compactness)
comment:	This lens was bought with the A700 kit. My main usage has been only for travel photography, when im in such company that im not allowed to take all the time i want to take pictures. In this regard the 16-105 works great. I have the range i need, and without any hassel of changing lenses. It is a compromize, and that shows in everything of the lens. Still, its much better than i had hoped for when compared to my other lenses.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: chrishurley review date: March-14-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Sony 16-80, Sigma 17-70, Minolta 28-105, Tamron 18-250
price paid:	420 new
positive:	Sharpness Range Build
negative:	Slowish aperture
comment:	I don't understand how the reviews are so rough on this lens. I've tried and tried to find the terrible corner softness, but I keep missing it. My test shots come out sharp- bitingly sharp, like the Tamron 17-50. The 16-80 may be superior in the hands of a more experienced user, but I really never got the shot that made me say "wow- this blows the other lenses away". I've been an enthusiast user for a couple of years which qualifies me as an extreme novice. I sold my 16-80 instead of the 16-105 because I knew it would bring more cash. The 17-70 can be similarly sharp, and has the really fun close-focus feature, but the extra reach of the 16-105 is nice to have. At a significantly lower price, the 17-70 is as good a compromise against the 16-105 as it is against the 16-80. Of course, the Tamron 18-250 is still on my camera a lot, even with the 16-105 around. The extra tele is just handy, even if you have to sacrifice a little bit of sharpness and a lot of focus speed. Update: 5/2009: I continue to be surprised with the sharpness of this lens. I shot test after test trying to get the 17-70 or 18-250 a chance to produce a sharper image and the 16-105 fought them off. I would have a hard time selling this lens at this point. Update: 4/4/2010: I haven't been using the lens as much lately because I had the impression that the 18-250 focuses closer, acting as a poor-mans macro. I shot with the 16-105 for a while the last couple of days and once again, I'm struck by how sharp this lens is. Its no beercan in the close focus department- you can get within a couple of feet of an object but not quite like the 17-70mm which can practically be on the front glass.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: jakubh70 review date: January-28-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Tamron 18-250 XR LD Di, Sony 18-70, Sigma 18-200 DC
price paid:	kit with A700
positive:	Nice range, sharp, light
negative:	A bit too slow, would like it to be 16-135
comment:	Superior kit lens, giving sharp pictures with great colour. Acceptable distortion for so wide range, not visible under regular conditions. This lens could be faster at standard focal length (F5@30-35mm is slow). And could have yet some extra range at tele end... but, well, it would have to be larger then. From the other hand, why not? I haven't noticed additional vignetting at 16 mm when using Hoya HMC UV filter or Hoya Pro1 PL filter.

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: cjlethal review date: January-08-09
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	16-80 ZA 18-55 DT 18-250 DT
price paid:	500 CAD
positive:	Sharp lens very usable range compact
negative:	too slow for a walk around lens under some lighting
comment:

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: diveasia review date: December-06-08
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	cz 18-80 sal1870
price paid:	305 euro NEW!!
positive:	everything!
negative:	some vignetting when using filters at 16-24.
comment:	This is the one AWESOME lens! Did tests to compare it with the CZ 16-80, and liked this one better! Awesome colour, very sharp, great bokeh, build like a rock. Slight distortion at 16 mm (quite normal), easily fixable in pp. Blows away the sal1870 kitlens! Vignetting when using filters at 16-24 range. So don't use them in this range. Bought this new for a bargain price!

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: crlowryjr review date: November-06-08
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Sigma 24 F1.8 Macro Minolta 17-35 G Minolta 28-70 G Sony 18-70 Sony 75-300
positive:	+ great focal range + wonderfully solid feel + quick & accurate AF + beautiful color & bokeh + great sharpness
negative:	- nothing I experienced
comment:	For a kit lens I was blown away...Sony did a fantastic job. The color and bokeh were Minolta Dreamy, and the sharpness was pretty much on when stopped down a little. The overall feel of the lens is solid. Had it not been for the Minolta 28-70 G in my collection I would have kept this one (lucky for my little sister).

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5	user: musicol review date: October-09-08
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	CZ 16-80
positive:	range colors sharp very nice bokeh good built
negative:
comment:	Great range, excellent standard lens, nice bokeh, no distorsion, excellent colors, very sharp, more pleasant (for me) than CZ 16-80.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: dr_obrien review date: August-10-08
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Sony 18-70mm kit lens Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 XR DI
price paid:	$499 USD new
positive:	Decent build. Great walk-around range. Center of frame is sharp at any setting. Very sharp 16-35mm. Non-rotating front element
negative:	Soft corners 50-70mm wide open. CA at 105mm under extreme contrast conditions.
comment:	I bought this lens for a vacation walk-around lens due to its 16mm wide angle. I was very unhappy with the 18-70 kit lens. I also considered the CZ 16-80mm at the time but got a great deal on the 16-105, nearly a $200 difference. I find the lens to be very good at 16-35mm, sharp from f5.6 to f11 with good color rendition. At 50-70mm there is some extreme corner softness. Stopping down to f11 helps reduce the problem. Center sharpness is still adequate. At 105mm f8-f11 the corners get a little better. At 16mm there is barrel distortion but that should be expected from a lens of this design. Flare is noticeable under extreme conditions such as a bright sun on the edges of the frame even with hood on. Again, this is expected at 16mm. At 16mm the extreme corners will vignette with a low profile filter. CA only seems to be a problem at 105mm under extreme conditions such as a dark object against a very bright sky. I have found this to be correctable with Lightroom. The minimum apertures fall as follows; 3.5 @ 16mm, 4.0 @ 20mm, 4.5 @ 24mm, 5.0 @ 35mm, and 5.6 @ 60mm. Overall, I am very pleased with this lens for its intended use, a wide angle vacation walk-around lens. I would not recommend it as a portrait lens. Shots on Flickr tagged for this lens are at http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_obrien/tags/sony16105mm/

sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4	user: Minolta Head review date: July-09-08
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Minolta 28-135mm Minolta 24-105mm (D)
price paid:	L210
positive:	Sharpness Range Weight Build
negative:	Slight vignetting at 16mm. Front cap a little fiddly.
comment:	After reading the reviews here, I decided to buy this lens. I am delighted with it, once again Dyxum has proved to be reliable guide for buyer's. I was using the excellent 28-135mm previously which I decided to sell due to it's weight. I find the 16-105mm a very acceptable replacement. Good sharpness across the range and excellent weight. The range is perfect for walk-around landscape shots and useful for closer images, for example zoo animals. The AF speed is very impressive. This does make an excellent A700 walk around.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5	user: womprat4 review date: June-15-08
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	- Tamron 28-75 f2.8 - Sony 18-250 - 50 f1.4 and f1.7
price paid:	550
positive:	- nice build quality - great range - fast focus - very sharp stopped down a little - no noticeable flare
negative:	- some very small vignetting wide open at 16mm - manual focusing not great
comment:	Really enjoy shooting with this lens. Focus is fast and accurate at all focal lengths, including the wide end at 16mm. Never have to zoom in, focus and zoom out to get a shot. The CZ 16-80 I borrowed for a time never focused well at the very wide end, but this lens is very accurate. The center sharpness is excellent, very sharp. I have not had or noticed major problems with extreme corner or edge softness that has been mentioned by others. Vignetting is well controlled, but not with a filter on the extreme wide end. Overall, a very good lens. Nice range, that little extra reach to 105 is very handy. Recommended. No where near as disappointing as a couple reviews elsewhere would have you believe.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: RVSSTS review date: June-12-08
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Sony 18-70mm kit
price paid:	559 USD (new)
positive:	Good range Pretty fast focus even in low light Sharp photos Rich colors
negative:	Little pricey for premium kit lens
comment:	I compared the CZ 16-80 to this lens when I purchased it. To my eye I only noticed a slight difference between the 2 lenses (Colors a little less rich than that produced by the CZ). It wasnt worth the extra money and I wanted the extra range. I have not noticed the extreme viginetting and edge blur as reported in some reviews. I have had it for several months and have around 1000 shots on it in many different lighting conditions and situations. I love this lens. It stays on my A700 most of the time

sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: raydsr review date: June-03-08
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Carl Zeiss 16-80mm
price paid:	500 USD
positive:	amazing sharpness at 16 mm in low light. out performed the carl zeiss 16-80mm in my tests.
negative:	heavy. build quality isn't quite as nice as the CZ.
comment:	i got this lens as part of the kit with my a 700 purchase. i also bought the CZ 16-80mm thinking that i would sell this kit lens on ebay. after doing two days of testing i found the 16-105mm to be a better performer for me over and over again. it's simply an amazing lens at any price! i returned the CZ and i'm keeping the 16-105 as my main everyday lens. i only wish it was lighter and a little smoother in feel.

sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 1 distortion: 5 flare control: 4	user: 2hotrods review date: May-16-08
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:
price paid:	549 USD (new)
positive:	Great pictures at wide open apurture.
negative:
comment:	Aperture blades are sticking badly, hence the poor build rating. Horribly overexposed shots due to lens slow to stop down. Will be returning this one. Hopefully it is an anomaly, and not a common characteristic of this model lens.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: is_hagen review date: April-30-08
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	KM 18-70, Min 35/2, Min 50/1.7, Sigma 28-70 2.8 EX, Beercan
price paid:	kit lens with A700
positive:	flexible range good build quality much better than the kit lens
negative:	noticable vignets at 16mm distortion at 16mm need to stop to around f8 to get optimal sharpness in the 50mm-105mm range
comment:	A good walkaround lens that far exceeds what the 18-70 can offer in terms of IQ. It's best in the 20mm - 45mm range, the wide end shows signs of noticable barrel distortion and vignetting. The long end gives good center sharpness, but the corners are fairly soft. This can be greatly improved by stopping down to around f8. The 'premium kit lens' stamp fits well. Much better than any other kit lens I've seen. Probably won't rival the CZ16-80 in terms of IQ but has the nice extra 25mm range instead. I've not given it max points for colour. Although very good, it doesn't quite live up to the amazing older Minolta stuff.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: Dr. Harout review date: March-23-08
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	SAL1870 and SAL75300
price paid:	kit lens w/ A700
positive:	Build, hood, IF, IQ
negative:	Focusing not precise on wide side.
comment:	Way better than SAL1870 in most respects. Very sharp at f/8 and beyond. Wide open and up to f/8, sharpness weakens specially away from the center. Has a very good flare control, and purple fringing in highlights (not always) fixable easily. Overall a very good lens worth carrying around. If you want to travel with just one lens, this might be it.

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: jubilee0504 review date: March-21-08
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	KM 18-70, Min 24-85, 28-135, 35-70, 35-105, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.7 and some others!
price paid:	kit
positive:	Very sharp at all settings Build quality
negative:	Light falloff in corners at f5.6 and wider Noticeable barrel distortion at 16mm, gone by 24mm
comment:	This a marvellous lens, bought with my A700 and stays there most of the time. Gives great results all the time and covers all situations excapt long telephoto and low light.

sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4	user: sdblanchet review date: December-26-07
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Minolta 24-105D
price paid:	575$ CDN (new)
positive:	Very sharp with an interesting range from wide (16) to tele (105)
negative:	Vignetting @ 16mm even when using slim uv filter but expected
comment:	I bought this lens for need of wider range but also in the intent to have a single lens when travelling with limited storage and this lens will do that. I thought about CZ1680 and SAL180250 but felt the price/quality was about right. I used the lens with my 7D and my a700 and the results are good. Some purple fringing in highlights but again expected. I find the results sharper than with my 24-105D on my 7D but quite similar on my a700 (suspect 7D focus inaccuracy)

sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5	user: Webguyyy review date: November-30-07
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:	Tamron 18-250 Sony 18-70
price paid:	405 cdn
positive:	Well made. Metal mount, functional petal lens hood, and has a non rotating front element. Covers 16-105 (24-157.5 35mm equivalent). ADI flash compatible.
negative:	Sony rubber lens grip design is a dust collector. A little slow at the longer end and AF can hunt in lower light. No macro feature. Slight distortion at 16mm wide angle end.
comment:	I bought this lens as a kit lens with a Sony A-700. Sony calls it a premium kit lens, and it is a far superior lens to the lower priced Sony 18-70 kit lens, with it's plastic mount, rotating front element and non functional lens hood (only good at 18mm - non petal old design). It's easy to see the difference in quality, with the newly designed 16-105mm lens. It has an uncommon lens range 16-105 which equates to 24mm to 157.5mm, 35mm equivalent. This makes it a great lens for lots of purposes from indoor group shots, portraits, landscapes and short telephotos. Not bad as a walkabout lens. It may not be a Zeiss lens, but it has a better range compared to the Zeiss 16-80 higher priced lens. It's about the same size as the Tamron 18-250 lens. Just to gain the extra couple of mm at the lower wider end, and extra 35mm at the long end is worth the price (compared to the 18-70 lens) for the range and greatly improved quality. Combine this lens with a Sigma 70-300 APO and you have a killer 2 lens combo, with lots of overlap. Far superior to the basic Sony 18-70 & 75-300 2 lens bargain combo. The only thing this lens is missing is a macro feature (the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro, has a 1/2 macro feature). I think the A-700P combo with the A-700 body, is the best A-700 kit lens combo value & quality for the money. Very nice lens to use, and takes sharp pictures.

sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5	user: mahmoud review date: November-23-07
	tested on film camera: tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP: tested on full frame:24MP
compared to:
price paid:	500
positive:	Good range, good price
negative:	sharpness requires PP processing using NIk plugin for Photoshop CS3,in addition to Auto Levels.
comment:	I have been using this lens for about two weeks and I am in love with it.

Dyxum.com - Home of the Minolta / Alpha-mount dSLR photographer.

Feel free to contact us if needed. You can support future development by making a donation.

Lens index page

Fixed focal length

Macros

Zooms

Teleconverters

Comparative view

DOF Calculator

Dyxum Lens Database Reviewing Guideline

Lens Glossary

Suggest a lens

> Dyxum lens forum <

Support dyxum when buying lenses

Support Dyxum purchuasing at B&H

lens image

Summary ratings

sharpness: 4.59

color: 4.62

build: 4.32

distortion: 4.07

flare control: 4.52

overall: 4.42

total reviews: 87

Forum sample images

AF DT 16-105mm F3.5-5.6 lens details