| | |  | Lenses | Home » » » Sony SAL16105 16-105mm f/3.5-5.6 Wide-Range Zoom Lens | | | | | | | Description: | | Sony SAL16105 16-105mm f/3.5-5.6 Wide-Range Zoom Lens | | | Features: | |
• Excellent wide-angle to long telephoto shots
• 2 Aspherical Lens Elements for wide-ranging accuracy
• ED Glass Element for sharp, clear long shots
• Circular Aperture for pleasing defocused effects
• 35mm Equivalent: 24mm to 157.5mm
| | | Product Details: | | | Product Length:
| 4.06 inches | | Product Width:
| 4.31 inches | | Product Height:
| 6.47 inches | | Product Weight:
| 1.04 pounds | | Package Length:
| 6.6 inches | | Package Width:
| 4.3 inches | | Package Height:
| 4.1 inches | | Package Weight:
| 1.45 pounds | | Average Customer Rating:
|  based on 11 reviews |
| | | | Customer Reviews: | |
Average Customer Review:
 ( 11 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
51 of 51 found the following review helpful:
 High Quality, High Zoom Range, Highly AffordableFeb 15, 2010
By Tim Naff
"Tim"
I've been shooting this lens alongside the full-frame Zeiss 24 -70mm f/2.8 and Sony G 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6, both of which are world-class. What I've found has surprised me: this lens has no apologies to make in that company. I bought the other two lenses only because I expect to transition to full frame in about 3 years. (I'm currently using an A550 body.) I haven't done any scientific measurements, but when I blow-up shots from this lens on a large monitor, I'm not finding any resolution issues at all. I've done shots of the same subjects with all three lenses, and simply haven't seen any loss of resolution or any color signature with this lens. Again, this is real-world shooting and subjective evaluation, not laboratory testing.
Someone commented on the lens being heavy. That's a relative thing. It is much, much lighter than the Zeiss 70-24. That's partly because the Zeiss has a wider aperture and works full frame. The 16-105 is, however, heavier than typical Minolta film camera lenses.
The feel of the build quality is impressive. It is very, very close to the subjective feel of the Zeiss 24-70, which is possibly the best made lens on the market. If you twist and wiggle the two lenses, you can detect a very slightly tighter tolerance in the Zeiss, but you have to try -- it's not readily apparent.
This is my walk-around lens of choice. I also considered the Sony SAL18250 Alpha DT 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 and the Zeiss Sony SAL-1680Z DT 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5. Based on what I've read and what I've experienced first hand, I'd say the optical quality of the lenses would place the 18-250 at the low end, this 16-105 in the middle, and the Zeiss 16-80 at the high end, with this 16-105 being closer to the Zeiss than to the 18-250. Honestly, I don't think you'd go wrong with any of the three. But if you want close to the best quality, and the 6.5X zoom range suits your needs, this lens is a no-brainer. Personally, I wouldn't trade it for either of the other two, even though it's the least expensive.
Additional comment: Several months after writing my original review above, I spent 3 weeks with my camera covering 10 stops in Europe. I took this lens and the Zeiss. I left my other lenses behind because I couldn't spare the weight budget. I'm now, more than ever, a huge fan of the lens reviewed here. I took over 2000 pictures, and my best shot -- afforded by its zoom range, was taken with this lens. This lens, matched with the A550 (or A500) body makes an absolutely formidable combination.
***Update*** I note that this lens is no longer cheaper than the 18-250. I now have both, but in most cases, this is still my walk-around lens of choice on what is now my A580.
***Update 2*** I now have the Zeiss 16-80. It is slightly sharper and the colors are slightly more saturated, but you have to look very closely to see the difference. If I were traveling with my A580 and could only take one lens, the 16-105 would still be my choice, just for its zoom range. For those that want more speed, the 16-50 F2.8 is getting good reviews. I have one coming in a couple of weeks.
Good shooting,
Tim
10 of 10 found the following review helpful:
If you only can buy one Sony Alpha lens buy this one!Feb 21, 2011
By N Doxey
I can't explain why I overlooked this lens and bought other Sigma, Tamron, and Sony lenses for my Sony Alpha camera bodies first. What a mistake! I never was satisfied with the performance of the less expensive (under $600) walk about lenses once I took pictures with the very fine Sony 24-70mm Carl Zeiss G lens. But often I found myself unwilling to take a $1500 lens outdoors or to places I was concerned about theft.
Recently I purchased and tried the Sony 16-105mm lens. I found that it produces results very similar to a G glass lens. In fact I am very impressed. I recently took portraits of 100 students during a choir tour. All the shots were taken from the aisle while the bus was moving with only a single external flash bounced from the ceiling and a small reflector positioned in the lap of each student.
When I reviewed the images on the computer I was amazed at the performance of this lens. Sharp (I look for the sharpness of the eye lashes at 100%)and beautiful colors with little need for any post processing. I love the image stabilization of the Sony alpha body. Image that sharp pictures in a moving bus with a shutter speed of 1/60 to 1/100. I liked my a700 and a55 camera bodies before but now I like them even better. A fine lens makes all the difference and I consider the Sony 16-105mm a fine lens considering it's price of $599. My only wish is that it had a lens lock.
My recommendation when buying an Alpha camera body (not full frame) would be to buy the Sony 16-105mm first, then a Minolta 50mm f1.4, a Sigma 70mm macro f 2.8 and then the very fine Sony CZ 24-70mm and 70-400mm when you can afford them. You will use these lenses the rest of your life.
11 of 13 found the following review helpful:
Great Glass!Apr 04, 2009
By Lynn May
If you can get a deal on this lens it will be a steal! This easily compares with the Sony Carl Zeiss 16-80mm lens with out letting go of several hundred more to get it.[...]I'm planning on using this for a trip and it will make a great lens for that.
8 of 9 found the following review helpful:
Awesome lens!Aug 25, 2009
By H. Kathem
By far the best lens I bought. The great focal length of this lens covers almost every shot whether wide or zoomed, it's just perfect with no moving elements when auto focusing. This is a must-have lens for your alpha.
4 of 4 found the following review helpful:
 A fantastic walkaround for landscapers and family photographyDec 28, 2010
By Philip
I got this lens when my Sony 18-200 broke. I did quite a bit of research. The natural competitor for this lens is the Carl Zeiss 16-80. I chose this lens over the Zeiss lens because of reports of poor construction in the Zeiss lens (I had no stomach for that idea, given the fact that the Sony had just died), and the extra range of the Sony 16-105. Being used to 18-200, going to 16-80 was just too restricting.
I've been using the 16-105 for about nine months now. I have to say, I love this lens. It's very sharp when you do your part. The construction quality is very high. It focuses quickly, and I've never had issues with chromatic aberration or color fringing. You can get some vignetting at 16mm, but it's usually very easy to take care of in post processing. Stopping down a bit also prevents the vignetting.
It's a little slower lens than the F stop range indicates; the maximum aperture drops quickly once you get above 16mm. That's probably my biggest issue with this lens. It's great as a walkaround lens in a sunny climate. For wintertime in Europe, you'll want something faster along with you. One other issue to be aware of; this lens needs slim filters if you're going to spend a lot of time at 16mm. When I put the polarizing filter I already owned on this lens (a Hoya 62mm (G SERIES) Circular Polarizer PL CIR Filter), it doesn't just vignette; the filter is actually visible on the corners of the image. The image is solid black in the corners. I've read that the B+W 62mm Circular Polarizer Slim Filter works, but I haven't bought one yet to try it out. I still use the Hoya filter, I just zoom in a bit to keep the filter out of the shot.
I've had excellent results with lens for landscapes, travel photography, and family parties when paired with a Konica Minolta Maxxum 3600HS TTL Shoe Mount Flash.
In short, a great walkaround lens that I'm very happy with. I hope to shoot with this lens for years to come.
Edit: I shot happily with this lens for... about a year. It's well built, but it can't stand up to being dropped on stone from tripod height. I don't think it's reparable. In the clarity of hindsight, I'll add one more nitpick about this lens that isn't mentioned above. It produces mild distortion, but it's difficult distortion to fix, at least with the software I'm using. It's not just barrel distortion, it's "moustache" distortion, which is much harder to fix. It's most noticable at the wide end of the range (at or near 16mm), but unless you are doing shots with straight lines near the edges of the shot, it's not a big deal. I also realized I won't miss the vignetting correction.
I think I'm going to replace this with the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 lens, if you're curious. I'm tempted to get another 16-105, and I'm sure I'll miss those extra 55mm on the long end, but I want to see how much I use the F2.8. I've been using the SAL 18-55, and the range hasn't limited me _too_ much. It's quite a good lens, actually, but I want the higher speed and the amenities of the Tamron. But now I'm way off topic.
So, keep a tight grip on your lenses while on the Great Wall of China. Stone isn't kind to lenses.
See all 11 customer reviews on Amazon.com
| | |
|
