Winter Driving Best Books of the Month Men's Leather Watches Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon Chi-Raq Explore Home Audio All-New Amazon Fire TV Grocery Valentine's Day Cards Knock snow out cold Amazon Gift Card Offer girls2 girls2 girls2  Amazon Echo All-New Fire Kindle Paperwhite Shop Now SnS

Customer Reviews

4.6 out of 5 stars15
Price:$498.00+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item
Share your thoughts with other customers

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on February 15, 2010
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.
***Update 3*** I now must revise what I said earlier about mating this lens with the A77. Of course it will work fine, but I now have an A77 with the 16-50 f/2.8 lens. The 16-50 lens is a better fit with the A77 because of the f/2.8 aperture. The A77 sensor is noisier than other Sony offerings due to it's high pixel density. All of the so-called SLTs lose one-half stop outright to the semi-transparent, fixed mirror. The 16-50 is a hair sharper but has significantly more geometric distortion. The A77 corrects the geometric distortion for jpegs (but not for RAW). The bottom line is that the 16-50 has become my walk-around lens for the A77. In good light, this lens has the obvious advantage of a factor of two more zoom range. It would still be my choice for anything other than the A77 or A900 and a great choice in good light for the A77.
Good shooting,
1919 comments76 of 76 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 21, 2011
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.
review image review image review image review image review image review image
22 comments27 of 27 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 28, 2010
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.
review image review image review image review image review image review image review image review image review image
33 comments9 of 9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 24, 2009
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.
0Comment9 of 10 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
VINE VOICEon April 3, 2009
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.
0Comment11 of 13 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 6, 2010
It is great lens with very useful range and great image quality. It is light and sharp and is mounted on camera 90% of time. The image quality it produces is very great, sharp and well defined. It is a great buy.
0Comment1 of 1 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 14, 2011
I did a lot of research and read all the reviews when I bought this lens with my new Sony SLR. It is a great travel lens and takes wonderful photos! I would definitely recommend this lens.
0Comment1 of 1 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 17, 2014
I switched from Nikon to Sony and love this lens as my walk around lens. Excellent sharpness and detail.
0Comment1 of 1 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 4, 2013
From super wide to portrait to medium zoom, this lens does it all!!

For Minolta body owners, it makes the old 24-105 obsolete. The low end of the focal length should handle most group shots, even with the 1.5 conversion factor of the digital camera. And the fact that the apeture flips to 5.6 at about 30 mm should in no way affect your picture quality, especially if you're using a flash and/or taking indoor shots.

Don't delay, go get this lens.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 28, 2010
I think I found the best affordable replacement for the kit lens I got with my Sony Alpha A300. The CZ 18-60mm was not in my budget. I've also tried the Tamron AF 17-50mm but had to return it because of a bad copy and it was a bit short for some of the photos I wanted to take.
I found this lens to be a good compromise of price, range and quality.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Questions? Get fast answers from reviewers

Please make sure that you've entered a valid question. You can edit your question or post anyway.
Please enter a question.
See all 8 answered questions

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.