Been using 18-105 for more than 2 yrs now. In outdoor uses, it's a great lens to have! But indoors, still prefer using 1.8-2.8 aperture range. Thank you for finally comparing these two, man! Appreciate your great videos.
Rio T I am using the a6000 i can buy just one lens. What is your favorite lens? I am interesting with filmography and also photography. I couldn't choose my first lens.
beraat yılmaz well, I only use 50mm & 18-105mm. In my opinion, you should try 35mm. That would be an awesome companion, and that lens also have OIS which is great for video. Hope it helps.
The 18 - 105mm will spoil you. Better than using prime lenses. More range and flexibility and it's a better all aeound choice. Check my channel for samples.
No, what will spoil you is the 24 1.8 ZA lens. I bought mine used ( looked brand new but was missing its rear lens cap)and have never regretted the big $$ outlay. Sharpest lens I own and does pretty good macro as well. I also own the 18-105 and will be taking that plus the 24 when I travel. If I could only have one lens it would probably be the 24mm.
Thanks for the review, good work. Personally I had the 18-105 and sold it to buy the Zeiss 16-70. Now I'm absolutely happy with the Zeiss. The big problem of the 18-105 is its size, weight and balance point. It's just too heavy and unconvinient for me to carry that around. The Zeiss is really small and lightweight and that's the big advantage. And also the 2mm more focal length on the short end were important for me. I mean, most people which sonsider to buy one of these 2 lenses want to have a universal lens for trips/ holidays which can be used for landscapes as well as for portraits (and everything between). And what do you need for such a usecase? Small size/ weight and a wide angle. With 16mm you just have noticable more on the picture as with 18mm. On the other hand the difference between 70 and 105mm is not that big that it really helps (in my opinion). So for me the decision was easy.
until you zoom it out and then the Zeiss is longer! Plus, try doing smooth zoom in video with the Zeiss. I really like the way the 18-105mm G lens fits my hand...After all, with mirrorless cameras we hold the camera by the lens, not the tiny body. Plus the 50% more zoom range is great! I can't believe you think the mere 2mm more wide angle is more useful than the 50% more zoom range from 70 to 105mm. 35mm more zoom, half of the total the Zeiss has, vs. 2mm......?? The difference in sharpness is negligible unless pixel peeping at 100x magnification. The G lens is far more versatile and I can buy a Sigma 30mm f1.4 and do low light photography and video for the difference! It's not even a close comparison, IMHO.
Yes, zoomed out the Zeiss is longer. But that totally doesn't matter because the lens is not zoomed out when carrying it arround. The big problem (for me) of the 18-105 is its weight and that it's very front heavy. Shooting with one hand is not really possible while that is no problem at all with the lightweith Zeiss (e. g. I'm shooting from the bike where I need lightweight equipment). And I just don't want to carry that 18-105 monster around all the time when I'm on trip/ holidays. The big advantage of a camera like the A6000 is its weight and formfactor. The 18-105 kinda destroys that. So for me it was a good lens but not if you want to carry it around on holidays etc. And yes, the 2mm more on the lower end are much more useful for me than the 35mm more on the upper end. Try it yourself, 16mm vs. 18mm is a huge difference when it comes to wide angle landscapes. The 105mm don't really give me any advantage, compared to 70mm. For shooting animals etc., it's not enough anyway, no matter if 70 or 105mm. And for portraitts the 70mm are more than enough (I mostly shoot them at 50mm). And also I found out that the 18mm on the 18-105 are not exact 18mm. I made a lot of test pictures shot at 18mm with the kit lens and the Zeiss in comparison to the 18-105. And always the angle of the Zeiss and the kit lens was a bit wider (distortion correction enabled on all lenses). That's why the difference between the kit/ Zeiss 16mm is even bigger to the 18mm of the 18-105. For me that was not acceptable.
Thunderbird 1337 I agree your logic. Initially I was going to buy a6500 with 18-105, but a bundled offer of a6500 + 16-70 Zeiss was about same price so I went for smaller, lighter lens too. Now I compensate at tele end with a prime Sony 85mm f1.8 as there is virtually no range diff between 85 and 105. A great combo, albeit in 2 lenses.
Very well done comparison. Thank you ! :-) I have both lenses. I guess for me though the 2 lenses are both good but have different strengths/uses so it's not really a case of "either/or" as some commenters seem to view them. I use the 18-105 for video since the power zoom is a big advantage when you have the camera on a tripod (as I usually do for video) - especially if you use a remote. As a walk around lens for stills shooting in an urban setting, I find the 16-70 more practical since it is lighter, has a manual zoom (easier to zoom quickly and precisely for photos), is easier on battery life (power zoom on the 18-105 burns juice) and yet has a focal range which covers 95% of my needs for a walkaround. For nature walks I take my old (silver) 18-200 lens for the extended zoom capability. For casual shooting (outings with friends etc.) I take the 16-50 kit lens for its small size (less intimidating or pretentious). All are zooms and have overlapping focal ranges but they are all decent and all have their uses :-).
I got three lens are 12mm rokinon, Sony 50mm F1.8 OSS, and kit lens. I have rented both lens 16-70 (rented November 2016) and 18-105 (rented on Dec 2016.) I did tested it at soccer game(my cousin's soccer game.) Obviously the 18-105 is better zoom for sports (must have it) however it's still F4 which is not great at low-light during night time. I was really frustrated by it. I think I'm pass it. I am saving money almost two years for A7SII or A7RII with batis/loxia lens. Then I will rent 70-200 f2.8 for only sports events. I still think Zeiss 16-70 is better for street stills and it's sharper. Better compact size. Zoom is only good for video at sports event. At party birthday in my family house I still don't like zoom on video shoot. I just wish 18-105 at F1.8 or F2.8 and better sharper like the 16-70mm.
I almost buy a Sony a6500 lol. I am focus on A7 series (A7R2 or A7S2) for full-frame. The a6500 is fast! I saw many comparison a6500 vs a6300 on youtube. A lot people prefer toward A6500 due no overheat, touch screen, burst mode is really good, 4K, and etc. Right now most people recommendation A6500 rather than A7, A7r, and A7s. TechnologyMafia recently reviewed A6300 he said if you have tight budget or no interesting touch screen. But for you vlogging for your fitness you might want A6500 great for no overheat more than 30 minutes. I never try or test a6500 but maybe I will rent it someday. I recommend you rent the camera as well. See it for yourself and what do you think. Just like I did with the lens.
Great review. As always. I think the "ultimate bundle of 3 lenses" for the a6xxx series cameras is Sigma 16mm f/1.4, Sony 35mm f/1.8 and the Sony 55-210, believe it or not, and for me, the reason is clear image zoom. With the 16, I kinda have a 16 and a 24, which are equivalent to a 24 and 35, and with the 35mm, I kinda have a 35 and a 52, which are equivalent to 52 and 78, and so, for most work, those lenses can cover pretty much everything, and with great f stops, and sharp lenses, and easy to use on a gimbal, and then, for that long work, or crazy compression, the 55-210 is really quite a good lens, if you keep it stable, and so, for me, that's the best trio for APS-C cameras. Or, of course you prefer a great zoom lens for all your work, and in that case, probably either the Tamron 17-70 f/2.8, or the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, or even the Sony 18-105 f/4 would be a great "all in one" option. But then there's gimbal work, and only the 18-105 would really be convenient for that kind of shooting, and so... yeah... I think those are the best options. Personally, I work with the 2 primes and that 55-210, but I could see just owning an 18-105, and maybe the Sigma 16, or maybe instead of the Sigma, something like a Samyang 12mm f2, just to have a wider shot, and a better aperture. At least for video, which is what I do, and at least in my opinion. lol. Of course there are a million of those out here in RUclips land, and the amazing thing is, most of them make sense, because people will always shoot how they want to shoot, and the possibilities are endless. Thanks for sharing, as always.
I bought the 1670mm Carl Zeiss two years ago. It is a very good lens, I think the mm range is perfect, exactly the range which I miss before with the Kit lens 55mm. The lens i not so heavy and big as the 105mm G lens. But be careful with the aperture range. The best aperture is 5.6 to get complete sharp best photos. Aperture 4 and 6.3, 7.1, 8 is also very good. But higher aperture leads to high diffuse edges and the middle of the photo is only sharp. And for my lens not equal, right side is more diffuse than left side. Cheers DrDuu
One important stuff is missing in the vedio. Time consumption from starting the camera to taking the picture. The 18-105 len will go back to about 30mm when you power off the camera. When you start, the len will take some time to go back to 18mm, THEN you can adjust the focal range and take the picture. For 16-70, since it's not power zoom, you can adjust the focal range even when the camera is off. Much faster and better user experience when you take street photoes. I tried 18-105 in the store and bought the 16-70. You need to try both lenes yourself and make the decision. It's not all about image quality.
Coming from the Zeiss. Anyone who's thinking of getting either of these, if budgets allow and you have anything better than an A6000, go for the 16-55mm f2.8 and live with it forever
Having dipped my toe in the waters of DSLR, with an 80D, I have returned to mirrorless and the A6500. I also bought the Prime 35mm 1.8 Sony and then the 18-105mm lens. At the time I couldn't justify the massive price difference for the Zeiss. My prime use will be for stills, as yet. It was a toss up between that lens and then Zeiss but the extra cost of the Zeiss and the longer reach of this swayed me to buy it. I have only just started to use the lens and was a little shocked when I started to look at the RAW files produced, my goodness the pincushion effect...! But it is so easy to correct in post, thankfully...! I sort of reckoned that the Prime 35mm 1.8 will be good for a walk about general use lens, small and compact and thus the 6500 with it on becomes a coat pocket camera. It also makes up for any softness below 50mm which could be noted on the Sony lens. The 35mm 1.8 seems to offer me greater flexibility indoors than a 50mm 1.8. Also I paid a little less for the cost of the 18-105 AND the 35mm Prime than just the cost of the Zeiss alone...! As well as the 35mm having the wider aperture. Do you use the lens hood at all with either of the lenses...? Thanks for your review :) BTW The only thing that I am missing from the Canon DSLR to this Sony is the battery life. Yes batteries are cheap but you soon get used to around 900 or so photos from one charge on a DSLR. But at least I no longer need to chimp...!
I love 16-70mm Zeiss for everyting. I prefer use it during day. At night/indoor low light always best around 1.8F to 2.8F. However, the 18-105 G Lens is better for range and zoom when I need it at soccer and baseball game. Smooth zoom is great for sports.
I'd like to see the 16-50 kit zoom in a comparison like this. I know you've done 16-50 vs 18-105, but this comparison is much better because it has nice and detailed landscapes and hgh contrast scenes. Thanks for your videos.
Thank you for this awesome comparison. I am using the 16-70 exclusively for still photography and I have been very happy with the results. It is an awesome all around lens. There is a significant benefit in the compactness when paired with the A6xx range I believe. For any video needs the 18-105 seems like the one to go for though.
In sounded like you were relying on autofocusing in these shots. You should try to manually focus in a few. Just to be consistent and remove autofocusing weirdness that can happen.
There are other factors for which I prefer the Zeiss: - distortion, on the 18-105 is really bad, you will absolutely need SW corrrection - close focus and magnification, the Zeiss is almost at macro level
Good review and nice remarks. Another interesting comparison would be the Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 vs this 18-105 G lens. I have an A6000 and bought the 18-105 G lens for it, then got an A7II and it came with the 28-70mm kit lens. I put the 28-70mm kit lens on my A6000 body and found it compared well to the 18-105 lens, but the 18-105 was sharper at the long end. The 28-70mm kit lens is somewhat smaller though. When I carry around my A6000 with the 18-105, I feel like I'm mostly carrying lens.
I love my 16-70. The size is great. I do notice the fall off in the long and short end, but it's a really sharp lens. Not much of a video person, so the 18-105 is not as useful, especially the size is so much larger. I bought my camera to be compact, so the smaller the better if it can do the job.
image quality between the two is almost identical and you won't even notice a difference unless you pixel peep. only realistic difference IMO is with the 16-70 you're paying an extra $200 for it to be more compact
In the first portrait of your wife the Zeiss had such clear details. I do like the extra 2mm width on the Zeiss, it makes a larger difference than one might think. Overall the 18-105 seems better for video, which is my main thing. One strong pro is that it doesen't extend when zooming in, which is great when having it on a gimbal. I wonder if the weight redistributes much internally though? Also the power zoom is a nice feature for video. It's not an easy choice, but they are not that different either.
I have the 18-105g. Something to keep in mind is starting at about 50mm there begins to be a noticeable amount of barrel distortion. The amount at 105mm is horrendous but you wouldn't notice in JPEG with the in-body correction. So give yourself a little extra breathing room for your subjects when using the telephoto end in RAW. Other than that, this lens shines when there is plenty of light. And you can still get decent bokeh/blur when you give it some distance outdoors!
That comment at the end is so classic. I started shooting on an a-mount just so I could use the 50mm 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 and have image stabilization, autofocus and on the 24-70 zoom and be "Zeiss" glass cause I too am a fan boy.
Man so glad i found u.. best a6000s channel on youtube.. had an a6000 since 2017 and you showed me there are many great lens under 1000 bucks besides my sony 35mm 1.8
Great work! The results matches my own tests. I am also very confused that the Zeiss went blurry at 70 mm. And if you throw in the price in the game the 18/105 clearly is the winner. Also due to the fact that it is a great videolense and owns the much greater zoomrange. And for 900 bucks you could get the sigma 30 1.4 on top or the sigma 60 2.8 plus the Samyang 12 mm ;-)
I personally recommand 1670z if your not a pro. It is smaller and light and has 16mm which is very useful for daily pictures. I was disappointed about the distortion but it was okay after i corrected it with lightroom
You're delusional if you think the Zeiss is "better by miles". This video proved that it was only somewhat better in certain situations and somewhat worse in other situations.
Redroom is correct. this clearly shows the zeiss is much sharper renders tones and colors better not to mention it handles chroma better. if you think the 18-105 is good enough in comparison you must not print very often.
Nice Job! I really enjoyed your test.The reason why the Zeiss looks soft on the higher end as you probably realized later is due to the fact that you were at the end of your zoom range. As you mentioned the lens looked great up to 50mm. Chances are good that it also looks great at 55mm. Depending on the lens manufacturer the last 10 to 20% on a lens tends to be least sharp. If I am wrong please correct me. Also f stop wise....back when I was using manual cameras and they were made of wood (joke) If you had a lens that went from f1.8 to f22 the sweet spot for shooting would be in the middle of your aperture range. That said you would probably have adjusted your shutter speed to adjust maximum sharpness on a fixed focal length lens to f5.6 -f8 unless you were trying for minimal or maximum Depth of Field. On the Sony 18 to 105 you can most likely count on that lens being sharp up 80-85mm.I think the Zeiss did look great on hair and fine details but the Sony did kill it on your eye test. The decision is pretty clear. For video go for the Sony. For stills the Zeiss, but shoot it in a bit higher aperture range. Try this, with your camera on a tripod set your lens at 35 to 50mm, test focus on a set, stationary object, lock your focus and take the same photo a few times by adjusting your aperture while compensating with shutter speed. It may yield some interesting results.I did a test on the Sony 18 to 105 f4 lens on my RUclips channel. Unfortunately I shot the video before I had some time to get familiarized with the lens and my A6300. Although the test shows the smoothness of the zoom on the electronic lens, I had not set up the look on the camera or the autofocus properly so everything looks kind of flat. I will probably shoot that demo again in the future. Another thing that bothers me is no mater how smooth you zoom you lens when shooting digital, sometimes it looks choppy due to how it was transcoded and uploaded to RUclips or Vimeo.Shooting 4k @24fps does always look nice over all....just saying.Hopefully you find this at least helpful.
I have had my 18-105mm for about a year. I am amazed at the quality for the price. The Zeiss has brand recognition and it would be nice to have both . . . If you are more into video the 18-105 would be your choice. I do like the range of this lens and have some excellent close up portrait shots. The Zeiss is smaller not significantly but would be easier to carry around. Thanks for the demonstration!
I got the E PZ f/4 G OSS 18-105 Lens also, I tried every setting. I just want to do basic video at 60fps or 120fps at night and it still comes out terrible... Any advice on a preset or something anyone can provide? I just want to point and record for some simple vlogs. Help anyone?
Unless you focus on the same thing at he same distance how can you possibly examine the entire print and discuss sharpness? It seems to me that depth of field might be varying if each lens focuses on different areas. So certain areas that don't appear sharp might in fact be outside the area of apparent sharpness.
Thanks for the great review! I had also done a lot of research on comparing these two lens. It's so so difficult to find the right zoom lens for Sony e mount system because there aren't many options. eventually I will go for the 18-105 because its price, range, video capability and reputation are so much better the 16-70.
I have the 18-105. In fact it is that lens (not available in the alpha mount) that led me to upgrade my camera body to the a6500. It's a great lens with the constant f4 aperture. However I use it for casual shooting such as family picnics or other general use. It simply isn't sharp enough for anything where I want tack sharp photos. It is the range that I like; wide to telephoto. It covers all the bases for me.
18-105= rational decision for a versatile and cost-conscious do-it-all or travel lens. Superior video lens. Zeiss 16-70 = more portable and balanced in the a6000 series bodies. Cost-no-object low-profile travel solution.
Having carried around the 16-70, I think it's well worth it. It's sooo light and perfectly balanced on the a6300. That 18-105 is freaking HUGE! Honestly, if I was cool with that amount of size for a walk around, I might think of putting a sigma MC-11 adapter on there and one of their really nice zooms.
I totally agree. I'm not going to sell my Ziess f/4. But it will be removed from my backpack when I go traveling, the Ziess is an amazing lens, no one should have buyer's remorse for purchasing it, it is indeed more sharp, whether it's worth $200 more over the G lens is entirely up to you and your compromises. Have to remember with video and photo work, everyone has different set of requirements and standards and thus everyone has own set of compromises willing to make. For me, it's packing a kit lens, and 18-105 G lens for long trips. For exploring its brining only the 18-105 G. My pick for 3 best travel and exploring lens thus far. 16-50 Kit lens(power zoom model), FE 50mm(yes full frame 50mm on A6000-6500), and 18-105mm G. -I did edit this comment-
Nice report! Is there a better zoom available from anyone else? I wasn't impressed with either. I had the Zeiss when I had an a6300 and was very pleased with it for family reunion type shots. It's sharp. But they both look bad in the trees. I have the 18-105 awaiting the a6400 later in the week.
HI TM! With all of your mid-zoom comparisons, how about testing the 18-105 vs the long-zoom Sony 18-200 models (3 models) and the Tamron (2 models)? You are getting a great reputation, maybe B&H would loan them? Your reviews match my experiences precisely and your trust is solid these days!
Thanks for doing this comparison! I was going to pick up the 18-105, however I managed to find a used copy of the 16-70 that I purchased for slightly less than a brand new copy of the 18-105. I've been enjoying the 16-70 a lot, I like that it is slightly more compact than the 18-105, however the power zoom on the 18-105 would be a huge advantage when using a gimbal, as zooming in will not affect the balance of the gimbal.
Great review! I own that Sony lens and had mulled over painfully and considered "upgrading" to that Zeiss lens. Thanks to your review, I can sleep well now. For what I need, my 18-105G, along with my prime lenses, serves me well.
Not easy to compare lenses unless you focus on your subject very carefully. The Sony EP Z 18 to 105mm G lens is a better choice as an all around lens, especially for video. The zoom will spoil you. It does however draw a lot of attention due to the big class. Not always what you want for street pics.
Zeiss makes crazy sharp glass. I mean if it is a Zeiss you know it at least meets the minimum standard for many. I think that when it comes to compressed video you need as sharp of an image as possible to offset other issues. Chromatic Aberations on Zeiss glass at this price are somewhat annoying but not a deal break for me.
Thank you Arthur. I think I watched this video like 10 times before making up my mind to finally buy the 18-108... yes in 2019!, BUT! I took into consideration the larger focal length spectrum and the fact that I'm about to travel and don't want to miss any opportunity exchanging lenses.
After watching tons of reviews, i finally took the dive to get the Sony lens. Have used it outdoors for about a week. Loving the images, one thing you forgot to mention is that when using the 18-105 the little flash from the Sony cannot make it past the lens when trying to use on close ups and will need an external shoe mount lens. Beyond that very pleased with the lens!!! Great review!!!!!
There is a workaround that I have been using since my first DSLR, at the times when didn't have cash for a flash - Just take a paper cup and use it as a diffuser. You can also control the direction of the light
I think the 18-105s missing focus. If you look at 2:55 the bokeh on the left is much bigger than on the right and the shirt is more out of focus which suggests that it was focused slightly in front of her face. Which might explain why the close up of the eye seems to be so much sharper as that shot is actually in focus.
Grabbing the a6700 soon! Want an all purpose lens for video and some photo and then a small portable stealth setup for being at bars with friends and travel. 18-105? 18-135? 18-200? and i think 23mm sigma - thoughts?!
7 лет назад
I really appreciate all of your videos, as I have an a6000 myself and would also like to have just 3 to 4 lenses. Keep up the good work !
Thanks! BUT! a big but. Next time could you do Photo autofocus review please?, with a sample of auto focus continious. I feel like all the reviewers in youtube arent doing this test. and considering people are buying this lens for sports and that sony a6000 line is aimed at sports, fast action photography as well having great video. I hate how IQ is tested but not autofocus on photos or moving subject. the fact is if it focuses shit, it could be the nicest IQ in the world but that doesnt matter if the shot on afc is 90% miss. If you get what I mean, Anyhow its just a constructive criticism on what is quite a great, informative video hehe. I just thought I mention it. Thanks again, i've subscribed.
Thanks for these!! I'm a (fairly) new convert from Canon to Sony. I work with the FS5 with the 18-105 seen here during my day job. I just today bought an a6000 for a b-camera and plan to add an a7s or a7sII soon so I'm marathoning your vids for advice on lens selection. Well done, good sir! Thank you!!!
I think there are only two weakness from the 18-105, the amount of distortion (software corrected) and its size. I initially planned on switchong my 18-105 to 16-70 but after seeing this I changed my mind. Thanks for helping me safe hundreds $$$
I just got the 18-105mm F/4 coming from a nikon system. I switched to silent shooting and it improved the sharpness of the lens ( using A6300 ) though i don't have the 16-70mm F/4 to compare it with. I guess you can keep them both.
I'm on the same boat before, but I decided to chose 18-105mm, I do both photo and video. I think it's very useful for events, because of the range and you don't need to change lenses and miss your shot
Really good review, thank you very much. I think you have just convinced me to go with the the 18-105 rather than the 16-70. My 1 concern, however, with the photo of the eye, if you took the photo with autofocus the results might have been purely due to a focus issue rather than a sharpness issue.
Do you use the "eye focus" feature when you take portraits? The lack of sharpness in the first photos seems to be more of a focus issue than an optic issue.
Great video! Zeiss seems disappointing which is in line with many reviews I've seen of it. I went for the 18-105 so I can just slap it on my camera and stop thinking about lenses for awhile :) Thanks for the great review
Another great video. I like that you did the zoom collapsed and extended as I thought the Zeiss was small, but full zoomed is actually a little bigger. I agree that the difference amount for little gain makes the 18-105 a confirmed better buy (and if 35mm longer reach).
Great review on these bad boys! IMO the 18-105 is more versatile due to the fact that it covers a larger range of focal lengths. The zeiss lens might be a bit sharper at some focal lengths, but not worth the price tag. I'd stick with the G-lens, but if you like using the zeiss better, well... That might be the right one for you. Thanks again for a great review :)
I currently live in the Philippines and a few months back I bought an A6500 and the Zeiss 16-70mm lens. The photos I was able to take were not very good. Also the zoom ring was not smooth. It would stick and then jerk as I applied the pressure to get it to move. The 4K video was fantastic and it fit the camera very well. I took the lens back and was told it stuck because it was new. I have had zoom lenses in the past and never experience this. I tried the 24-70 GM lens and it was like the difference between night and day. smooth operation and great pictures. I just find it hard to believe that a sony thousand dollar lens would perform so poorly. I even went to another store and checked their Zeiss, and it was still bad. Any Idea why?
Спасибо за объективный обзор. Я в 2015 году выбрал кошельком SONY 18-105G F4 и не жалею. Он великолепен для съемки в путешествиях, для портретов, для пейзажей. ОН создан для видеосъемки. А если нужна ночная съемка, ставлю SIGMA 30\1.4 DC DN . Он очень резкий и светосильный, позволяет хорошо отделять передний план от фона, снимать ночью...
I really like your channel... You concisely put out some great information which aids me since I am a total newbie to mirrorless cameas. However, I might suggest one thing: shooting images of trees and foliage makes it very difficult for me to judge he sharpness of any lens...
In reality it's almost impossible to find a copy of Sony Zeiss E 16-70mm f/4 without a lot of actual terrible optical defects. But Sony E 18-105mm f/4 usually is much more stable in this relation. Generally, there are too many cases where Sony's Quality Control for their lenses, even with the "Zeiss" proud icons looks like there is no QC at all.
I have both lenses, and use them on a a6000 body, I use the 18-105mm mainly for video, and the 16-70mm for stills. both are good lenses to use. I shot a movie of a friends baby for them with the 18-105mm which turned out quite good, i'm not a professional, but a keen Ammeter. The zoom is excellent on the 105mm very smooth. the stills were shot mainly with the zeiss lens. anyway my friend was very pleased with the results as I was myself. I agree with your findings with these lenses, the zeiss is over priced but I tend to use it a lot more than the 105mm if you can afford to keep both lenses you should find a good match with these two, and lots of use for them both of them.
Truly unbiased and authentic review of both the lenses. I would prefer the 18 to 105 than the zeiss. I request u to do a review of Sonnar T* E 24 mm F1.8 ZA. Thanks. Have a gr8 day!!
i have the 16-70 and covers almost everything I need when travel. I still have the canon 70-200 F4 for longer zoom. I sold the 12 mm f2, Samyang and now I have to buy a replacement. For portrait and low light I use a old manual lens,-Konica Hexanon AR 50mm f1.4 that is sharper than the native e mount sony 50 1.8 with the E mount cost around $300 versus native sony 50 1.8
It just proves to me that what is really needed is an f2.8 zoom. Ofcourse the 16-70mm being sharper in HDR will have more purple fringe, that's because the 18-105 is not as sharp, so it does not resolve HDR edges. Shock was that after 50mm the zeiss starts to soften. Perhaps the 16-50mm f2.8 is really the best walk around, and the 18-105mm f4 best for video zooming.
Thank you for your comparison! Your videos help me a lot! so, my conclusion is that sony 18-105mm f4 and sony sel 35mm f1.8 will be great set for my camera bag :) 😎
vinod yadav neither of them I have. I have only kit lens. But I will get 35mm f1.8 first. Technolıgy mafia has sony 35mm f1.8 videos. watch them. Thet really help you to choose right lens 🖒
I use 16-70 mm as all day lens, and for indoor I use 35mm f1.8 sony, that's covers everything for me, I am not into video making, so 18-105 is not as useful for me. 16-70 mm is quite sharp and lens size is very compact as well.
Привет ! Ты же вроде наш ))) Спасибо за обзор ! У нас до сих пор выбор это цена . Буду искать 105 так как шире диапазон . Но 4 дырка , конечно мало. Хотелось бы увидеть разницу 2.8 против 4 ))
![OhGeesy x Lefty Gunplay - What It Iz [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/L0yzW9t2ixk/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you man. Because of you, I purchased 18 - 105 without informing my wife
Have you informed your lover ?
😂😂😂
@@scrv341 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️😬
Been using 18-105 for more than 2 yrs now. In outdoor uses, it's a great lens to have! But indoors, still prefer using 1.8-2.8 aperture range. Thank you for finally comparing these two, man! Appreciate your great videos.
Rio T I am using the a6000 i can buy just one lens. What is your favorite lens? I am interesting with filmography and also photography. I couldn't choose my first lens.
beraat yılmaz well, I only use 50mm & 18-105mm. In my opinion, you should try 35mm. That would be an awesome companion, and that lens also have OIS which is great for video. Hope it helps.
The 18 - 105mm will spoil you. Better than using prime lenses. More range and flexibility and it's a better all aeound choice. Check my channel for samples.
No, what will spoil you is the 24 1.8 ZA lens. I bought mine used ( looked brand new but was missing its rear lens cap)and have never regretted the big $$ outlay. Sharpest lens I own and does pretty good macro as well. I also own the 18-105 and will be taking that plus the 24 when I travel. If I could only have one lens it would probably be the 24mm.
That's a great combo! I too own the 18-105, but I am looking at the Sigma 30mm f1.4 mainly because it is so sharp, so fast, and so inexpensive!
Best channel for the Sony E-mount system on RUclips! Thanks man!
agreed!
I prefer Tony Northrup and also prefer the Sony 18-105 more versital! :D
MusikPiratCH みみみ
In English please} Thanks} >D
Hell yeah
Thanks for the review, good work. Personally I had the 18-105 and sold it to buy the Zeiss 16-70. Now I'm absolutely happy with the Zeiss. The big problem of the 18-105 is its size, weight and balance point. It's just too heavy and unconvinient for me to carry that around. The Zeiss is really small and lightweight and that's the big advantage. And also the 2mm more focal length on the short end were important for me. I mean, most people which sonsider to buy one of these 2 lenses want to have a universal lens for trips/ holidays which can be used for landscapes as well as for portraits (and everything between). And what do you need for such a usecase? Small size/ weight and a wide angle. With 16mm you just have noticable more on the picture as with 18mm. On the other hand the difference between 70 and 105mm is not that big that it really helps (in my opinion). So for me the decision was easy.
Thunderbird1337 That's solid reasoning. If you are using the wide end more frequently, the 2mm helps, and the Zeiss is sharper at the wide end.
until you zoom it out and then the Zeiss is longer! Plus, try doing smooth zoom in video with the Zeiss.
I really like the way the 18-105mm G lens fits my hand...After all, with mirrorless cameras we hold the camera by the lens, not the tiny body. Plus the 50% more zoom range is great! I can't believe you think the mere 2mm more wide angle is more useful than the 50% more zoom range from 70 to 105mm. 35mm more zoom, half of the total the Zeiss has, vs. 2mm......??
The difference in sharpness is negligible unless pixel peeping at 100x magnification. The G lens is far more versatile and I can buy a Sigma 30mm f1.4 and do low light photography and video for the difference! It's not even a close comparison, IMHO.
Yes, zoomed out the Zeiss is longer. But that totally doesn't matter because the lens is not zoomed out when carrying it arround. The big problem (for me) of the 18-105 is its weight and that it's very front heavy. Shooting with one hand is not really possible while that is no problem at all with the lightweith Zeiss (e. g. I'm shooting from the bike where I need lightweight equipment). And I just don't want to carry that 18-105 monster around all the time when I'm on trip/ holidays.
The big advantage of a camera like the A6000 is its weight and formfactor. The 18-105 kinda destroys that. So for me it was a good lens but not if you want to carry it around on holidays etc.
And yes, the 2mm more on the lower end are much more useful for me than the 35mm more on the upper end. Try it yourself, 16mm vs. 18mm is a huge difference when it comes to wide angle landscapes. The 105mm don't really give me any advantage, compared to 70mm. For shooting animals etc., it's not enough anyway, no matter if 70 or 105mm. And for portraitts the 70mm are more than enough (I mostly shoot them at 50mm).
And also I found out that the 18mm on the 18-105 are not exact 18mm. I made a lot of test pictures shot at 18mm with the kit lens and the Zeiss in comparison to the 18-105. And always the angle of the Zeiss and the kit lens was a bit wider (distortion correction enabled on all lenses). That's why the difference between the kit/ Zeiss 16mm is even bigger to the 18mm of the 18-105. For me that was not acceptable.
Thunderbird 1337 I agree your logic. Initially I was going to buy a6500 with 18-105, but a bundled offer of a6500 + 16-70 Zeiss was about same price so I went for smaller, lighter lens too. Now I compensate at tele end with a prime Sony 85mm f1.8 as there is virtually no range diff between 85 and 105. A great combo, albeit in 2 lenses.
Very well done comparison. Thank you ! :-) I have both lenses. I guess for me though the 2 lenses are both good but have different strengths/uses so it's not really a case of "either/or" as some commenters seem to view them. I use the 18-105 for video since the power zoom is a big advantage when you have the camera on a tripod (as I usually do for video) - especially if you use a remote. As a walk around lens for stills shooting in an urban setting, I find the 16-70 more practical since it is lighter, has a manual zoom (easier to zoom quickly and precisely for photos), is easier on battery life (power zoom on the 18-105 burns juice) and yet has a focal range which covers 95% of my needs for a walkaround. For nature walks I take my old (silver) 18-200 lens for the extended zoom capability. For casual shooting (outings with friends etc.) I take the 16-50 kit lens for its small size (less intimidating or pretentious). All are zooms and have overlapping focal ranges but they are all decent and all have their uses :-).
Your review for 16-70 vs 18-105 G just absolutely best on youtube! Great video!
Thanks for the compliment!
I just share the same feeling.
Agreed!
I got three lens are 12mm rokinon, Sony 50mm F1.8 OSS, and kit lens. I have rented both lens 16-70 (rented November 2016) and 18-105 (rented on Dec 2016.) I did tested it at soccer game(my cousin's soccer game.) Obviously the 18-105 is better zoom for sports (must have it) however it's still F4 which is not great at low-light during night time. I was really frustrated by it. I think I'm pass it. I am saving money almost two years for A7SII or A7RII with batis/loxia lens. Then I will rent 70-200 f2.8 for only sports events. I still think Zeiss 16-70 is better for street stills and it's sharper. Better compact size. Zoom is only good for video at sports event. At party birthday in my family house I still don't like zoom on video shoot. I just wish 18-105 at F1.8 or F2.8 and better sharper like the 16-70mm.
I almost buy a Sony a6500 lol. I am focus on A7 series (A7R2 or A7S2) for full-frame. The a6500 is fast! I saw many comparison a6500 vs a6300 on youtube. A lot people prefer toward A6500 due no overheat, touch screen, burst mode is really good, 4K, and etc. Right now most people recommendation A6500 rather than A7, A7r, and A7s. TechnologyMafia recently reviewed A6300 he said if you have tight budget or no interesting touch screen. But for you vlogging for your fitness you might want A6500 great for no overheat more than 30 minutes. I never try or test a6500 but maybe I will rent it someday. I recommend you rent the camera as well. See it for yourself and what do you think. Just like I did with the lens.
Great review. As always. I think the "ultimate bundle of 3 lenses" for the a6xxx series cameras is Sigma 16mm f/1.4, Sony 35mm f/1.8 and the Sony 55-210, believe it or not, and for me, the reason is clear image zoom. With the 16, I kinda have a 16 and a 24, which are equivalent to a 24 and 35, and with the 35mm, I kinda have a 35 and a 52, which are equivalent to 52 and 78, and so, for most work, those lenses can cover pretty much everything, and with great f stops, and sharp lenses, and easy to use on a gimbal, and then, for that long work, or crazy compression, the 55-210 is really quite a good lens, if you keep it stable, and so, for me, that's the best trio for APS-C cameras. Or, of course you prefer a great zoom lens for all your work, and in that case, probably either the Tamron 17-70 f/2.8, or the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, or even the Sony 18-105 f/4 would be a great "all in one" option. But then there's gimbal work, and only the 18-105 would really be convenient for that kind of shooting, and so... yeah... I think those are the best options. Personally, I work with the 2 primes and that 55-210, but I could see just owning an 18-105, and maybe the Sigma 16, or maybe instead of the Sigma, something like a Samyang 12mm f2, just to have a wider shot, and a better aperture. At least for video, which is what I do, and at least in my opinion. lol. Of course there are a million of those out here in RUclips land, and the amazing thing is, most of them make sense, because people will always shoot how they want to shoot, and the possibilities are endless. Thanks for sharing, as always.
I bought the 1670mm Carl Zeiss two years ago. It is a very good lens, I think the mm range is perfect, exactly the range which I miss before with the Kit lens 55mm. The lens i not so heavy and big as the 105mm G lens. But be careful with the aperture range. The best aperture is 5.6 to get complete sharp best photos. Aperture 4 and 6.3, 7.1, 8 is also very good. But higher aperture leads to high diffuse edges and the middle of the photo is only sharp. And for my lens not equal, right side is more diffuse than left side. Cheers DrDuu
thanks a lot for this video, was looking for it soo long a while ago so I'm stoked to see you made one comparing these two :)
One important stuff is missing in the vedio. Time consumption from starting the camera to taking the picture. The 18-105 len will go back to about 30mm when you power off the camera. When you start, the len will take some time to go back to 18mm, THEN you can adjust the focal range and take the picture. For 16-70, since it's not power zoom, you can adjust the focal range even when the camera is off. Much faster and better user experience when you take street photoes. I tried 18-105 in the store and bought the 16-70. You need to try both lenes yourself and make the decision. It's not all about image quality.
"It's not all about image quality".................doh!!
Coming from the Zeiss. Anyone who's thinking of getting either of these, if budgets allow and you have anything better than an A6000, go for the 16-55mm f2.8 and live with it forever
Having dipped my toe in the waters of DSLR, with an 80D, I have returned to mirrorless and the A6500. I also bought the Prime 35mm 1.8 Sony and then the 18-105mm lens. At the time I couldn't justify the massive price difference for the Zeiss.
My prime use will be for stills, as yet.
It was a toss up between that lens and then Zeiss but the extra cost of the Zeiss and the longer reach of this swayed me to buy it. I have only just started to use the lens and was a little shocked when I started to look at the RAW files produced, my goodness the pincushion effect...! But it is so easy to correct in post, thankfully...!
I sort of reckoned that the Prime 35mm 1.8 will be good for a walk about general use lens, small and compact and thus the 6500 with it on becomes a coat pocket camera.
It also makes up for any softness below 50mm which could be noted on the Sony lens. The 35mm 1.8 seems to offer me greater flexibility indoors than a 50mm 1.8.
Also I paid a little less for the cost of the 18-105 AND the 35mm Prime than just the cost of the Zeiss alone...! As well as the 35mm having the wider aperture.
Do you use the lens hood at all with either of the lenses...?
Thanks for your review :)
BTW The only thing that I am missing from the Canon DSLR to this Sony is the battery life. Yes batteries are cheap but you soon get used to around 900 or so photos from one charge on a DSLR. But at least I no longer need to chimp...!
Best comparison on RUclips. You promised and delivered on time!
I love 16-70mm Zeiss for everyting. I prefer use it during day. At night/indoor low light always best around 1.8F to 2.8F. However, the 18-105 G Lens is better for range and zoom when I need it at soccer and baseball game. Smooth zoom is great for sports.
I'd like to see the 16-50 kit zoom in a comparison like this. I know you've done 16-50 vs 18-105, but this comparison is much better because it has nice and detailed landscapes and hgh contrast scenes.
Thanks for your videos.
Thank you for this awesome comparison. I am using the 16-70 exclusively for still photography and I have been very happy with the results. It is an awesome all around lens. There is a significant benefit in the compactness when paired with the A6xx range I believe. For any video needs the 18-105 seems like the one to go for though.
Can i see some of your pics, im using a6000, and u?
It would have been interesting to see the comparison between 16-70 and the kit lens 16-50.
In sounded like you were relying on autofocusing in these shots. You should try to manually focus in a few. Just to be consistent and remove autofocusing weirdness that can happen.
There are other factors for which I prefer the Zeiss:
- distortion, on the 18-105 is really bad, you will absolutely need SW corrrection
- close focus and magnification, the Zeiss is almost at macro level
What did you choose? You said you would sell one.
been waiting for this forever :D thanks man!
totally gonna go with the G lens
Good review and nice remarks. Another interesting comparison would be the Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 vs this 18-105 G lens. I have an A6000 and bought the 18-105 G lens for it, then got an A7II and it came with the 28-70mm kit lens. I put the 28-70mm kit lens on my A6000 body and found it compared well to the 18-105 lens, but the 18-105 was sharper at the long end. The 28-70mm kit lens is somewhat smaller though. When I carry around my A6000 with the 18-105, I feel like I'm mostly carrying lens.
daaaamn, even after watching this I still can't decide! T_T
Guess I'll wait for the best bundle video..
I love my 16-70. The size is great. I do notice the fall off in the long and short end, but it's a really sharp lens. Not much of a video person, so the 18-105 is not as useful, especially the size is so much larger. I bought my camera to be compact, so the smaller the better if it can do the job.
out of all your points I think the image quality is the most important difference.
image quality between the two is almost identical and you won't even notice a difference unless you pixel peep. only realistic difference IMO is with the 16-70 you're paying an extra $200 for it to be more compact
In the first portrait of your wife the Zeiss had such clear details. I do like the extra 2mm width on the Zeiss, it makes a larger difference than one might think. Overall the 18-105 seems better for video, which is my main thing. One strong pro is that it doesen't extend when zooming in, which is great when having it on a gimbal. I wonder if the weight redistributes much internally though? Also the power zoom is a nice feature for video.
It's not an easy choice, but they are not that different either.
I'm from China, I really love your video,thanks Arthur
I have the 18-105g. Something to keep in mind is starting at about 50mm there begins to be a noticeable amount of barrel distortion. The amount at 105mm is horrendous but you wouldn't notice in JPEG with the in-body correction. So give yourself a little extra breathing room for your subjects when using the telephoto end in RAW. Other than that, this lens shines when there is plenty of light. And you can still get decent bokeh/blur when you give it some distance outdoors!
That comment at the end is so classic. I started shooting on an a-mount just so I could use the 50mm 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 and have image stabilization, autofocus and on the 24-70 zoom and be "Zeiss" glass cause I too am a fan boy.
Man so glad i found u.. best a6000s channel on youtube.. had an a6000 since 2017 and you showed me there are many great lens under 1000 bucks besides my sony 35mm 1.8
Great work! The results matches my own tests. I am also very confused that the Zeiss went blurry at 70 mm. And if you throw in the price in the game the 18/105 clearly is the winner. Also due to the fact that it is a great videolense and owns the much greater zoomrange. And for 900 bucks you could get the sigma 30 1.4 on top or the sigma 60 2.8 plus the Samyang 12 mm ;-)
TheGreatGandalf09 yes, I really wish the Zeiss didn't fall apart after 50mm. It would be a much better lens.
HA, we think alike! :) See above (written before I read your comment). lol
I think one probably must stop the Zeiss down to f/5.6 at 70 mm. Just like the 16-50 kit lens which does much better at 50 mm stopped down to f/8.
I personally recommand 1670z if your not a pro. It is smaller and light and has 16mm which is very useful for daily pictures. I was disappointed about the distortion but it was okay after i corrected it with lightroom
...that settles it, I would go for the 18-105, the differences are barely noticeable...besides, the 18-105 is much cheaper...thanks for the video!...
Robert De Guzman You are welcome, glad it helped!
barely noticeable? you must be blind or unable to decipher superior image quality. the Zeiss is better by miles.
You're delusional if you think the Zeiss is "better by miles". This video proved that it was only somewhat better in certain situations and somewhat worse in other situations.
I agree Paul the differences are not that superior to shell out that much money to buy Zeiss. It's ridiculous
Redroom is correct. this clearly shows the zeiss is much sharper renders tones and colors better not to mention it handles chroma better. if you think the 18-105 is good enough in comparison you must not print very often.
Very clearly explained, thank you! Love your videos about the Sony toys!
Thanks man, this was super helpful! Looks like I'll go for the 18-105.
Nice Job! I really enjoyed your test.The reason why the Zeiss looks soft on the higher end as you probably realized later is due to the fact that you were at the end of your zoom range. As you mentioned the lens looked great up to 50mm. Chances are good that it also looks great at 55mm. Depending on the lens manufacturer the last 10 to 20% on a lens tends to be least sharp. If I am wrong please correct me. Also f stop wise....back when I was using manual cameras and they were made of wood (joke) If you had a lens that went from f1.8 to f22 the sweet spot for shooting would be in the middle of your aperture range. That said you would probably have adjusted your shutter speed to adjust maximum sharpness on a fixed focal length lens to f5.6 -f8 unless you were trying for minimal or maximum Depth of Field. On the Sony 18 to 105 you can most likely count on that lens being sharp up 80-85mm.I think the Zeiss did look great on hair and fine details but the Sony did kill it on your eye test. The decision is pretty clear. For video go for the Sony. For stills the Zeiss, but shoot it in a bit higher aperture range. Try this, with your camera on a tripod set your lens at 35 to 50mm, test focus on a set, stationary object, lock your focus and take the same photo a few times by adjusting your aperture while compensating with shutter speed. It may yield some interesting results.I did a test on the Sony 18 to 105 f4 lens on my RUclips channel. Unfortunately I shot the video before I had some time to get familiarized with the lens and my A6300. Although the test shows the smoothness of the zoom on the electronic lens, I had not set up the look on the camera or the autofocus properly so everything looks kind of flat. I will probably shoot that demo again in the future. Another thing that bothers me is no mater how smooth you zoom you lens when shooting digital, sometimes it looks choppy due to how it was transcoded and uploaded to RUclips or Vimeo.Shooting 4k @24fps does always look nice over all....just saying.Hopefully you find this at least helpful.
I have had my 18-105mm for about a year. I am amazed at the quality for the price.
The Zeiss has brand recognition and it would be nice to have both . . .
If you are more into video the 18-105 would be your choice. I do like the range of this lens and have some excellent close up portrait shots. The Zeiss is smaller not significantly but would be easier to carry around. Thanks for the demonstration!
Tim Zdrale Spot on observations. I don't miss my Zeiss ✌️
I think you do a great job! I always learn something from your videos.
Thanks for you great work!!
I got the E PZ f/4 G OSS 18-105 Lens also, I tried every setting. I just want to do basic video at 60fps or 120fps at night and it still comes out terrible... Any advice on a preset or something anyone can provide? I just want to point and record for some simple vlogs. Help anyone?
I'm using A6300 just for video,So I bought a 18-105 G and it's never let me down
Thanks for the review and all your video.
nice job
Unless you focus on the same thing at he same distance how can you possibly examine the entire print and discuss sharpness? It seems to me that depth of field might be varying if each lens focuses on different areas. So certain areas that don't appear sharp might in fact be outside the area of apparent sharpness.
Thanks for the great review! I had also done a lot of research on comparing these two lens. It's so so difficult to find the right zoom lens for Sony e mount system because there aren't many options. eventually I will go for the 18-105 because its price, range, video capability and reputation are so much better the 16-70.
I have the 18-105. In fact it is that lens (not available in the alpha mount) that led me to upgrade my camera body to the a6500. It's a great lens with the constant f4 aperture. However I use it for casual shooting such as family picnics or other general use. It simply isn't sharp enough for anything where I want tack sharp photos. It is the range that I like; wide to telephoto. It covers all the bases for me.
One of the best channels for sony lenses. Clear winner is the 18-105mm lens!
18-105= rational decision for a versatile and cost-conscious do-it-all or travel lens. Superior video lens.
Zeiss 16-70 = more portable and balanced in the a6000 series bodies. Cost-no-object low-profile travel solution.
Having carried around the 16-70, I think it's well worth it. It's sooo light and perfectly balanced on the a6300. That 18-105 is freaking HUGE! Honestly, if I was cool with that amount of size for a walk around, I might think of putting a sigma MC-11 adapter on there and one of their really nice zooms.
I totally agree. I'm not going to sell my Ziess f/4. But it will be removed from my backpack when I go traveling, the Ziess is an amazing lens, no one should have buyer's remorse for purchasing it, it is indeed more sharp, whether it's worth $200 more over the G lens is entirely up to you and your compromises. Have to remember with video and photo work, everyone has different set of requirements and standards and thus everyone has own set of compromises willing to make. For me, it's packing a kit lens, and 18-105 G lens for long trips. For exploring its brining only the 18-105 G.
My pick for 3 best travel and exploring lens thus far. 16-50 Kit lens(power zoom model), FE 50mm(yes full frame 50mm on A6000-6500), and 18-105mm G.
-I did edit this comment-
Nice report! Is there a better zoom available from anyone else? I wasn't impressed with either. I had the Zeiss when I had an a6300 and was very pleased with it for family reunion type shots. It's sharp. But they both look bad in the trees. I have the 18-105 awaiting the a6400 later in the week.
yeah I'm still waiting on better zoom options for Sony aswell . there's not enough zooms for sony imo , especially at consumer price
HI TM! With all of your mid-zoom comparisons, how about testing the 18-105 vs the long-zoom Sony 18-200 models (3 models) and the Tamron (2 models)? You are getting a great reputation, maybe B&H would loan them? Your reviews match my experiences precisely and your trust is solid these days!
Thanks for doing this comparison! I was going to pick up the 18-105, however I managed to find a used copy of the 16-70 that I purchased for slightly less than a brand new copy of the 18-105. I've been enjoying the 16-70 a lot, I like that it is slightly more compact than the 18-105, however the power zoom on the 18-105 would be a huge advantage when using a gimbal, as zooming in will not affect the balance of the gimbal.
The 18-105mm is versatile and such a great value. We're starting to use it more and more every day!
Definitely one of the best review... the way the presentation was done is great!
Great review! I own that Sony lens and had mulled over painfully and considered "upgrading" to that Zeiss lens. Thanks to your review, I can sleep well now. For what I need, my 18-105G, along with my prime lenses, serves me well.
I bought the 18-105 G. I like it a lot. Based on your review, I think you should keep the 18-105 since you do a lot of videos. Great review! thanks.
So... which one did you keep, and were there any regrets?
Not easy to compare lenses unless you focus on your subject very carefully. The Sony EP Z 18 to 105mm G lens is a better choice as an all around lens, especially for video. The zoom will spoil you. It does however draw a lot of attention due to the big class. Not always what you want for street pics.
strange timing; my G lens is on its way from amazon as we speak, due for delivery today :D Great video per usual.
Zeiss makes crazy sharp glass. I mean if it is a Zeiss you know it at least meets the minimum standard for many. I think that when it comes to compressed video you need as sharp of an image as possible to offset other issues. Chromatic Aberations on Zeiss glass at this price are somewhat annoying but not a deal break for me.
I think you get the Zeiss if the priority is on compact size for the APC, otherwise, does not seem worth the $ difference.
Thank you Arthur. I think I watched this video like 10 times before making up my mind to finally buy the 18-108... yes in 2019!, BUT! I took into consideration the larger focal length spectrum and the fact that I'm about to travel and don't want to miss any opportunity exchanging lenses.
It doesn't matter that it's 2019. It's a very good lens. Enjoy it.
After watching tons of reviews, i finally took the dive to get the Sony lens. Have used it outdoors for about a week. Loving the images, one thing you forgot to mention is that when using the 18-105 the little flash from the Sony cannot make it past the lens when trying to use on close ups and will need an external shoe mount lens. Beyond that very pleased with the lens!!! Great review!!!!!
Haha you are right. I never use flash, so it's not big deal for me, but good for others to know!
There is a workaround that I have been using since my first DSLR, at the times when didn't have cash for a flash - Just take a paper cup and use it as a diffuser. You can also control the direction of the light
I think the 18-105s missing focus. If you look at 2:55 the bokeh on the left is much bigger than on the right and the shirt is more out of focus which suggests that it was focused slightly in front of her face. Which might explain why the close up of the eye seems to be so much sharper as that shot is actually in focus.
Grabbing the a6700 soon! Want an all purpose lens for video and some photo and then a small portable stealth setup for being at bars with friends and travel. 18-105? 18-135? 18-200? and i think 23mm sigma - thoughts?!
I really appreciate all of your videos, as I have an a6000 myself and would also like to have just 3 to 4 lenses. Keep up the good work !
Thanks! BUT! a big but. Next time could you do Photo autofocus review please?, with a sample of auto focus continious. I feel like all the reviewers in youtube arent doing this test. and considering people are buying this lens for sports and that sony a6000 line is aimed at sports, fast action photography as well having great video. I hate how IQ is tested but not autofocus on photos or moving subject. the fact is if it focuses shit, it could be the nicest IQ in the world but that doesnt matter if the shot on afc is 90% miss.
If you get what I mean, Anyhow its just a constructive criticism on what is quite a great, informative video hehe. I just thought I mention it.
Thanks again, i've subscribed.
Thanks for these!! I'm a (fairly) new convert from Canon to Sony. I work with the FS5 with the 18-105 seen here during my day job. I just today bought an a6000 for a b-camera and plan to add an a7s or a7sII soon so I'm marathoning your vids for advice on lens selection. Well done, good sir! Thank you!!!
I think there are only two weakness from the 18-105, the amount of distortion (software corrected) and its size. I initially planned on switchong my 18-105 to 16-70 but after seeing this I changed my mind. Thanks for helping me safe hundreds $$$
Im glad I could help!
Your videos are very educational and helpful for me as a new Sony a6500 user. Thanks for your time and expertise!
Great review thank you getting my 18-105 today I own the 16-70 Zeiss lens love it just need more reach without breaking the bank.
nice review, which lens is heavier? and by how much?
I have to decide what to upgrade from my kit lens and your review gave me the answers I'm looking for. Thank you!
you cover everything that we would like to know in a great way!! keep ti up
I just got the 18-105mm F/4 coming from a nikon system. I switched to silent shooting and it improved the sharpness of the lens ( using A6300 ) though i don't have the 16-70mm F/4 to compare it with. I guess you can keep them both.
Awesome video. I really like that I count on you for anything E-mount related. Thanks!
I'm on the same boat before, but I decided to chose 18-105mm, I do both photo and video. I think it's very useful for events, because of the range and you don't need to change lenses and miss your shot
It seems that you're often comparing images which were focused on different distances...
Really good review, thank you very much. I think you have just convinced me to go with the the 18-105 rather than the 16-70.
My 1 concern, however, with the photo of the eye, if you took the photo with autofocus the results might have been purely due to a focus issue rather than a sharpness issue.
Hello, Which prime lens do you use the most? If I you had to buy just one, would you consider 35mm or 50mm?
Do you use the "eye focus" feature when you take portraits? The lack of sharpness in the first photos seems to be more of a focus issue than an optic issue.
Great video! Zeiss seems disappointing which is in line with many reviews I've seen of it. I went for the 18-105 so I can just slap it on my camera and stop thinking about lenses for awhile :) Thanks for the great review
Hi, I'd just like to know how much better the 18-105 compared to my Sony 18-200?
great review with clear detail and supporting evidence
Thank you man. Because of you, I purchased 18 - 105 without informing my wife 🤣
😁
You're the man 👊🏿😂
Same here..😂
Congratulation!!! are you still alive???
Another great video. I like that you did the zoom collapsed and extended as I thought the Zeiss was small, but full zoomed is actually a little bigger. I agree that the difference amount for little gain makes the 18-105 a confirmed better buy (and if 35mm longer reach).
Great review on these bad boys! IMO the 18-105 is more versatile due to the fact that it covers a larger range of focal lengths. The zeiss lens might be a bit sharper at some focal lengths, but not worth the price tag. I'd stick with the G-lens, but if you like using the zeiss better, well... That might be the right one for you. Thanks again for a great review :)
Great comparison! I am very happy with my 18-105!
hi, if the price of the 2 lenses are same, which is the better for Still Photos?
I currently live in the Philippines and a few months back I bought an A6500 and the Zeiss 16-70mm lens. The photos I was able to take were not very good. Also the zoom ring was not smooth. It would stick and then jerk as I applied the pressure to get it to move. The 4K video was fantastic and it fit the camera very well. I took the lens back and was told it stuck because it was new. I have had zoom lenses in the past and never experience this. I tried the 24-70 GM lens and it was like the difference between night and day. smooth operation and great pictures. I just find it hard to believe that a sony thousand dollar lens would perform so poorly. I even went to another store and checked their Zeiss, and it was still bad. Any Idea why?
I don't have both lenses but...
I would keep the 1670 just because it doesn't have zoom motor, which I think makes it more reliable in the long run.
i just placed an order for the 18-105 G. I'm so excited!
Спасибо за объективный обзор. Я в 2015 году выбрал кошельком SONY 18-105G F4 и не жалею. Он великолепен для съемки в путешествиях, для портретов, для пейзажей. ОН создан для видеосъемки. А если нужна ночная съемка, ставлю SIGMA 30\1.4 DC DN . Он очень резкий и светосильный, позволяет хорошо отделять передний план от фона, снимать ночью...
I really like your channel... You concisely put out some great information which aids me since I am a total newbie to mirrorless cameas. However, I might suggest one thing: shooting images of trees and foliage makes it very difficult for me to judge he sharpness of any lens...
In reality it's almost impossible to find a copy of Sony Zeiss E 16-70mm f/4 without a lot of actual terrible optical defects. But Sony E 18-105mm f/4 usually is much more stable in this relation.
Generally, there are too many cases where Sony's Quality Control for their lenses, even with the "Zeiss" proud icons looks like there is no QC at all.
I have both lenses, and use them on a a6000 body, I use the 18-105mm mainly for video, and the 16-70mm for stills. both are good lenses to use. I shot a movie of a friends baby for them with the 18-105mm which turned out quite good, i'm not a professional, but a keen Ammeter. The zoom is excellent on the 105mm very smooth. the stills were shot mainly with the zeiss lens. anyway my friend was very pleased with the results as I was myself. I agree with your findings with these lenses, the zeiss is over priced but I tend to use it a lot more than the 105mm if you can afford to keep both lenses you should find a good match with these two, and lots of use for them both of them.
My thoughts exactly :-) I have both as well and use them as you described.
Truly unbiased and authentic review of both the lenses. I would prefer the 18 to 105 than the zeiss. I request u to do a review of Sonnar T* E 24 mm F1.8 ZA. Thanks. Have a gr8 day!!
i have the 16-70 and covers almost everything I need when travel. I still have the canon 70-200 F4 for longer zoom. I sold the 12 mm f2, Samyang and now I have to buy a replacement. For portrait and low light I use a old manual lens,-Konica Hexanon AR 50mm f1.4 that is sharper than the native e mount sony 50 1.8 with the E mount cost around $300 versus native sony 50 1.8
So which one did you sell? Or did you get rid of both?
It just proves to me that what is really needed is an f2.8 zoom. Ofcourse the 16-70mm being sharper in HDR will have more purple fringe, that's because the 18-105 is not as sharp, so it does not resolve HDR edges. Shock was that after 50mm the zeiss starts to soften. Perhaps the 16-50mm f2.8 is really the best walk around, and the 18-105mm f4 best for video zooming.
damn thanks god i didn't waste my money on zeiss i'm good with the 18-105
I prefer the 18-105 over the zeiss.
Same
Thank you for the comparison. It makes me rethink paying an extra premium for the Zeiss labeling versus non-Zeiss labeling.
Thank you for your comparison! Your videos help me a lot! so, my conclusion is that sony 18-105mm f4 and sony sel 35mm f1.8 will be great set for my camera bag :) 😎
Salih Komurcu I'd like to request you to review 35mm 1.8 if you have it already. thanks
vinod yadav neither of them I have. I have only kit lens. But I will get 35mm f1.8 first. Technolıgy mafia has sony 35mm f1.8 videos. watch them. Thet really help you to choose right lens 🖒
I use 16-70 mm as all day lens, and for indoor I use 35mm f1.8 sony, that's covers everything for me, I am not into video making, so 18-105 is not as useful for me. 16-70 mm is quite sharp and lens size is very compact as well.
Привет ! Ты же вроде наш ))) Спасибо за обзор ! У нас до сих пор выбор это цена . Буду искать 105 так как шире диапазон . Но 4 дырка , конечно мало. Хотелось бы увидеть разницу 2.8 против 4 ))
Would like to see comparison between the 18-105mm & the new 18-135mm...any chance soon? Thanks...