There's been a lot of... discussion about the relative merits of Nikon's 18-105mm lens vs the 16-85mm. The consensus seems to be that the 16-85mm has a much better build quality but only a marginally better image quality.What I'd like to know is whether or not the new 24MP bodies magnify this IQ difference. If both lenses are put on (e.g.) a D7100, is the 16-85mm still only marginally better, or is the IQ difference between it and the 18-105mm much greater with a 24MP sensor than with a 12MP sensor?

EKB wrote:There's been a lot of... discussion about the relative merits of Nikon's 18-105mm lens vs the 16-85mm. The consensus seems to be that the 16-85mm has a much better build quality but only a marginally better image quality.What I'd like to know is whether or not the new 24MP bodies magnify this IQ difference. If both lenses are put on (e.g.) a D7100, is the 16-85mm still only marginally better, or is the IQ difference between it and the 18-105mm much greater with a 24MP sensor than with a 12MP sensor?I can't answer your question, but if Nikon do come out with the long-rumoured (I believe patented) 16-85/f4, I would guess that might tend to indicate that not even the existing 16-85 is optimal.

D300SandV1shooter wrote:EKB wrote:There's been a lot of... discussion about the relative merits of Nikon's 18-105mm lens vs the 16-85mm. The consensus seems to be that the 16-85mm has a much better build quality but only a marginally better image quality.What I'd like to know is whether or not the new 24MP bodies magnify this IQ difference. If both lenses are put on (e.g.) a D7100, is the 16-85mm still only marginally better, or is the IQ difference between it and the 18-105mm much greater with a 24MP sensor than with a 12MP sensor?I can't answer your question, but if Nikon do come out with the long-rumoured (I believe patented) 16-85/f4, I would guess that might tend to indicate that not even the existing 16-85 is optimal.I seem to recall Thom Hogan commenting the 16-85 is good on the high density DX sensors (24MP), but only just. The 18-105 seems to lag a little behind and is a bit outclassed by the new sensors. Personally I enjoyed my 16-85 quite a bit. It handles well, is solidly built, has a better Focal Length range for my tastes and I preferred it despite the cost delta between it and the 18-105.If Nikon ever does get the oft rumored 16-85 f/4, I would be all over it were I still a DX shooter. One would assume the lens would be designed to deliver results befitting the higher resolutions sensors.+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Aaron Killen

EKB wrote:There's been a lot of... discussion about the relative merits of Nikon's 18-105mm lens vs the 16-85mm. The consensus seems to be that the 16-85mm has a much better build quality but only a marginally better image quality.What I'd like to know is whether or not the new 24MP bodies magnify this IQ difference. If both lenses are put on (e.g.) a D7100, is the 16-85mm still only marginally better, or is the IQ difference between it and the 18-105mm much greater with a 24MP sensor than with a 12MP sensor?Most reviews show the 16-85 to be the best of the DX zoom lens, with the 18-105 only slightly behind due to build quality, metal mount, distance scale. In practical terms, it depends if you prefer 2mm on the wide end vs 20mm on the long end. From 70+ you do have the option to go with a 70-200, 70-300, etc.In practical terms, depends where/when you swap lens.Another slight difference is the 16-85 will focus a little closer than the 18-105, but the 18-55 is a little  closer than both.

See my new post here about the image quality between the two.. I am using a D7100 and the 18-105 is sharper.http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51363269

GlennW wrote:EKB wrote:There's been a lot of... discussion about the relative merits of Nikon's 18-105mm lens vs the 16-85mm. The consensus seems to be that the 16-85mm has a much better build quality but only a marginally better image quality.What I'd like to know is whether or not the new 24MP bodies magnify this IQ difference. If both lenses are put on (e.g.) a D7100, is the 16-85mm still only marginally better, or is the IQ difference between it and the 18-105mm much greater with a 24MP sensor than with a 12MP sensor?Most reviews show the 16-85 to be the best of the DX zoom lens, with the 18-105 only slightly behind due to build quality, metal mount, distance scale. In practical terms, it depends if you prefer 2mm on the wide end vs 20mm on the long end. From 70+ you do have the option to go with a 70-200, 70-300, etc.In practical terms, depends where/when you swap lens.Another slight difference is the 16-85 will focus a little closer than the 18-105, but the 18-55 is a little  closer than both.I'm happy with my 18-105mm on my D90, but that's a 12MP sensor. If I upgrade to a D7100 (or a D400) then I expect that I'll want to upgrade from the 18-105mm as well. The question is then what do I upgrade to?The current 16-85mm is the obvious first choice to consider, and if a 16-85 f/4 comes out, I'll want to look at that. Beyond that, one of the 24-XX zooms is a possibility, as I hardly ever shoot wider than 24mm. For me, the drawback to an FX zoom is not the lack of a wide end, but the weight and cost.

EKB --I have a D7000 and my sample of the 16-85 is a little weak in the corners at some focal lengths.I also have the new 24-85VR (FX, i know) and WoW! it has no problems in the corners for DX (although tests show that it does on FX).  If you rarely go wide i can wholeheartedly recommend that lens in DX.Plus there are jillions of them, lightly used (or NIB), still on eBay from D600 owners that upgraded.Seriously, check this lens out.