Originally posted by normhead 16-18 the 16-85 is better. ... . 85 to 135, the 18-135 is better
LOL
Originally posted by normhead At 24mm the 18-135 is actually excellent at the corners and I use it like a prime at that focal length. I'm not sure how you get through a whole analysis of the two lenses without referring to things like that
Maybe your copy is phenomenal. My tests has been taken at 18, 35, 50 and 85mm, at different apertures. At all those focal lenghts the 16-85 is clearly sharper in the corners. That said, as I stated before, I don't rate 16-85 a step forward than 18-135, just a slight improvement.
---------- Post added 04-30-15 at 12:36 PM ----------
Originally posted by Dlanor Sekao Not taking much pixel peeping , CA , corners , or any other factors other than simply viewing images on our laptop computers here is our thoughts. A week later I wanted my 18-135 back and he didn't want to give it to me and liked it better !
I agree, real world pictures don't take so much advantage of the improved quality of the 16-85, apart from the 2mm wider.
Originally posted by rawr which camera you are using? And which exposure mode and AWB setting do you normally use?
K-5, the firmware is updated at the latest version 1.16.
White balance was fixed to, say, daylight. All tests taken in manual mode, setting aperture and shutter speed manually the same values.
Originally posted by bdery I saw it when looking at 100%. To me it's acceptable, because even then it's very thin (a little over a pixel) and it's not garish purple fringing, but a dark red. for me it's perfectly acceptable.
Great to hear that it is acceptable for you, maybe I'm demanding too much from this lens. Moreover it is easily removable in PP.
Thanks all for replying!