Originally posted by ubjy many people have said the 16-85 is superior IQ. In your experience does the versatility of 18-135 trump this for this use? It's heavier and more expensive (220 vs 350). Basically that is the choice I need to make.
MrB1's post above is very accurate in my opinion. I have never used the 16-85 myself, but based on looking at a couple hundred posted pictures and
this in-depth review, I am convinced that the 16-85 is better than the 18-135 only for shots wider than 21mm. Other than that, differences between copies of the same lens are likely to be greater than differences between the two lenses. 16mm is very useful and in a two zoom scenario, with the other zoom going to at least 200mm, where you are frequently switching lenses, not having 100-135mm on your primary zoom is not a big deal. The extra weight and diameter of the 16-85 shouldn't be a big deal either, but I would tend to discount the comments touting the IQ of the 16-85 over the 18-135 as after the purchase bias. If there is a real difference, it isn't worth the extra expense. If your next lens purchase is a long telephoto zoom, getting the 16-85 will give you very good results at 16 and 18mm for free, if your next purchase is a prime or you plan to wait for a while before buying another lens, get the 18-135 and start taking pictures.
---------- Post added 06-01-19 at 11:06 AM ----------
Originally posted by MrB1 stopping down by one stop or more can produce very good quality images
Two pictures taken at 18mm with the 18-135. The picture on the left was taken wide open at f3.5, focus point was the chair at the back of the table in the front, but if you zoom in, it loses its sharpness. The picture on the right was taken at f7.1, focus point was the lever in front of the big wheel, regardless of where you zoom in, it is much sharper.