10 out of 10 points and recommendedVery light, sharp, cheapFeels cheap
This lens is very under rated, that's why I gave it a 10 for all. After all, you need to compare the price against the quality and I don't think a 16-80 CZ, which costs 5 times more, will give a 5 x better picture.reviewed May 11th, 2008 (purchased for $150)
I can compare it with the 18-70, 18-135 of Nikon with the D300 and the Canon 17-85 IS with the 40D. In no way I feel this lens is any worse or the others better. Sharpness is good and the colors are great with the A350. Possibly the 16-80 has even more sharpness, but then again, it's not an honest comparison.
9 out of 10 points and recommendedGood build, good IQ, lightZooms a little tight
I tried the Canon and Nikon equivalents, but found this better in IQ and weight. Excellent value.reviewed May 11th, 2008
9 out of 10 points and recommendedExcellent IQWeight
Superior to the Nikon 18-70 and 18-135. Very good, sharp images threw the whole zoom range.reviewed May 11th, 2008
4 out of 10 points and not recommendedSharpOver prized
I gave this lens some low number, because I feel it doesn't deliver so much for the price and the number has gotten out of proportion.reviewed December 27th, 2009
I used it for about a year and then sold it to get a 18-105. Only pixel peepers can see the differance, but it does give more tele; the 2 mm on the wide angle I don't miss.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedlong reach, VR, sharp, sharp, sharpNone
I got this lens after using the 16-85 VR for about a year and it's been dissapointing to find out it has a serious flaw with matrix metering.reviewed December 27th, 2009
But I'm quite sure it's the body, not the lens.
I used it with spot and CW metering and the results are just as good as from the 16-85 VR which costs more than twice.
Excellent lens for the money. Can't be beat.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedSharp, sharp, reach and plastic mountNot being made anymore, price going up
This must be the most underrated lens. It's very sharp and has nothing come close to it.reviewed January 5th, 2010 (purchased for $235)
I had: 18-55 II, 16-85 VR, 18-105 VR, 18-70, 50 from Nikon. 17-85 IS from Canon with a 40D. Sony A350 with 18-70.
None of the above can come close to this one. I had one before with the D300 and sold it, not realizing how good it was. Now I have another one on my D90 and it just amazes me. Sharpness can not be corrected in software; all the other things can.
If you can buy one: do it now, because this is going to be a classic. Prices are already soring. I was lucky to get one for this price and I can already sell it for 2 X the price I paid.
Many people nag about the plastic mount. I read a few stories about people with a fallen camera and the mouint broke off and they replaced it for about $20.- . If this was a metal mount, they probably had to replace the camera mount as well and might even had more damage!
So what's the problem with a plastic mount?Metal on metal wears out to and maybe even worse: it will wear out your camera mount as well, while a plastic mount will not.
6 out of 10 points and not recommendedNice solid builtToo little for the price
I thought it was quite good until I got the 18-135.reviewed January 15th, 2010
Compared this one it's way too expensive for a lens that's less sharp and has only half the reach.