Why is Nikon/KOOC-0/6-85 twice as expensive as/KOOC-0/8-/KOOC-0/05 lens? Which photographer will give me a brief explanation ~ ~

16-85 is not a bull's head, but it is obviously better than 18- 105. Mainly wide-angle end 16, smaller than 18, but it feels much worse when taking pictures. Therefore, 16-85 is more suitable as the on-hook head. The lens of 18- 105 itself is passable. I just can't compare with other shots.

Use 16-85 to know, or use the cow's head to know. Using a bull's head is the real photography. 18- 105 is just a toy.

The focusing accuracy is comparable to that of a sharp head and human eyes. Moreover, the things taken by 18- 105 feel a little burnt. Although it is much better than a small DC, it still feels insufficient.

As for color, it is very important. Some shots just take pictures with different colors. However, this is some key factors that affect the artistry of photos. Later PS sometimes can't make up for this gap. To exaggerate, when you look at the scenery through the glass, there will always be some color deviation. A good start is to do better in this respect.

However, 16-85 is only a little better than 18- 105. The price around 4000 is really average. Usually this price is much better if the lens is fixed focus. There is no comparability. Scaling is more flexible.

16-85 The maximum aperture is also small. And it's in DX format. If you want to upgrade the whole picture, you still have to sell it. I heard that there is some meat in the image.

If you're really interested. Let's use a fixed focus lens. Although it is inconvenient to use. But the imaging quality is first-class, and the production success rate is high.