My 16-105 is quite tight, still easy to turn but should go for a long time before zoom creep sets in.
Since Angelbaby seems to have problems communicating, here's a take on the 16-105 & 16-80 by Kurt Munger who's forgotten more about minolta/sony gear than angelbaby will ever know. The problem with the 16-105 IMHO is it's overpriced by $150-200.
"Here are my final thoughts on the Sony 16-105mm. The lens is sharp in the centers, there really isn't much of a need to stop down at any focal length, but maximum sharpness seems to come about a stop down from the widest apertures. The corners are a little soft at mid-zoom range, especially 35mm, but that's not a big deal, remember, the crops above are at 100% viewing size and right next to each other for all-to-easy scrutiny. Normally you would not be able to tell the difference. There is more CA than the Carl Zeiss 16-80mm, especially towards the long end. The colors and contrast are similar. Distortion is about the same at wide angle, and a bit more at the long end than the CZ. Light fall-off shows the same. This lens came out after the Carl Zeiss 16-80mm, but it looks to me like Sony did a good job at trying to manufacture a lens with similar optical performance for a lower cost. I'm not quite sure why?
In the end, you have the more expensive ($120) Carl Zeiss 16-80mm F/3.5-4.5 performing just a smidgen better overall. If you don't really need the extra focal length, and need a little extra speed, and, like to look at your pictures at 100% screen size, just go out and buy the Carl Zeiss 16-80mm. For all others, get the less expensive Sony 16-105mm F/3.5-5.6.
"
