I was kinda lost here as the Hotel website said it is in the North side of the station near the University........but it was actually located in the south area near Century Tower Sapporo.
FE16-35mm dilemma 3-FE16-35mm f4ZA plus Batis 18mm f2.8 vs FE12-24mm f4G plus Sigma 28mm f1.4 Art vs FE16-35mm f2.8GM:
It is a tough question, tough dilemma, really difficult to make the right decision here, now we've got too many good wide angle options in E mount.
One thing I am sure about now is if I do not shoot event or documentary like stuffs of our academic conferences and trips , I might just keep my FE12-24mm f4G and Voigtlander 21mm f3.5 and maybe the Loxia 25mm f2.4 Distagon in addition.
But for my academic documentary stuffs I do for my school, I realize having f/2.8 aperture across 66 different focal lengths that are selectable in milliseconds in just a couple of zooms, to achieve the perfect framing and maximizing the possibility of capturing perfect flow of a event as we envisioned is more important than having the pinnacle of sharpness in the far corners of the frame.
I mean I use my 16-35mm f2.8GM and FE24-105mmf4G or Tamron 28-75mm f2.8(currently missing in my bag due to some aperture issues) very often for my academic trips.
If the AF of the Batis 40mm f2 CF was a bit better it would have replaced my FE24-105mm f4G and the Tamron......the Batis 40m is a great lens but the AF is a bit unpredictable in close focus distances especially on the MK3 series Sony bodies.
So if the size of the FE16-35mm f2.8GM is not a serious problem, there is no point even discussing or arguing the GM vs the ZA or the G super wide zooms here again and again. I think the FE16-35mm f2.8GM is worth the premium price and it is an outstanding zoom.....no doubt about it. I like it a lot and use it a lot.
I mean all of these are similar in quality (assuming you get an excellent copy of each)in 16-24 range, but in 26-35mm range the GM is significantly better than the ZA and the FE12-24mm f4G does not even have the 26-35mm range. So I think if you do shoot often in the 26-35mm range, or need f2.8 speed, then the GM is the easy pick.
However, I know many people have many different lenses that cover 26-50mm range in addition to their super wide zoom, so if they also have something like the Loxia 25mm f2.4 or Sigma 28mm Art, even the Sony 35mm f2.8ZA to cover the weak range of the FE16-35mm f4ZA or FE12-24mm G and they always use two body set up like me, then one of these cheaper zooms may be a more sound choice for them. This is why I am considering downgrading my FE16-35mm FE24-70mm f2.8GM combo to the F4 zooms(actually I already sold the 24-70mm GM).
Honestly, I really hated the FE24-70mm f2.8GM , it was an obnoxious ugly lens to me and I have sold it many times--bought it 3 times sold it 3 times and now I do not have it in my office any more. I think for the mid range I do not need a zoom, I often prefer my primes like Batis 40mm f2CF or Voigtlander 50mm f1.2, sometimes need the FE24-105mm f4G or the Tamron for one lens solution, but that is only when I shoot some school events or LGBT parades in Fukuoka city.
Even for that, I may not even need it, maybe the FE16-35mm f2.8GM plus something like Batis 85mm f1.8 plus Batis 40mm f2CF do all what I need to capture there very well. So I may just sell my Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 too when they finally send it back to me(it has been broken most of time since I bought it in last Aug ).
A few nights ago,after I sold my FE24-70mm f2.8GM, I ordered another copy of FE16-35mm f2.8GM and FE12-24mm f4G, and Sigma 28mm f1.8 Art(which I believe is a much better lens than the Sony FE24mm f1.4GM)....
So I guess it is time for me to write about how these 3 zooms compare in real life one more time here( hopefully this is the final time I write about this issue):
First, to make a long story short, here I must talk about why I had to reconsider about my zoom choice in the widest range of my E mount kit. Let me make it very clear if my FE16-35mm f2.8GM did not die in Hokkaido, I never considered replacing it, I loved it and it was my workhorse lens, I trusted it more than any other lens in my bag as I used it for nearly half of my school trip images that I would never put online(too private). But it died in this Feb in near Wakkanai city.....
I think it was this past Feb 7th or 8th, my FE16-35mm f2.8GM died suddenly after it got a bit of condensation from severe lens frost, the front element of the lens was completely frosted over or even almost frozen. I do not know why or how it actually died but it died there. My camera was fine, but almost all my lenses I used there died(except my Batis 85 and Loxia 25).
As my FE16-35mm f2.8GM lens suddenly died in Hokkaido(I think it died near the second port of Wakkanai ) and I had to buy the FE16-35mmf4ZA lens as a temporal wide angle solution for the rest of my trip in Hokkaido and used it throughout my last north island trip(I bought the ZA on Feb 10th and thought I would sell it as soon as I get back my FE16-35mm f2.8GM from Sony).
Much to my amazement, the new FE16-35mm f4ZA was surprisingly good, a lot better than my second copy of that lens from 2017, it was almost as sharp as my last copy of the FE16-35mm GM throughout its range at least till 28mm mark of it. And even at 35mm , it was fairly sharp even compared to a great copy of FE24-70mm f2.8GM at 35mm f5.6.
I think my new copy of FE16-35mm f4ZA must be dramatically better than my previous copy of it I had back in 2017 and to my surprise it is very close to my last copy of the FE16-35mm f2.8GM(which is now replaced) optically.. so my dilemma which FE16-35mm lens to keep has become very complicated......it is not an easy decision to make...especially considering how much money I would lose if I sell my F4 ZA version now.
A week ago, I visited Sony Fukuoka and I tested a several copies of the FE16-35mm GM there and I bought the best copy.....I thought it would blow my 4th and best copy of FE16-35mm f4ZA out of the water......but it did not.
Actually, my latest FE16-35mm f4ZA is quite sharp and resolution seems to be really even across the frame and almost throughout its range, so I thought I 'd keep it a bit longer than I planned to and compare it to my latest copy of the FE16-35mm f2.8GM in real life events, and in order to make it more interesting I rented a FE12-24mm f4G that I would buy from Sony after checking for centering issues.
So I bought a FE12-24mm f4G on May 2nd, the current copy of FE16-35mm f2.8GM on April 28th. And my current copy of FE16-35mm f4ZA on Feb 10th this year.
And since May 2nd, I have been comparing these 3 every morning and every evening , I am obsessed with it.....as I am a wide angle freak. After initial comparison I checked up the serial numbers of each with Sony guys and we figured out that my FE16-35mm f2.8GM was made in Feb 2019, my current copy of FE12-24mm f4G was made in December 2018, and my current copy of FE16-35mmf4ZA was made in January 2019.
So my FE12-24mm f4G is the oldest lens of the three.
Anyway,I found a few new interesting things that I did not find in my previous series of comparisons of these three in this March 2019:
1> They are pretty close in resolution especially in the corners and borders if you get a well centered copy of each. The GM is sharper at 24mm and on but a good copy of the ZA is not far behind even in its weakest range. This was a very interesting finding since my old copy of this lens was quite much worse than the GM in 28-35mm range.
2> The level of CA correction is much better on the GM and the FE12-24mm f4G. The FE16-35mm f4ZA produces a bit serious amount of lateral CA in the edges and high contrast areas of images although it is easy to fix in Capture One or PS.
3> The ZA is less distorted and its distortion seems to be a bit easier to correct in PS(at 16mm end). At the 35mm mark though, the GM is less distorted. However its distortion is harder to fix in PS. I think DxO does better job here. I find the type of distortion the FE12-24mm f4G produces at 12, 14, 16 range is very easy to fix in C1 Pro or DxO. It is a big plus for me since I don't like Adobe. I am a big fan of Capture One.
4> The GM vignettes a bit less especially at 16mm in the corners. But they all share a bit pronounced serious light fall- off issue. In any case in this very regard, the FE12-24mmf4G is the worst of the three.
5> In real life, these are very identically sharp in the range of 16-22 or so, but after that the GM is better especially in the corners and edges. But the GM has a bit of mid zone dip issue in its wide range like 16-20mm range which the ZA does not have. I never realized this before but the GM has a bit of mid zone resolution dip in the 16-18mm range of it. Not only this copy but all 6 copies of it I tested at Sony had that issue.
So if you do really dislike or hate the issue, maybe better keep a cheaper f4 zoom and add a 18 or wider prime or the excellent 12-24mm f4 in addition to the f4 16-35mmf4 zoom.
6> The current copy of GM is sharpest in 20-23mm range, but it is also very sharp in 26-33mm range. So I often shoot it in that range.
In 24-26mm range, the GM 16-35mm is sharper than the ZA and much sharper than the FE12-24mm f4G at 24mm. But my latest copy of the Loxia 25mm f2.4 Distagon(second copy) is a bit sharper than the 16-35mm GM from f2.8 to f8 especially in the mid zone and edges, with a bit more micro contrast to boot.
However , to my surprise I actually prefer the GM color and rendering to the Loxia. The Loxia 25mm produces a bit harsh bokeh compared to the GM at 25mm f2.8 or f4.
I could not believe this new finding initially(because I am a Zeiss fanboy and strongly biased towards it) but I do have to admit I do prefer the GM color when I blind test myself .....I think it is much more neutral and realistic than the typical overly vibrant Loxia color. I also find I prefer Batis color to Loxia color in general use. This new found fact has really surprised me as I always thought I prefer the color of Loxia lenses.
7> My new GM is really almost perfect from 18mm to 28mm range and even at 35mm it is quite sharp....its 16mm mark is a bit weaker than its 18mm mark, but still a bit better than my previous copy of 16-35mm GM.
But for my needs, the 16mm end of the zoom is most important and therefore I am quite disappointed with the result.....my current copy of FE16-35mm f4ZA is sharpest at 21mm and it is almost as sharp as my FE16-35mm f2.8GM at 16mm......this makes my super wide zoom dilemma even more difficult.
Honestly, I wished my current copy 16-35mm f4ZA had been really noticeably worse than the GM in every aspect of IQ......then it would have been very easy for me to just pick the GM......or that would have justified me adding the Batis 18mm f2.8 again.
The FE12-24mm f4G is quite sharp at 15mm and f5.6 and it seems to be very even across the frame. However its central resolution is a bit weaker than both the GM and the ZA 16-35mm at 16mm...maybe in 18mm too. My copy of FE12-24mm f4G seems to be sharpest at 18mm f5.6.
8 > At 16mm f4, the GM is the sharpest in the center, it is noticeable, but in the corners they are all similar. The GM seems to have a bit more bite or micro contrast, though. The FE12-24mm f4G might be the most even across the frame without any sort of mid zone resolution dip.
To my surprise , they are all very close at 16mm f5 and almost identically sharp across the frame, the GM still has the edge in the central resolution, but a bit way from the center all of the three seem very identical at f5.
At f5.6 , the GM still has the edge in the central portion of the frame but all the three seem sharp enough and almost identical in the corners and edges, but the FE12-24mm f4G might still be the most even across the frame if I pixel peep it to the point my eyes start hurting...but both the 16-35mm ZA and GM have a bit more micro contrast.
The FE16-35mm f4ZA is the worst corrected for Lateral CA, the GM is the best corrected for it.
9> The size difference of the three zooms seems to be bigger than I remembered from my previous comparison in this March 2019. I did not remember the ZA is this much smaller than the GM , I thought it was smaller but just a tiny bit smaller than the GM. But it seems to be much smaller and better balanced on the A7R3 than the GM. The FE12-24mm f4G is also smaller than my GM zoom and quite noticeably lighter. And the most important difference of these three is the FE 12-24mm f4G does not extend when it zoomed out.
That one fact alone makes it a very special lens in the current Sony FE lens lineup, IMHO.
All the other non-tele zooms of Sony extend out significantly( a bit more than two inches) when zoomed out.
I think the biggest flaw of the FE16-35mm f2.8GM is the silly extending zoom design.
For the over 2k US price Sony asks for the FE16-35mm f2.8GM it should have been an internal zoom lens like the Canon EF16-35mm f2.8 L MK3.
I really hate extending wide zooms especially like those extend towards wide end.
10> The biggest difference of the two 16-35mm zooms to me is their very different rendering especially out of the camera color. The ZA has clear magenta cast , bias, while the GM has a bit of cyan bias, which I actually like since it makes the images produced with it look a bit more realistic to my eye. The FE12-24mm f4G is very similar to the GM color wise but not close enough to say identical, IMHO..its color is ,as many described in many forums, a bit too green.
And at 24mm f4 setting, the GM resolves much better than the FE12-24mm f4G at 24mm f4 setting, but not much better than the ZA zoom at this setting.
As I move up to the 35mm f4 setting the GM becomes quite a bit better than the ZA with a bit more minor contrast details and its bokeh seems to be also smoother. Actually, the quality of the bokeh of the GM at its 35mm mark is prime quality or even better than many primes at similar focal length. I think the GM series zooms are geared towards close to mid porttrait focus distance performance for wedding and event photography and they are much better than their f4 brothers for event or wedding work.
But for landscape or architecture kind of work, they are quite similar except the GM is a bit better corrected for spherical aberration and lateral CA. Probably the GM is also better corrected for astigmatism and coma ,but I don't test that lens for that specific issue just yet..coma is not a very important issue to me for now as I quit shooting nightscepe.
11> I personally prefer the look of the GM zoom better , but the resolution difference at least my latest copy of these tree zooms in their overlapping range is very small(except the central portion of the frame) and the FE12-24mm f4G seems to be most even across the frame and the range.
However, the GM is sharpest in the central portion of the frame throughout their overlapping range.. sometimes its outstanding central resolution shocks me, as it often beats many great primes its range for central resolution. Also, it may be important to note: the FE24-70mm f2.8GM also beats many of primes in its range for central resolution and it is kind of amazing. So if corners are not very important and f2.8 is fast enough then there is no reason to get any prime in 16-35mm range. The FE16-35mm f2.8GM's central resolution is that good.....
However primes are more even across the frame......especially the best primes like the Sigma 28mm f1.4 Art, Batis 40mm f2CF and Loxia 25mm f2.4. The Batis 18mm f2.8 is also great, but it is not as much sharper than the GM as the rest in the list as it is compared to the GM at the sharpest FL of the GM zoom.
So if I have to keep only one lens, it would have to be the FE16-35mm f2.8GM for me......but as I have many other lenses , I might choose the much smaller f4 version in real life....
12> At infinity the GM is quite a bit sharper than the ZA at the 35mm mark(although this ZA is a carefully cherry-picked best copy from 5 copies that the shop had at the time).
Surprisingly my latest copy of the FE16-35mm f4ZA is very close to the GM at 16mm at least in the edge and corners.
The GM is always better in the very central portion of the frame but the difference is not striking at infinity.
That was very surprising to me. My previous copy of the FE16-35mm f4ZA that I sold in 2017 was not as good as the latest copy of the same lens. The latest one produced in this year is quite a bit better than my last copy of the same lens produced in 2015 and in 2014.
13> The ZA lens balances much better on my A7R2 and R3. I think all GM zooms and likes of FE135mm f1.8GM require a bit bigger body or the battery grip.
14 and the final point here> The FE12-24mm f4G is a flare machine and that really makes me nervous whenever going out at night with that lens.
And it produces a bit too cyan /green color most of times , even winter or autumn forest becomes like summer forest or rainy season wood.
This is the biggest downer of that lens.
I will need to test more to decide which one to keep and sell , but one thing I am very sure is if the size is not a serious issue(for me it is a huge issue) the GM is a clear winner here especially when one needs great(if you can cherry pick a great copy) 28-30mm peformance in his her 16-35mm zoom.
But for me , the 16-24mm range is more important than the long end of it(as many other lenses cover the long range very well), therefore they are very identical in resolution and over all performance(except the color balance and CA control), so I am still debating it. And there is also a good 12-24mm f4 lens that makes this wide zoom decision even more difficult for me. I just wish if the 12-24mm f4G did not have the annoying bulbous front element that might cause too much flare.....
Honestly if the FE12-24mm f4G had a bit better anti-flare coating , it might be a no-brainer lens for me as I find that focal range much more versatile than my 16-35mm zooms.
My previous copy of the GM was decentered at 16mm , so that made this issue a bit more difficult and forced me to try another copy of the same lens...and the latest copy of the FE16-35mm f2.8GM that I have now is clearly better than the last one I tried.
My latest copy of the FE12-24mm f4G is very even well centered one, but my last copy I had back in 2017 and 2018 was a bit decentered in 12-15mm range.
So we must conclude all 16-35mm GMs are different in performance and resolution, all 16-35mm f4ZA and FE1224mm f4G are also very different in many regards.
So maybe it is risky or even dengerous to generalize the performance or optical quality of any of those E mount lenses.
That is the sad reality, it is like a lens lottery, you may get a great copy , you may get a shitty one..unless you can try it before buying and cherry pick the best one of a few, it is not very safe to buy it. In US, it is different as they can return many times until they get a good one or great one..but in many more conservative markets we can not do that, so I tend to buy a risky lens locally or from Amazon, who accepts returns until we get a decent one.
I like the GM rendering better than that of the F4 ZA especially in 25-35mm range, but they are not very different in 16-24mm range in terms of resolution and contrast.
And I am still debating if my current exceptionally good FE16-35mm f4ZA is good enough for my zoom needs in the widest range of my lens kit , as it is used for academic travel and day light event, not for wedding or serious landscape that requires extremely sharp corners in 24-35mm range.
When I need to shoot lowlight events I can always use my Sigma 28mm f1.4 Art(which I consider one of the three sharpest lenses in E mount, the other two are the Voigtalnder 65mm f2 APO and the Sigma 40mm f1.4Art) and Batis 40mm f2CF.
So I might just keep the ZA since it is much smaller and much easier to put into my small work bag with my two A7R2 and Batis 85 or Batis 40mm f2CF.
When I need the best IQ in 16-24mm range I can always use the Zeiss Batis 18mm f2.8 and Voigtlander 21mm f1.4 (if I sell my 16-35mm GM zoom, I will get the Batis 18mm f2.8 again).
No zooms are as sharp as the best prime in its range, then why not just choose a smaller and better balanced zoom for travel and event work where I cannot stop every corner or block to change my lenses over and over in every few minutes.
Finally, it is important to note: the copy variances of these zooms may be a bit bigger than I expected.
The newer copy seems a bit better than a bit older copy of the same lens. So those reviews testing just one copy in the very old day or the dawn of the E mount era (when it's just launched) is all need to be ignored. I think many Sony and Zeiss lenses are improved or getting better over their respective production time, or at least the production efficiency is getting better with time and thus the later produced copies seem to be more consistent in performance especially resolution, centering and AF.
Now I am wondering I may want to consider trying out another copy of FE35mm f1.4ZA. I tried 5 copies of these in 2016 and I got 6 bad copies and just gave up on that one. It might be a bit better now as many new buyers of the lens seem to be very happy about it.