This one was I think shot with my FE20mmf1.8G, which is my walk around with my dog kind of lens for now.
I debated my Sigma 14-24mm Dn vs Sony 12-24mm f2.8GM vs this lens for a long time, but I decided to keep this one, for walk around snaps I really need this 16-35mm or better 15-35mm range in one lens. The 14-24mm Dn is a fabulous lens but the focal range just does not work great for me, I need both 16 and 30mm in one lens for most of my weather documentary stuffs and this kind of short walkaround stuffs.
Just wish this lens was an internal zoom lens.
Here's why I decided to I just keep my current copy of the FE16-35mmf2.8GM lens for now (after a long debate with myself) for my wide lens needs:
If you compare this GM version of Sony 16-35mm vs the ZA version , you can clearly see the resolution difference in the edges and corners , even in the very central portion of the image at any aperture setting, but if you do compare printed images from these two FE 16-35mm zooms , you can hardly see any resolution difference, you can still see color and overall rendering differences , though.
So I was almost trying to convince myself to keep the cheaper ZA or the Tamron version and sell this GM zoom.....but I realized that the resolution difference especially in the central portion of the FF would be glaring enough to just justify the extra cost and inconvenience of the heavier zoom in this case.
I think the GM produces much cleaner images even at image level, the ZA produces too much lateral CA in the edges especially in high contrast areas.
Also at the 35mm and even 28mm , the resolution difference is very clear, sometimes even striking, it's really easy to tell and very glaring to me.
Compared to the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 at f4 or f5 at 28mm , I think even the cheap Sony F4 ZA is slightly better in the very central part of the frame and in the edges and borders they are almost identical.
At f8 or so the ZA Sony edges out the Tamron in the corners.
It was surprising to me. I always thought the Tamron was just as good as the GM as many DPR guys and many Fred Miranda forum denizens told me so. I think I was kinda brainwashed by their very biased wishful conclusions.
So what is the conclusion: After testing a several copies of these lenses , I think the GM is definitely worth the price(if you use the 16-35mm range very often like I do). I still have both the Tamron and the GM now , I was selling the GM but decided to cancel it. I mean I do not think they are even comparable with respect to resolution and flare performance.
I dislike the build quality of the FE16-35mm f2.8GM but it is sharp and optically a very good zoom. And most importantly it works great for my type of shooting at least for my weather documentary series like this series.
So I may have to stick with the GM for now , I think until the FE16-35mm f2.8GM mark 2 released(or even better 14-30mm f2.8 GM). And I think it will be about a couple more years or so away from now. Now the FE24-70mm f2.8GM MK2 has already been out for a few months.......and these are kinda well respected by many reviewers , but these are definitely not for me or any one mostly shooting on a tripod.
It is a PJ lens and Wedding lens, and for them it is a great lens, at least much better than the lens it has replaced in last November. However, for me the IQ difference on the tripod or stopped down applications between them is not a huge enough to justify the price difference of the two.
And if the new FE24-70mm f2.8GM MK2 is any indication of how good the new FE16-35mm f2.8GM will be , I think I may just shun the next iteration of the FE16-35mm f2.8GM and keep my current one or get the Loxia 25mm f2.4 or something similar in 25-30mm range. For me the Loxia still holds the resolution record in that focal range. I know FM and DxO do not agree with me on this , but I know their tests are all flawed as they only test these lenses at a certain focus distance.
If you really test these lenses for their actual intended apps at f5.6 and on at near infinity focus range or long focus distance range, then the Loxia 25mm f2.4 and 85mm f2.4 are still the resolution king(along with the Voigtlander 65/2, the 50/2 APO,etc.) in the current E mount system.
So , for my type of apps , the manual lenses are still way better than any AF lenses even the most expensive GM's.
This is why I decide to save my money in this boring zoom range , and focus on my favorite focal length primes like the new 85, the 28, the 50, etc......
I really want to see the highly anticipated FE85mm f1.4GM MK2 in the size of the Sigma 85mm f1.4Dn or even a bit smaller.
I think they can do it now if they seriously try it , and if they do that it will be a huge hit for sure. For me a set of great 85, 28mm (35mm may work too, but I prefer a great 28mm f1.8 or 1.4), 20mm primes are really important , now we have a set of great 35, 135, 105mm, 100, but we do not have any good 85 , 28 and 200mm primes. So I really hope the new version of the 85mm GM to be a real stunning lens, and hope Sony will keep it f1.4......but my gut feeling tells me it will be a faster lens than the current one like the 50mm f1.2 GM.....
If I am right on this , then I will definitely not get that , I will find a new mount or just keep using my current lenses.
Anyway, I'd like to conclude it this way:
The Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 is a criminally overrated lens. It is not as good as the GM and might even be a bit worse than the best copies of the FE16-35mm f4ZA(which is not really bad stopped down especially in the 16-24mm range). If you do not need f4 and shoot always stopped down then the FE16-35mm f4ZA is actually a better lens than the Tamron.
The zoom range of the 16-35mm is much more versatile than the Tamron 17-28 and these two cheap wide zooms are optically identical.....very close.
And there is the new version of FE16-35mm f4 now, which is a great lens for the small size. I think the new FE16-35mm f4G is actually a quite good lens in terms of sheer resolution and overall IQ. However, it lacks really important feature(a good manual focus ring) for stills photography as it is a video focused zoom lens. So it will not be for me, but I think it will work for many people who are not interested in manual focusing-ability of any new zoom lenses.
Then, what about the FE12-24mmf2.8GM?
Honestly, I have tested these a several times as some reviewers loved it, but for me it did not work.....the zoom range just never worked for me.
I also hated its ergonomics design. It simply never worked for me. My copy of the FE12-24mm f2.8GM was sharp super sharp in 12-16 mm range, but it had a huge bulbous front element and that really made it a risky lens to use in the field as I always used that lens for my weather documentary series.
So I sold it. I really want to get a hypothetical great sharp 14-35mm f4 GM zoom without the annoying bulbous front element design. Canon could do it , so why don't you try it Sony?
I also tried the Sony FE14mm f1.8 GM as it was kinda reasonably priced for that super fast wide prime, but it was shockingly bad at f5.6 and on......I mean at f5.6 even a good zoom(not a prime) like my FE16-35mm f2.8GM at 16mm seemed a bit sharper than the 14mm prime. Plus, it also had the annoying bulbous front element design.
And as with all these lenses with a bulbous front element , it has serious flare issue.
So it did not work for me, now I am waiting for Voigtlander to update their 15mm prime , yeah it is dark(slow) but it is quite sharp if you get a good copy and it has amazing anti-flare coatings. Personally if I can choose a manual lens , I will always prefer it to any AF lenses in most focal lengths
