The local told us this is a poisonous plant, not sure if they were right on that, but it looked really odd and kind of scary to me.
Anyway, this one was shot in 2021 (just a few weeks after the Typhoon Chanthu), and that year was relatively a good year for us despite of the COVID pandemic and horrible vaccination program we had to go through in that year. In 2021, we did not have seriously devastating typhoons at all (the Chanthu was the biggest one). In 2022, I think we had a few super typhoons and the Nonmadol was the worst and most destructive one in our recent disaster history.
The cult of lenses 59 (why I decided to keep the FE16-35mm f2.8GM and sell all my other zooms):
The focal range is the main reason for my decision to keep this lens over the Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 Dn or the Sony 12-24mm GM, but there are also three other very important reasons for this decision:
1 the FE16-35mm f2.8GM does not have an annoying bulbous front element that gets easily frosted in the winter.
2 the color rendition is IMHO (and in our test) better (more consistent) than both the Sigma 14-24mm Dn and Sony 12-24mm GM).
3 for me it is the most important one of the three, I do think the Sony Alpha system is losing this game to the rivals at this point and I think it will eventually become an irrelevant camera system as with all Sony products. So, spending a lot of money into any of the current generation camera systems is very unwise in my opinion.
Also, as I already wrote somewhere else, the focal range of the 14-24mm or 12-24mm lenses does not work very well for me (just very awkward for weather documentaries with just one lens). I seldom go beyond 15mm, if I really need to go wider than 15mm or so, I usually just do stitching, or something like that as I really hate the heavy barrel distortion of any lens wider than 15mm produces......I also hate the perspective distortion of that sort of Ultra-wide lenses......wider than say 18mm.
Then there are a few 15 and 18- 21 mm primes to compare to this mighty (for me) FE16-35mm f2.8GM zoom:
1 Sigma 14mm f1.8Dn
2 Sony 14mm f1.8GM
3 Laowa 15mm f2 Zero D
4 Laowa 12mm f2.8
5 Voiktlander 15 mm/4.5 Super Wide Heliar III aspherical
6 Voiktlander 21 mm/1,4 Nokton asphärisch
7 Zeiss Batis 18mm f2.8
8 Zeiss Loxia 21mm f2.8 distagon
Maybe Tamron and Samyang make some excellent but cheap or at least affordable lenses for Sony in this range, but I am not very interested in their lenses now as their lenses are mechanically very poor and their lenses cannot take any serious abuse.
So now I pretty much completely shun their primes. Anyway, the most important question for me was: Is any of the wide primes listed above actually better enough to justify me owning them in addition to the very versatile FE16-35mm f2.8GM zoom?
And the answer in my case was obvious no, except the Voigtlander 21mm f1.4 and Sony FE20mm f1.8G (I have owned both and still own both). All the other primes in the list are honestly not as sharp as the GM zoom and far less versatile than the zoom (at least in my case). So, I sold most of my wide-angle primes for some new gym machines like a Leg Curl machine and bench sets.
Now move on to the most obvious Sony FE16-35mm f2.8GM alternatives: the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 and the Sony 16-35mm f4 G PZ.
If you compare the GM version of Sony 16-35mm vs the newer G 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 get the new f4G version of 16-35mm zoom or just keep the Tamron version and sell my GM zoom, and I actually did that twice in the past and deeply regretted it.
I think the resolution difference of the Tamron and the Sony GM especially in the central portion of the FF would be glaring enough to just justify the extra cost and inconvenience of the gigger and heavy GM zoom in this case.
I think the GM produces much cleaner images even at image level on screen or print, the Tamron 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 easy to tell and very glaring to me. So honestly there is no contest between these two zooms. The FE16-35mm f2.8GM is a far better, much more versatile zoom than the Tamron version.
Now compared to the newer Sony FE16-35mm f4 G at f4 or f5 at 28mm, I think the new zoom is actually quite sharp across the FF, but the color is odd to me. At 21mm, I think the GM is quite much better, and at the 16mm mark both are very good (though the GM still edges out the cheaper PZ zoom even at the 16mm). In the corner stopped down to at least f5, they are both very good and about identical in terms of corner and overall resolution, though the GM is still much sharper in the very central portion of the FF than the F4 PZ.
Honestly, the optical quality difference of these two GM and G 16-35mm zooms (stopped down at 16mm) are not really huge, and I really like the small size of the new G lens. However, I decided to go against it after playing with it for a several hours at Sony gallery.
Why? It is easy: I really hated the feel of the zoom ring of the newer cheaper power zoom. Plus, the manual focus on the GM was much better more precise. And at the 35mm f4 setting, the GM is much sharper than the PZ and I use that setting quite often.
So, 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).
Now I honestly think it is the worst time to spend too much money into any camera mount system. Especially considering the real fast tech progresses in the modern Smart Phones and smaller sensor cameras.
If the major phone companies or tech companies like Google or Apple tried it, they (the phone makers) would definitely make smarter cameras with a bit better 1 or 4/3rd sensor cameras than the current APS-C compact cameras (with some nice zooms or multi lenses sensors set up like a bit more modernized version of the Light L16 model from 2018).
And I am hoping someone does that and eliminate all needs for the ILC. Honestly, I think most of the current camera systems will not last more than a few more years, as only fewer and fewer people buy cameras these days. And even fewer people heavily investing into any of these systems.
I think the idea or concept of SYSTEM is too dated, now we need to travel light, we need to shoot quick, or we get into some serious problems.
Also, for video, Sony is not a great system anymore, all the other brand systems have already surpassed Sony.
Even Nikon Z seems to be much more serious about video than Sony.
Now Sony has only about 27 or 26 percent of the FF camera market, this means that Sony has lost about 73 percent of their market to someone else just in the last three COVID years.
This is really incredible! Remember just a several years ago, we all thought Sony E mount was and would be invincible as they almost owned the entire FF mirrorless market.
Four years after the first Canon R and the first Nikon Z announcements, now Sony has returned to its normal position of the permanent no3.
This means that as Sony has not been making enough money in camera for a several years (for that size of a big conglomerate to justify the business), the board will decide to quit or just shut or sell their camera business just like they did with their PC business in 2014.
So, basically, I do not trust Sony very much and I do not like their lens selection (too portrait or sports focused and no lenses for any type of architecture or macro works).
If their camera business continues to plummet in the next two or three years, then the board will shut down the Alpha business as no one will buy that kind of dying business now as the economy is so anemic.
The current board members are not really forgiving people to the Alpha division. They sound like really want to shut it down ASAP.
But, for Sony, I think it is the right thing to do, as they do not need the camera business to survive, but they can actually do much better without the Alpha system. They are no longer a big electronics company, but they are actually a big financial insurance company now. I do not know why likes of DPR, IR and Sony Rumors never discuss about this issue honestly, but Sony is no longer an electronics company. Their main businesses are: 1 Entertainment, 2 insurance, 3 semiconductor.
So, they are no longer really interested in cameras or lenses or videos.
