Review on Canon 16 35Mm 2 8L III Lens by Minoru Masuda ᠌

Previously used 16-35 2.8 II and 16-35 4 IS. The first was just awful around the edges and corners at focal lengths up to 24mm. For this reason, it was completely unsuitable for landscape or architecture. At 35 mm, it also did not shine with sharpness. Appeared on sale 16-35 4 IS, bought it. He turned out to be evenly sharp at all focal lengths over the entire area of ​​​​the frame. However, I was not pleased with the color and contrast. It seemed duller in these plans compared to 16-35 2.8 II, gave out some kind of dryish picture. To some extent, all this was offset by the presence of a stabilizer. And so Canon made the third version of this width. I shoot and the eye rejoices! The picture is not hard, but at the same time the detailing is at a decent level. If you have the necessary amount and are still thinking about replacing the second version, then the money in hand and go to the store! If a beautifully blurred background is not part of your wide-angle shots, and you can put up with some difference in color and contrast, then it is better, of course, to take or stay with 16-35 4 IS.