Review on 🔍 Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens (9518B002) – Black: Exceptional Quality and Clarity by Buana Bono ᠌

I have 24-70 f4 sometimes lacking a wide angle. I started to choose between 17-40 and 16-35 f4, 2.8 seemed unjustifiably expensive to me. I started watching reviews on YouTube, the pros all screamed that this is the best of all lenses, just a masterpiece ! I listened and bought this lens. It turned out that this is all an advertisement to the photographer, they just gave money, in other words, they bought him so that he made an advertisement and it unfortunately works. Autofocus is bad, I immediately took it to the alignment, I thought it would help, but it didn’t help. At an open aperture, the sharpness is poor, and in general it doesn’t get where it needs to be, if you want to get a sharp photo, you need to focus from a tripod through live view with 100% manual zoom, otherwise you won’t see a sharp photo. But then the question is why AUTO FOCUS? Now about the stub, another sore point of this miracle of technology. At first I didn’t understand why the photos turn out soapy even at a closed aperture, then I realized that this was such a work of a stub. At 24-70, the stabilizer is just super at 16-35, it costs the same, but it works in a completely different way. He only makes it worse, I attribute this to the fact that the angle is too wide and he simply does not understand what to stabilize. Conclusion: no miracle happened! It’s not just that lenses with 2.8 are twice as expensive and despite this they are in demand and bokeh has nothing to do with it. A tree or mountain does not need bokeh, and the thought that if it is wide you can take f4 is wrong !