Which is better? 24-70 2.8L mk1 or 24-70 f4L IS

I'm tempted to get rid of the brick for the new f4 version but what is the consensus on the quality between the 2?

Generally speaking the new f/4 seems slightly sharper than the brick on center frame, corners they are about equal. The new f/4 is a fine lens. You loose a of stop of light, but gain slightly sharper lens with excellent image stabilizer. It also much more enjoyable to carry around and is it's quite more compact compared to the brick..

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

So I lose 1 stop of light but how many stops of IS does the f4L have? Doesn't that make up for the difference and more? I know I'll lose a bit of DoF though.

Get the 70-200 f4L is. Do it. I think the 17-40 can help you out a lil while.
Its always good to have a 70-200

Seriously, do it.

I have a 70-200 f4L now its not in my sig because it got dropped and damaged and is out for repair.

majin tcz wrote in post #15919883
So I lose 1 stop of light but how many stops of IS does the f4L have? Doesn't that make up for the difference and more? I know I'll lose a bit of DoF though.

Canon claims the IS is about 4 stops. Should be about right.

I'd say if you want to change the brick for a slightly more compact lens with effective IS and slightly sharper images, go ahead. The f/4L is a great standard zoom.

Before I make that decision I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't losing more than just the difference in DoF between the two. So the new f4L has better image quality than the old brick?

Well better is pretty subjective. If you like that shallow DoF of f/2.8, then maybe not. Slightly sharper, yes. When comparing sharpness, real world differences are quite marginal. I had the f/4L for a week from a friend and overall I really liked it. The IS was great. IQ, contrast, color was great. I liked it's smaller size and fast AF.

Perhaps you should rent it first and then make up your mind.

And to make things more complicated for you, and if you really want to keep a f/2.8 zoom, get the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD. Beats the brick in every category and it has IS.

Good luck in your decision.

It depends on how good your brick is, there is no way Id swap mine, I think its plenty sharp, does anyone think the new F4 is sharper than this

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Wow!

aladyforty wrote in post #15920756
It depends on how good your brick is, there is no way Id swap mine, I think its plenty sharp, does anyone think the new F4 is sharper than this

Wow, Congrulations. That is sharp alright!
However, as far I I know, the brick is a rare case of Canon L-lenses where there exist unusually large degree of sample variation regarding sharpness due to the complexity of the design. I think even Canon admitted that. The mark II on the other hand is not known for such sample variation. I think even Roger @ Lensrental confirmed this.

The copy I used to own was definitely not that sharp.. If I had own a sharp copy, I probably wouldn't have sold it..

majin tcz wrote in post #15919761
I'm tempted to get rid of the brick for the new f4 version but what is the consensus on the quality between the 2?

You need to read www.photozone.de test reports on thr 24-70 f/4L IS...focus shift issues as you stop down