EF 24-70 2.8L MK1 v 24-70 F4 IS Image quality

I use a 6D and am going to buy a 24-70.. Cant quite stretch to the 24-70 2.8 II at the moment so what I want to know is the difference in image quality between the 2.8mk1 and the f4..
I am very fussy about sharpness and would like to hear from anyone who has compared the sharpness of these 2 lenses.. Quite a few comparisons using the mk2 lens but cant find any about the mk1..
many thanks

don1163 wrote in post #17689728
I use a 6D and am going to buy a 24-70.. Cant quite stretch to the 24-70 2.8 II at the moment so what I want to know is the difference in image quality between the 2.8mk1 and the f4..
I am very fussy about sharpness and would like to hear from anyone who has compared the sharpness of these 2 lenses.. Quite a few comparisons using the mk2 lens but cant find any about the mk1..
many thanks

I have a 24-70mk1 and looked for info resharpness same as you some time back.....I found this link below and it helped me understand what the difference was in order to worth out if it warranted spending extra money or not.......Although in the end I went to a new 16-35mmf4 IS because I mainly shoot landscapes and kept the older Mk1 24-70 for the odd times I needed either an all purpose walk around lens or lens for general people shots ..... ....
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=De06IEtUG0E

Clipper

I have the 16-35 f4....how does the 24-70 mk1 compare in sharpness?

If Canon was to add IS to a 24-70 f/2.8 I would seriously consider it. For now I'm happy with the f/4.

Is this useful?

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

Also, some MTF numbers here:

http://www.photozone.d​e …28-canon2470f28ff?start=1

http://www.photozone.d​e …f/798-canon2470f4?start=1

gossamer88 wrote in post #17689784
If Canon was to add IS to a 24-70 f/2.8 I would seriously consider it. For now I'm happy with the f/4.

The question was comparing the sharpness of the 2.8 mk1 to the f4 version of the lens..
Did you own the 2.8 mk1 before you bought the f4 ? If so I would be happy to hear your comparison..

I'm simply pointing out that IS help with sharpness. Not to mention a higher f-stop. Mark II is in a class by itself. I personally would not consider the Mark I. Too old and heavy. The f/4 is a great size and weight. Have you considered Tamron? It also has IS (VC).

gossamer88 wrote in post #17689816
I'm simply pointing out that IS help with sharpness.

For static subjects.

don1163 wrote in post #17689772
I have the 16-35 f4....how does the 24-70 mk1 compare in sharpness?

Good question .Ive never really bothered to compare actually.......Since I bought the 16-35f4 aBOUT 2 months ago the my old Mk1 24-70mm hasnt been on my camera that much.....Not because its no good compared to the 16-35 ....mainly due because havnt been shooting in the range the 24-70 is good for......The MK1 is a damn good lens though and some of my best shots were done with my trusty old Mk1 "brick". I never ever thought it was soft thats for sure ....And I also look for sharpness in a lens....Although not as much as I used to....Anyway most of the older Mk1 L's are fairly sharp to start with ...just that some of the newer Mk2's are even sharper due to slight change in coatings and element array...And some models more than others......

Clipper

gossamer88 wrote in post #17689784
If Canon was to add IS to a 24-70 f/2.8 I would seriously consider it. For now I'm happy with the f/4.

Yep...Im exactly the same....If 2.8 had IS I wouldnt hesitate.....

Not necessarily. Helps if you're doing video.

I've got the MkI and the f/4 IS versions and there's little to choose between them....neither get close to the MkII or the 16-35/4 IS.

Bob

IS helps with autofocus for moving subjects, too; whether in single shot or Servo, it keeps the image projected on the AF sensor more stable and removes extra workload from the AF algorithms while focusing on a subject. The camera is doing phase comparisons as fast as it can to determine the focus plane, and if the subject moves significantly between samples, it has to ensure it's on the right AF point (which may require a switch, depending on your case settings) before sampling again. Holding the image more steady helps the algorithms be more efficient.

That said, for my use (sports/events) I find the wider aperture more important because it improves the accuracy of the AF on cameras like the 7D mk II and 5D mk III (and 1D series of course) with dual cross-type points. Especially in low light situations, the improved accuracy can trump the benefits of IS. You have to decide that. The price of the f/4 IS has come down enough now that it's a reasonable alternative to the mk I if you choose it.

I have found the 24-70 f/2.8 mk I entirely sharp enough for every camera I've used it on, and well worth the savings of $1000 vs. the mk II. There's enough sample variation in both lenses that a good mk I may well be sharper in the center than a poor mk II. I have never seen anything in my photos that makes me want to upgrade yet.

GregDunn wrote in post #17689930
There's enough sample variation in both lenses that a good mk I may well be sharper in the center than a poor mk II. I have never seen anything in my photos that makes me want to upgrade yet.

Roger's your man for that (the Mk II really is this good):

http://www.lensrentals​.com …non-24-70-mk-ii-variation

IMO IS is also important to still photographers and not just videographers .....Getting 4.5 stops better IS Mk2 vs non IS is a godsend for people that have cameras with bigger sensors like the 5DSR especially for hand held shooting ......Its the difference of either having to hold a non IS at 2 times lens length minimum( Canon recommendation) which on a 24-70 @70mm end is minimum of 160th a second! ....and thats Canons minimum recommendation...they actually say ideally it should go an extra stop on top of that which is a minimum of 1/200th sec....just to handhold a wide to mid range zoom..... .....and thats crazy to have to have a minimum of that speed to avoid camera shake . Thats why most of the newer mk2 lens being released are getting IS if its possible and if it isnt feasible on fast lens like F2.8 24-70 then Canon release a lens in a similar length but at a stop slower like the 24-70f4 IS. They did the same with the 16-35 f4 IS etc etc . My bet is that in 5 years time there wont be many non IS lens left in Canons lens range because it will be to hard to shoot them handheld as sensors go higher and higer in detail..and the lens that stay non IS will be the super fast lens where it isnt feasible to do it due to either technical limitations or cost considerations .......


Clipper