Will I get an improved image quality on a 24L mk1 over my 16-35L?

I have an opportunity to get a 24L MKI at a very good price.

I already have a 16-35 MkI and I am wondering at 24mm, how would the images compare on a FF Body?

I would prefer to go with a MkII naturally, but the price on this MkI is less than 50% of the MkII

Sorry, I only have 24L1.4II .. but when I had to choose between MKI and MKII, I looked many tests and it seemed the gap was quite important, and maybe that justify why MKII was produce so early after MKI.
It seemed wide open the MKI was really weak and CA not well controled; There were many tests and they all pointed some quite significant default of the MK1

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=2 (tested on apsc)

So I imagine, it's probably not worth changing from the already excellent 16-35mm MKI ..

it's a tad soft at f1.4, and looks good at 2.0. The colors and contrast are really nice with this lens.

Here are some examples here:

f2.0

f1.4

can't answer you directly, but my 24L II looks fantastic on my 7D.

linh811 wrote in post #9360636
can't answer you directly, but my 24L II looks fantastic on my 7D.

That is because crop sensors only use the middle of the glass... That is the best image quality, in the center. That is why you always hear people ask about FULL frame quality at the corners and edges. Because that is usually where you see the most degradation in IQ. If a lens looks good on corners and edges it is usually an indicator of a very HQ lens.

So, yeah, it is kind of a given that the mark II and the crop look great. Neither of which help the OP.

You can check the IQ of lenses (take somewhat with a grain of salt) here at this page Click Link (comparison of 16-35 @ 24 and 24 mk I both at f/2.8 )

I have the 16-35 and the IQ of 24mm wide open is so so on full frame 5D Mk II. Keep in mind the 24mm mk I rapes the IQ of the 35mm IMO at that link...and that is not even wide open for the 24mm.

depends on how sharp is your images at 2.8 on the zoom on the 24 its razorblade.... im guessing you zoom is sharper with less distortion on 35mm so maybe trade that one for a 24 and keeep the zoom....

If you don't want it, I'll take it. The 24L MkI that is...

AlphaChicken wrote in post #9360853
You can check the IQ of lenses (take somewhat with a grain of salt) here at this page Click Link (comparison of 16-35 @ 24 and 24 mk I both at f/2.8 )

woa that is a difference!! still wanna sell mine though.... for a 35

AlphaChicken wrote in post #9360853
That is because crop sensors only use the middle of the glass... That is the best image quality, in the center. That is why you always hear people ask about FULL frame quality at the corners and edges. Because that is usually where you see the most degradation in IQ. If a lens looks good on corners and edges it is usually an indicator of a very HQ lens.

So, yeah, it is kind of a given that the mark II and the crop look great. Neither of which help the OP.

You can check the IQ of lenses (take somewhat with a grain of salt) here at this page Click Link (comparison of 16-35 @ 24 and 24 mk I both at f/2.8 )

I have the 16-35 and the IQ of 24mm wide open is so so on full frame 5D Mk II. Keep in mind the 24mm mk I rapes the IQ of the 35mm IMO at that link...and that is not even wide open for the 24mm.

+1 on the first part of you post. It's called equipment showboating. Seems to be a pattern.

And I have both. I shoot weddings and there are some shots that I am only able to get when stopped down to f/2 or so that my 16-35L would not be able to handle (both of which are MK I's). It does come in handy from time to time. For example: