acp1

I'm back to cameras and lens after years away. I have a Canon EF 17-35 mm 1:28L and a 28-70 mm 1:28 L lenses from my film days. How do they compare to the new stuff (16-35 mm f/2.8 III and 24-70 mm f/2.8 II)? Do I need to replace these things before I start in the digital world? I already have a new 70-200 f/2.8 that I got with my digital camera. I welcome and thank you for your input.

User ID

Keep your stuff. Very little has changed.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

I use Nikon and have a few older lenses that work fine. I'm sure the same thing can be said about Canon.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Acp, welcome to the Hog!
Old L lenses are STILL L lenses and though a few generations of sharpness ago are still exceptional glass.
I would only worry about the sharpness issue if you make your living shooting landscape.
I would have no trouble putting one on a 50mp 5Ds!!
Use them until you see short comings and feel you need the ultimate in anything! Good luck.
SS

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I've shot and owned both the 17-35 f/2.8L and the 28-70 f/2.8L. Both are fine lenses even today. Newer lenses today are sharper in a noticeable way, but the differences are not night and day. Whether you need to "upgrade" to current state-of-the-art is a personal decision on your part.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I have and still use the EF 28-70 f/2.8L quite often. It is an excellent lens. The optical quality of the newer 24-70 is really not much better. The only disadvantage to the older lenses is, if something goes wrong and it needs repairs, certain parts are no longer available.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

My single coated 105 f2.5 AI converted from 1967 works to perfection with my Nikon bodies.

NWProdigal Loc: Portland, Oregon

Old lenses are still lenses and the deciding factor is whether or not they were good ones to begin with. I am currently learning to use an old (from the 60's) Takumar 135mm lens effectively on my Pentax K-70 and for $45 it is an outstanding lens with some caveats since it has none of the modern coatings to prevent glare and CA.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Your "old" lenses will work fine on digital cameras and I'd recommend you use them for now.

I had a 17-35/2.8L with my film cameras, but sold it and replaced it when I "went digital" with only crop sensor cameras for a while, and it was no longer wide enough (I replaced it with a Tokina 12-24mm which actually looked and felt very similar).

I've used the older 28-70mm f/2.8L in the past, but currently have the 24-70mm f/2.8L that replaced it (not the current "II", which some refer to as a "bag full of primes in a single zoom" for it's really great image quality).

The newer lenses you mention ARE better... sharper, better corrected, less chromatic aberrations, etc., etc. Most newer Canon lenses have curved aperture blades and/or increased number of blades, to render nicer background blurs. Depending upon the lens, hey also may be better sealing for dust/weather resistance, higher performance autofocus or other improvements.The two particular lenses you ask about don't have Image Stabilization, but that's been added to and improved with subsequent versions of some other models of lenses.

Canon has also added more alternatives that may be worth consideration.

For example, if you got a crop sensor "APS-C" Canon DSLR, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens has a number of advantages over EF lenses of similar focal length. In terms of image quality it can hold it's own with L-series, yet is smaller, lighter, faster and more affordable than most of them.

Or if you are using a full frame... The Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM and EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM are viable alternatives to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM and EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM. The f/4 lenses are considerably less costly, as well as a bit smaller and lighter. There's very little compromise in image quality. Plus both have Image Stabilization which the f/2.8 lenses lack. the 24-70mm f/4L IS USM also has a Macro mode that's unusually close focusing... can do nearly 3/4 life size and might make a separate macro lens unnecessary (that's about 3X higher magnification than possible with the f/2.8 lens).

However, I'd recommend you simply use what you've got for now and don't be too quick to "upgrade". You might find yourself wanting something completely different.

Besides, there's always "something new" right around the corner that might be even better! For example, there have been rumors of a 24-70mm f/2.8 "III" in the works... possibly adding Image Stabilization (since there doesn't seem to be a lot of room for improvement optically). Just a rumor though, so we'll have to wait and see. And sometimes it's a looooonnnggg wait. There were rumors of an upgrade to the original EF 100-400mm for many years before it actually happened. Heck, even after Canon makes an announcement there can be a considerable time lag... The EF 200-400mm f/4L with built-in/matched 1.4X teleconverter didn't actually hit store shelves for a couple years after it was announced.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

You're the one that should know best, because it was you that used those lenses, so you should know them in and out!

AndyGarcia

Keep your old glass. The worst thing I did when I moved to Digital was to sell all my old film cameras and most stupidly my lenses. Whatever you do keep those lenses.