acp1 wrote:
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.
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.