Sorry for the stupid question. I'm hoping a few people will take a crack at it despite its lameness. I'm trying to decide whether to buy a current 24-70mm f/2.8. (The one I've got my eye on is the Tamron G2, but that's not terribly important to the question.) The only f/2.8 normal zooms I have experience with are both old and (now) cheap: the Nikon 35-70mm and the Tamron 28-75mm. My problem is, I don't know if the image quality of a current 24-70mm is better enough than that of the aforementioned old lenses to be truly worth the much-increased bulk and weight. I can handle a 1-kg lens without much issue, but I really like the size and weight of the Nikon 35-70mm. The latest Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron 24-70mm lenses are pretty darn close to each other in optical performance, at least according to tests that I've seen online. But how much better is any of these lenses than the two lenses I mentioned? Does anyone here happen to have both a current 24-70mm and either of these old lenses? Or at least had one of the old lenses recently enough that your memory of it isn't colored by nostalgia? If so, do you mind sharing your comparative observations? I'd really like to keep the discussion, if possible, restricted to "universals" and not get into an examination of whether I really need a 24-70mm or what I'm going to use it for. Again, I'm sorry. Basically all I'm looking for is whether there is any consensus that the new f/2.8 lenses are worlds better than the old equivalents, or just incrementally improved, or—who knows?—actually worse than the old!