L series versus non

[Longwatcher]

Question,
I just finished a photo shoot with my new 16-35mm "L" series lens and I note that I got much better light levels and color balance right out of the camera, then I normally get with either my 28-135 IS or the 75-300mm IS lenses (which are not "L" series). I suspect the reason being TTL-metering with the "L" series having better glass, resulting in more light being let in, thus more accurate results.

Has anyone else noticed this or is this common knowledge or my imagination maybe?

Just curious since this is the first chance I have had to play with an "L" series lens. If normal, then I may need to reconsider getting more "L" series lenses despite the cost, since the results come out better. Also if it is normal, then Canon should have included something on the lens or camera chip to correctly compensate for the differences.

Other possibilities include:
Just coincidence, Just the 16-35mm lens, or maybe I just positioned the lights slightly better.

Please let me know.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Tim,

I think your experience is pretty typical, and certainly matches mine with my D30. The image quality is much better using L glass. I don't think it's the wider aperture, although that does help AF. I used to own like 75-300 IS like you. I part-exchanged it for the 100-400 LIS and noticed the improvement straight away. These two lenses have the same aperture range 4-5.6. After this experience, I decided L lenses would be the way to go (budget permitting). I've added two more - the 135/2 and the 70-200 IS - and have no reason to complain. :)

I think that doing something to the chip "to correctly compensate for the differences" wouldn't help. Why would you want to do something that disimproves the image quality?

There's evidence (http://www.uschold.com/pdf/Report%20SLR%20Public%2009.02%20N.pdf) that the real "problem" is with the lenses. The chips are showing up their shortcomings more than film does.

Bite the bullet, work the plastic and build that L lens collection. :)

Cheers,

[donb]

After getting the 16-35 yesterday and spending a several hours with it, I can say confidently this is the best lens I have ever used. Sharp, properly exposed, and mechanically a real marvel.

I was nervous as hell about spending that much money, but no question it was worth it. Now I'm only nervous about dropping it!

A far cry from my two Tamrons which I can now say are quite mediocre, having something to to compare them with.

[Longwatcher]

By chip I meant the computer processing chip that is part of the lens or the part of the camera that tells it how to operate, not the detector/sensor chip.