Color rendition - top lens

Every „technical” site is talking about sharpness, transmission, CA, etc. Maybe because it is difficult to quantify a subjective parameter as color rendition, maybe because some are relying on PP to improve their photos' colors, this factor - color rendition - is not as debated as others.

It first stroke me when I put a 100mm macro (nonL) on my 50D - wow, even after 17-55 IS and 70-200 f4 the pictures had that "pop", the colors were so bright and beautiful.

I also heard good things about 35mm L and 135mmL, so your opinion regarding top lens for color rendition would be very interesting to be heard.

My top is:
1.Canon 100mm macro (nonL)
2.Canon 70-200 f4 (non IS)
3.Canon 17-55 IS
4.Canon 18-55 IS II
.
.
1000. Canon 50mm 1.8

Better lenses definitely have nicer colour, but like you say it's subjective and hard to measure. However it's a minor difference compared to shooting in good light or bad light, and so it's also very hard to judge based on sample shots.

Definitely something about the colors with the 135L

From my lenses, I'd pick out the Zeiss MP100/2, the 135L and (surprisingly) the TS-E90.
As stated above, it's subjective and different people will find different qualities in colour rendition.

Bob

I think the color from the 17-55 is not good, it's very different from most other EOS lenses in that kind of price range.

How much difference between lenses remains if you "calibrate" your scene / shot with something like a color checker passport?
My guess is very little - apart from the fact that it could cause a theoretical amount of noise increase...

Has anyone ever done a one to one comparison that shows color differences between - for example a 35L and a 35 f/2?
While I see great colors come from some of my lenses (17-40 vs 28 1.8 for example), in practice it's often due to an invisible flare or simply gone with a +5 virbancy in LR.
And then there's the subjective factor as well...

My vote would have to be the 35L, hands down.


Some lenses I have used:
18-55
17-85
24-105L
35L
70-200 f/4L
70-200 f/4L IS
70-200 f/2.8L II
300 f/2.8L IS
300 f/4L IS
400 f/5.6L
85L
135L
Samyang 14mm
EF-s 10-22
17-40L
50 1.8
Sigma 30mm
Tokina 11-16 and 12-24

and probably a few more... Nothing beats the 35L... I was blown away by the color when I first shot it and is why I bought it back I just love how it renders images. In second place, I would probably put the 135L for color.

Maybe that is a big reason Canon has yet to update these two older, but still magnificent lenses. I know I wouldn't pay double the price for an update to either

Worst? Probably my Samyang 14mm, very cool color cast on everything. Requires a bit more PP when I shoot with it. I would also put the Tokina's there as well, along with the 18-55 and 17-85 lenses... And the 50 1.8. Nothing a little lightroom can't fix though!

TweakMDS wrote in post #14241028
How much difference between lenses remains if you "calibrate" your scene / shot with something like a color checker passport?
My guess is very little - apart from the fact that it could cause a theoretical amount of noise increase...

Has anyone ever done a one to one comparison that shows color differences between - for example a 35L and a 35 f/2?
While I see great colors come from some of my lenses (17-40 vs 28 1.8 for example), in practice it's often due to an invisible flare or simply gone with a +5 virbancy in LR.
And then there's the subjective factor as well...

I did this comparison years ago, and dredged it up. Identify which lens made what photo.
One of these is

1. Canon 70-200mm f/4,
   
2. one is Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8,
   
3. one is Canon 100 f/2, one is
   
4. Canon 17-55mm f/2.8

TweakMDS wrote in post #14241028
Has anyone ever done a one to one comparison that shows color differences between - for example a 35L and a 35 f/2?

thanks everybody for feedback.
Regarding subjective and different conditions - you're right.
But 1 year ago, before a concert i decided to take the nifty50 of a friend instead my big 17-55 (less room for lens on the table, more room for drinks). Just before living home, i make some snaps around the house - same light conditions - with both - on 50mm and 2.8 (concert - conditions).
The contrast and colors of the much-praised nifty50 horrified me. Maybe in PP they could be improved, but since than, color rendition is for me a more important factor than vignetting or flare.

Canon used to call the EF 50/1.4 their "reference" lens. That was common practice among manufacturers at one time, to designate one of their standard lenses as the basis for for color rendition of all the others.

JeffreyG wrote in post #14240983
I think the color from the 17-55 is not good, it's very different from most other EOS lenses in that kind of price range.

Agree - though I haven't used the 17-55 myself, this detailed review (with test photos) does mention that "the Canon [17-55] lens ... tends to record scenes flat and washed out and cool in colour tone."

http://darwinwiggett.w​ordpress.com …-and-tamron-17-50mm-f2-8/

So it is not surprising that you saw a big improvement after switching to the 100mm lens.

According to the same review, my Sigma 17-50 OS does a better job in the color rendition department. (But probably not as good as my other lens, 135L.) Compare these two shots from the above review, and tell me which is 17-55 and which is Sigma 17-50 OS:

Wilt wrote in post #14241400
I did this comparison years ago, and dredged it up.

if instead of 1234 you put ABCD, i might love you...
B has the most saturated black on my 6 years old LCD.

pulsar123 wrote in post #14242318
Compare these two shots from the above review, and tell me which is 17-55 and which is Sigma 17-50 OS:

i guess that 17-55 is the overexposed one ?

I just sold the 70-200 II and bought a 135L and the first thing I noticed was the richness of color, even with the 1.4x TC III on it.

135L for me. Its just insane. Shot this abt 2 yrs ago. Jpeg, no processing, perhaps just to remove the very minor blemish. 135L really shines on 5D2.