Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 29 Jun 2009 (Monday) 10:40
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "Does the 17-55 have "L" colors"
Yes
93
53.4%
No
81
46.6%

174 voters, 174 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Does the 17-55 have "L" colors?

 
J-B
Senior Member
Avatar
951 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2008
     
Jul 02, 2009 07:32 as a reply to  @ post 8211246 |  #46

The colors are a littlebit cooler and less saturated. You can adjust this very fast when processing your photos. No big deal.
The 17-55 is the best standard zoom you can buy for a 1.6x cropcam in my opinion.


Website (external link) l Flickr (external link) l Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,562 posts
Likes: 496
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Jul 02, 2009 09:10 |  #47

Agree they're all close enough...

In the lowest left white box... I'm getting the following R/G/B:
17-55: 212/213/205
100mm: 224/219/213
70-200: 227/222/216
28-70: 221/212/205

They are all producing a cast. Ironically, the 17-55 is showing an RGB spread of 8, which is the lowest here. 100mm and 70-200 has a spread of 11, and the tamron shows 16.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,702 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2533
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Jul 21, 2009 09:31 |  #48

Mike55 wrote in post #8210737 (external link)
What one notices in this test is that the L "white" and the 100 macro white are actually white, whereas the 17-55 looks like it's throwing in a bit of a cast. You get "pop" when colors contrast with white. The 17-55 seems to impart a grey cast to the white, and the Tamron a bit of yellow. The L lens seems to be delivering a very nice white.

I'm not seeing a color cast per se on the 17-55mm...I see that the other lenses are 'warmer'. Remember that any 'gray' is simply a reflection of EXPOSURE, not a color cast!

I made no effort to adjust contrast (which would alter the blackness vs. whiteness of the bottom row of swatches), I simply shot per a gray card reading and set 5500k WB, for a 'can you see differences' comparison. This was NOT an absolute comparison to test rendition vs. Macbeth chart fidelity of each lens, it was simply a lens-to-lens comparison.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
number ­ six
"After 40 years still not housebroken, I still piddle on the carpet"
Avatar
8,941 posts
Likes: 70
Joined May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
     
Jul 21, 2009 13:56 |  #49

Wilt wrote in post #8317758 (external link)
I'm not seeing a color cast per se on the 17-55mm...I see that the other lenses are 'warmer'. Remember that any 'gray' is simply a reflection of EXPOSURE, not a color cast!

Yep. The weenie-boy is right. What, we're getting scientific now? What next??? :lol:

I got the same results with my eyedropper (one digit different on the 100mm lens, all others the same).

For easier comparison I normalized the RGB numbers to R = 1.0

Results:
17-55: 1.0 - 1.005 - .967
100 : 1.0 - .978 - .951
70-200: 1.0 - .978 - .952
28-70: 1.0 - .959 - .928

Showing that the 17-55 is slightly (about 2%) warm, but much closer to neutral than the other three lenses which all have a green/blue cast.

The third gray box from the left yielded these results:
17-55: 1.0 - 1.012 - .933
100 : 1.0 - .955 - .892
70-200: 1.0 - .927 - .877
28-70: 1.0 - .959 - .928

Again, the 17-55 is closest to neutral with the others showing a cool cast.

-js


"Be seeing you."
50D - 17-55 f/2.8 IS - 18-55 IS - 28-105 II USM - 60 f/2.8 macro - 70-200 f/4 L - Sigma flash
I do not piddle on the carpet!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,702 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2533
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Jul 21, 2009 14:03 |  #50

number six wrote in post #8319271 (external link)
Yep. The weenie-boy is right. What, we're getting scientific now? What next??? :lol:

weenie boy ?! ;)


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
number ­ six
"After 40 years still not housebroken, I still piddle on the carpet"
Avatar
8,941 posts
Likes: 70
Joined May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
     
Jul 21, 2009 14:08 |  #51

Wilt wrote in post #8319312 (external link)
weenie boy ?! ;)

Uh, isn't that his name? :confused:

Oh, it's Lloyd! So sorry!  :o


"Be seeing you."
50D - 17-55 f/2.8 IS - 18-55 IS - 28-105 II USM - 60 f/2.8 macro - 70-200 f/4 L - Sigma flash
I do not piddle on the carpet!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrbtd
Senior Member
418 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Lindenhurst, IL
     
May 25, 2012 11:34 |  #52

Have had both the 17-55 and now the 24-70. For me the color on the 24-70 is much warmer. Same sharpness. I do miss the IS sometimes.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 201
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
May 25, 2012 12:55 |  #53

^^wow, talk about zombie thread...


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,181 posts
Likes: 2268
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
May 25, 2012 13:11 |  #54

Aw.. come on.. It's still twitching. ;)


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sonnyc
Cream of the Crop
5,160 posts
Likes: 33
Joined Jun 2005
Location: san jose
     
May 25, 2012 16:43 |  #55

L color? you mean the green-ish color on pieces of paper that every one paid dearly for the L lenses?

Yup...The 17-55 has a little bit of that ...:D


Sonny
website (external link)|Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dandai
Senior Member
Avatar
316 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Newport News
     
Jun 23, 2012 17:56 |  #56

sonnyc wrote in post #14484811 (external link)
L color? you mean the green-ish color on pieces of paper that every one paid dearly for the L lenses?

Yup...The 17-55 has a little bit of that ...:D

It has a little too much of that,considering the ease dust has finding its was inside it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jmantyger
Senior Member
Avatar
296 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2007
Location: Prattville, AL USA
     
Jun 23, 2012 20:18 |  #57

dandai wrote in post #14622059 (external link)
It has a little too much of that,considering the ease dust has finding its was inside it.

Owned 2 copies & shot hundreds of image through each-indoors, outdoors. Put a UV filter on each on day 1. Neither had any dust (and I tried to find it).

I'm sure the POTN members who purchased them will verify.


5D MKIII, 16-35L f/4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L II f/2.8 IS, 100-400L II, 430 EX III
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nate42nd
Senior Member
Avatar
767 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2010
Location: The Wild West
     
Jun 23, 2012 21:10 |  #58

Jmantyger wrote in post #14622480 (external link)
Owned 2 copies & shot hundreds of image through each-indoors, outdoors. Put a UV filter on each on day 1. Neither had any dust (and I tried to find it).

I'm sure the POTN members who purchased them will verify.

I am one person who will verify. I have an "L" lens and the 17-55 is every bit as good as the 24-105 I own. I love the 17-55 and would buy it right now if I didn't already have it.


7D - - 17-55 F/2.8 - 24-105 F/4L - 100mm F/2.8 - 50mm F/1.8 - S95 / To see all click here
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mritchy
Goldmember
Avatar
2,090 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Dallas
     
Jun 23, 2012 21:10 |  #59

LOL, this thread is funny.


Mr. Itchy
14L II, 17L TS-E, 35L, 24-70L II, 45 TS-E, 90 Macro, 50L, 85 1.8, 70-200L II, 200 f/2L

1Dx, 5D III, 6D
Weddings-Real Estate (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jmantyger
Senior Member
Avatar
296 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2007
Location: Prattville, AL USA
     
Jun 23, 2012 21:12 |  #60

mritchy wrote in post #14622654 (external link)
LOL, this thread is funny.

And old! ;)


5D MKIII, 16-35L f/4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L II f/2.8 IS, 100-400L II, 430 EX III
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

10,093 views & 0 likes for this thread
Does the 17-55 have "L" colors?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is sam729
2401 guests, 339 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.