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 30 Oct 2009 (Friday) 00:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What is 'L' Colour? - A quick 'real world' comparison of 17-40L vs. 17-55IS

 
mrkgoo
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Oct 30, 2009 00:46 |  #1

What this isn't: A strictly controlled test shot. In fact, each lens has a different UV filter mounted. Is this therefore testing the difference in each UV filter as well as the lens, then? I guess so. You can disregard this entirely, then, if you wish. The 17-40L has a B+W UV haze 010 MRC, while the 17-55IS has a Heliopan UV SH-PMC. These UVE filters are both highly regarded, and I doubt there is much difference with either of them in real world conditions. I have taken shots with and without in other images, and I'd say neither impacts image quality significantly. And I'm shooting through a window.

So what's the point? Well, I'm shooting each of these images as I would if I were actually taking images (well, except the window part - but that's a controlled variable, more or less). Same Custom white balance, and I did accidentally leave noise reduction to Strong, and the Picture Style was a custom one based on standard + 1 contrast and +1 sharpness.

Yes, I did say it wasn't very scientific - it's not a test of the ultimate abilities of each lens - I just wanted to quickly see whatever it was that made an 'L' lens an 'L' lens. I keep saying that I see better colour on the 17-40L, but better sharpness in the 17-55IS.

Well here it is:

IMAGE: http://i35.tinypic.com/29lkca0.jpg
EF 17-40L 17mm @ f/5.6, 1/60s, iso200

IMAGE: http://i33.tinypic.com/r6y91w.jpg
EF-S 17-55IS 17mm @ f/5.6, 1/60s, iso200

If you ask me, I think the 17-40 does have a more even tone for colour. Perhaps slightly warmer. The 17-55 is a bit darker in the dark areas, and has a more flat look. I guess this is what is meant by the 'L' colour and 'punch'.

That said, the 17-55 is significantly sharper (100% crops):

IMAGE: http://i34.tinypic.com/bed2k6.jpg
EF 17-40L 17mm @ f/5.6, 1/60s, iso200

IMAGE: http://i33.tinypic.com/2lurh29.jpg
EF-S 17-55IS 17mm @ f/5.6, 1/60s, iso200

And to show you that vignetting is very real, the shot on the 17-55 wide open:

IMAGE: http://i38.tinypic.com/11ty3d5.jpg
EF-S 17-55IS 17mm @ f/2.8, 1/125s, iso200

The 17-40 is very similar in colour across the aperture range (I only tried until f/8.0)


I only really did this since I bought a replacement 17-40 when my 17-55 broke, but the 17-55 has come back from Canon now. Again, it's not a great test, I admit, but I'm hoping it shows what people mean by 'L' colour, especially since the 17-55 is regarded as near 'L' in performance.

The best way to view is to view side by side, not above and below, as the angle of an LCD monitor changes your perception. Better yet, open in the same viewer and flick between the images within the same window.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Mark-B
Goldmember
Avatar
2,248 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Louisiana
     
Oct 30, 2009 00:50 |  #2

mrkgoo wrote in post #8922428 (external link)
I keep saying that I see better colour on the 17-40L

Are you sure that's just not better exposure?


Mark-B
msbphoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rooeey
-Shorty-
Avatar
2,554 posts
Likes: 5
Joined May 2007
Location: Sydney Australia
     
Oct 30, 2009 00:50 |  #3

hand held or tripod ?
Forgive me if you have already stated i just scanned your text..


1D MK111 , 5D Classic,24-70F2.8, 16-35F2.8, 70-200F2.8 IS a 430EXII 2x 580EXII and a Mac...:cool:
http://s229.photobucke​t.com/albums/ee124/roo​eey/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
epatt250
Senior Member
769 posts
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Central, Arkansas
     
Oct 30, 2009 00:53 |  #4

Before everyone comes along and trashes your testing methods.. I will just say I like it and appreciate the look.

Edit: Oops I was too slow. The process has already started.


Gear- Why do you care? If my image is good it's good, if it sucks it sucks. It's most likely my own fault.
www.elipattersonphoto.​com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrkgoo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Oct 30, 2009 00:56 |  #5

Mark-B wrote in post #8922434 (external link)
Are you sure that's just not better exposure?

Coule be better exposed on the 17-40 - I was thinking about that myself just now. That said, The metering needle was in the centre on both (manual exposure, same shutter). Possible lighting conditions changed in between. Maybe even possible Heliopan darkens ever so slightly. Again, I'm pretty sure the metering needle was in the centre.

hand held or tripod ?
Forgive me if you have already stated i just scanned your text..

Wuite right, I didn't mention. These were handheld. There is possibly some vague semblance of camera shake on the 17-40 shot, but at 17mm, hopefully it's not too bad. I have some f/8.0 shots, but I think the 1/30s is starting to be at the border with camera shake (which obviously doesn't show up at all in either case with the 17-55, as I left the IS on).

Again, not a direct comparison of lens capability, but how I would actually use these lens in the 'real world'.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rooeey
-Shorty-
Avatar
2,554 posts
Likes: 5
Joined May 2007
Location: Sydney Australia
     
Oct 30, 2009 01:05 |  #6

mrkgoo wrote in post #8922448 (external link)
Coule be better exposed on the 17-40 - I was thinking about that myself just now. That said, The metering needle was in the centre on both (manual exposure, same shutter). Possible lighting conditions changed in between. Maybe even possible Heliopan darkens ever so slightly. Again, I'm pretty sure the metering needle was in the centre.

Wuite right, I didn't mention. These were handheld. There is possibly some vague semblance of camera shake on the 17-40 shot, but at 17mm, hopefully it's not too bad. I have some f/8.0 shots, but I think the 1/30s is starting to be at the border with camera shake (which obviously doesn't show up at all in either case with the 17-55, as I left the IS on).

Again, not a direct comparison of lens capability, but how I would actually use these lens in the 'real world'.

Thanks and just in case the comment above was in any way intended for me then i appologize if this was miss percieved as trashing of your method in any way but sharpness was part of your critique....Just thought the IS of the 17-55 may have helped a little with the sharpness of the image for the given lens at 1/60th but like you said and you are right their is some colour bias there......


1D MK111 , 5D Classic,24-70F2.8, 16-35F2.8, 70-200F2.8 IS a 430EXII 2x 580EXII and a Mac...:cool:
http://s229.photobucke​t.com/albums/ee124/roo​eey/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrkgoo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Oct 30, 2009 01:11 |  #7

epatt250 wrote in post #8922439 (external link)
Before everyone comes along and trashes your testing methods.. I will just say I like it and appreciate the look.

Edit: Oops I was too slow. The process has already started.

Yeah, definitely worth a trashing. :p I didn't do this to be perfect, I did this as a test of each lens quickly.

That said, I'm taking a look back at some images taken BEFORE either of these, with the 17-55, and they do look slightly better. I now think that the 17-55 image is slightly under exposed, maybe because light was changing over the course of my test. In my previous shot of the 17-55, the colours are actually a bit closer, and it's much harder to tell between the two (sharpness aside). It's still slightly 'darker', but not as bad:

IMAGE: http://i38.tinypic.com/2dgm53m.jpg
EF-S 17-55Is 17mm @5.6, 1/60s, iso200 (taken before 17-40 shot, order was this shot, then 17-40, then 17-55 again).

Compare all three with the 17-40 shot in the middle and you can tell.

So maybe I should take it all back. Damn hard to take 'real' world shots under such poor weather. I think I was just too eager to take shot and see.

I'll revisit the idea in future, on a better day, perhaps with more focal lengths, without the NR on strong, and not through a window.

At any rate, I still feel that the 17-40 has slightly more even colour, but lacks in versatility and sharpness in comparison. Vignetting is very apparent from the 17-55 (even with periphery illumination correction on on my 7D).

I think it's a worth while thing to look into, because few people are silly enough to have both lenses for a crop camera :p



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,209 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2659
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Oct 30, 2009 01:26 |  #8

so, just out of curiosity which are you going to keep...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BlueTsunami
Goldmember
Avatar
1,021 posts
Joined Sep 2008
     
Oct 30, 2009 01:35 |  #9

I think some of the perceived "L" colors may come from shooting in harsher conditions (like strong daylight) where possible superior lens coating on the "L" lens may become apparent (in regards to loss of contrast due to flaring, which equals better colors and "pop")? That's just speculation though (not sure how Canon distributes different types of coating).

The images you've posted show how remarkably similar the color rendition is. Though, some of have said that the 17-55/2.8 is really an "L" in EF-S clothing :D


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrkgoo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Oct 30, 2009 01:55 |  #10

BlueTsunami wrote in post #8922568 (external link)
I think some of the perceived "L" colors may come from shooting in harsher conditions (like strong daylight) where possible superior lens coating on the "L" lens may become apparent (in regards to loss of contrast due to flaring, which equals better colors and "pop")? That's just speculation though (not sure how Canon distributes different types of coating).

The images you've posted show how remarkably similar the color rendition is. Though, some of have said that the 17-55/2.8 is really an "L" in EF-S clothing :D

Speaking from memory, I think the 17-40 has a lot more control for flaring. I remember getting some crazy loss of contrast when shooting into light with the 17-55, but only sometimes (could be related to periodic cleaning - I think the dust affects flare). Relatively speaking, my 17-40 seems to handle flare better - even if that's just due to having no dust, it should hold with the life of the lens, as it's weather sealed.

I think you could be right about the L lens just being more eve, even in harsher conditions that other lenses start to falter in. Then again, the 17-55, had it a better build would be very close to indistinguishable in most circumstances.

DreDaze wrote in post #8922549 (external link)
so, just out of curiosity which are you going to keep...

I don't know how to sell stuff very well (I hate ripping people off, including myself, I get paranoid people will be upset at what I sold them and then want a refund etc).

Likely, I will keep both. I do like the 17-55 WHEN IT WORKS, and I do like the build of the 17-40. There doesn't appear to be anything stopping the 17-55 from breaking down again, so maybe I'll keep the 17-40 around for those times. I've been considering making the 17-40 the one on my camera by default, and only dragging the 17-55 for lowlight shooting and when I need ultra versatility (like travelling with only one lens).

If I were FORCED to sell on, at this stage, it will be the 17-55. In fact, the only reason I paid to repair it was so that it could be sellable. Now that I have it back, and it's functioning like new, it's hard to give up ....:p




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fr0natz
Member
216 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Oklahoma the 918
     
Oct 30, 2009 01:59 as a reply to  @ mrkgoo's post |  #11

For the 'sharpness' test, you did shoot at a relatively show shutter of 1/60th. Easily shakable and correctable by the Is on the 17-55.

I say re-do the shot in a more controlled environment and give us a share. bw!


40D, XT
Promaster (tamron) 17-50F2.8
Canon 70-200F4 L, 50 f1.8 nifty
430ex

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
brownbugger
Senior Member
Avatar
941 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Oct 30, 2009 02:20 |  #12

too many variables to give any weightage to the results , a test under controlled light without filters on a tripod under same camera settings will be interesting.


Gripped Canon 50D, Canon 400D with BG-E3 Grip, 580 EXII Flash, Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L , Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L / Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 /Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 / Tamron AF18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
3,498 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2008
Location: California
     
Oct 30, 2009 02:38 |  #13

mrkgoo wrote in post #8922629 (external link)
Speaking from memory, I think the 17-40 has a lot more control for flaring. I remember getting some crazy loss of contrast when shooting into light with the 17-55, but only sometimes (could be related to periodic cleaning - I think the dust affects flare). Relatively speaking, my 17-40 seems to handle flare better - even if that's just due to having no dust, it should hold with the life of the lens, as it's weather sealed

The 17-55 does have bad flaring issues. Pretty much its only weakness, optically.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrkgoo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Oct 30, 2009 03:11 |  #14

My main reason is trying to show overall image quality of what makes an 'L' lens - kind of variation in IQ at the image level rather than pixel level. IQ difference is probably not much, considering it's typically just high-end specialised glass, such as aspherical lenses, UD glass, and fluorite lenses that go into an 'L'. The 17-55 has a few of these elements, so should be very comparable in this regard.

I guess I could make a controlled test, but then that would just be like anything else you'd get on the web, or photozone.de, etc. WE all already know the 17-55 is sharper.

I'll see what I get up to with these lenses in the next few weeks. I'm not going to remove the UV filters for the test, though :p It's where they'll always be, so it's testing how I would be using these lenses.

Overall, I tend to find variation in the image at the pixel level hard to control. Focus is always going to be different, even if you select one control point. I might do some tests just to personally understand my gears' limits so I know which lens will be better for what job.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jman13
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,558 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
     
Oct 30, 2009 05:30 |  #15

I will say that your 17-40 does not look, sharpness wise, to be right. I'm thinking either OOF or hand shake, as mine is much sharper than that, even wide open...especially in the central 1.6x of the frame, which you're getting here (it only gets a little soft in the extreme corners). My 17-40L is very sharp. They should be very comparable in sharpness for the same apertures (with maybe a slight advantage to the 17-55 at f/4). By f/5.6, they should be essentially the same.


Jordan Steele - http://www.jordansteel​e.com (external link)
Admiring Light - http://www.admiringlig​ht.com (external link)

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

2,928 views & 0 likes for this thread
What is 'L' Colour? - A quick 'real world' comparison of 17-40L vs. 17-55IS
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 marteend
913 guests, 321 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.