Which Canon lenses require the least PP?

I'm talking about simple PP like saturation or contrast boosts.

From what I've noticed, the 135mm F2L and the 70-200mm F4 IS require minimum to no PP.

When I switched from the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens to a 24-70mm f/2.8L; the first thing that I noticed was that the images from the L lens needed less contrast increase and less sharpening...

Too many variables to make a blanket statement. I shoot raw in standard style with no in camera sharpening, etc. I work at it.

135L

so far my 35L seems to bring out the best contrast and color saturation of all my L's.

irishman wrote in post #14095068
Too many variables to make a blanket statement. I shoot raw in standard style with no in camera sharpening, etc. I work at it.

I was thinking the same thing. Amount of PP depends on the amount of in camera adjustments made first.

I think this question is impossible to answer.

kawi_200 wrote in post #14095408
I was thinking the same thing. Amount of PP depends on the amount of in camera adjustments made first.

Hi Kawi, kindly explain to me what are in camera adjustments. Seriously, I'm just curious what kind of adjustments you fiddle with.

fotoworx wrote in post #14095414
I think this question is impossible to answer.

Hi Jim! I think what the OP asked was a very simple question: Which lens uses less saturation and contrast boost in post?

k-lo wrote in post #14095473
Hi Kawi, kindly explain to me what are in camera adjustments. Seriously, I'm just curious what kind of adjustments you fiddle with.

Hi Jim! I think what the OP asked was a very simple question: Which lens uses less saturation and contrast boost in post?

I use the Picture Style options for my shots. I have my personal adjustments preset to the options for my scenarios. I have a "normal" with 0 contrast adjustment and +2 saturation, and one with -4 contrast and +2 saturation. They are the ones I use most. It just fits my style. From there, I edit the picture as needed.

I've taken my time to get my cameras adjusted to get the best photo SOOC so that more often than not I can get by with minimal or no PP at all. I love the colour and contrast I get with my 24-105 f4 L and 70-200 2.8 IS L SOOC, but I have to tone down the colour when I use my 50 1.8 and 100 2.8 L macro.

k-lo wrote in post #14095473
Hi Jim! I think what the OP asked was a very simple question: Which lens uses less saturation and contrast boost in post?

Sunlight? Studio? O'cast? Shadows?

Significa wrote in post #14095036
I'm talking about simple PP like saturation or contrast boosts.

From what I've noticed, the 135mm F2L and the 70-200mm F4 IS require minimum to no PP.

The 70-200mm f4 IS certainly comes to mind. Then again, saturation or contrast boosts are so easy to adjust in PP.

Since Im a landscape shooter, Im always shooting in RAW so maybe my experience differs from the majority, but Ill play anyway. I would argue that, for a landscape shooter, there is no lens in the world that doesnt require post processing to get the best image. Ive used the TS-e 24, 24L II, Zeiss 21 and a whole slough of zooms (on a 5DII) and every one of them needed post processing for contrast, sharpness and color to get what I wanted out of them. Who knows, maybe I just suck in camera...

fotoworx wrote in post #14095414
I think this question is impossible to answer.

I get where you are coming from. I am all for doing everything right you can in the camera, but people that have this idea that "a real photographer doesn't need photoshop" or that "in the film days people couldn't do what they did today" (notice that photoshop is a "digital darkroom" and most of the tools it uses are named after physical tools and techniques that are used in a physical darkroom). The point is, even if you do everything right in the camera, and use the best lens for the job, even the best picture you take will benefit more from being taken in RAW and properly, but conservatively, edited on the computer. You get so much more control over a RAW image even when the goal is just to give that final little punch to a technically perfect image than a camera created JPEG, even with picture styles.

You are not a bad photographer if you edit your images in post, and there is no picture taken by a camera, no matter how perfect, that cannot be improved by a conservative hand with the correct editing tools.

MNUplander wrote in post #14096476
Since Im a landscape shooter, Im always shooting in RAW so maybe my experience differs from the majority, but Ill play anyway. I would argue that, for a landscape shooter, there is no lens in the world that doesnt require post processing to get the best image. Ive used the TS-e 24, 24L II, Zeiss 21 and a whole slough of zooms (on a 5DII) and every one of them needed post processing for contrast, sharpness and color to get what I wanted out of them. Who knows, maybe I just suck in camera...

This is the right answer from where I'm sitting.