Color difference: DR xt kit lens vs 17-40usm l?

Hi all!

I have a DRebel xt and I also have the kit lens. Yesterday UPS was kind enough to drop me a package with an ef 17-40 USm L lens.

I took "identical" pictures with both lenses; all (pop-up) flash, indoors, in fully automatic mode, at the same focal length (=35mm).

The results showed significant difference in color. While the pictures taken with the kit lens were "cold", making people looking pale, the pictures taken with the 17-40 look "warm" and natural. It's a huge difference.

Of course, the 17-40 is a superior lens! But should the color differ significantly? It almost looks as if different white balance is used. But since they are shot in fully automatic with flash, this can't be. Right?

Any insight is welcome. Thanks for a great forum!

Enigma

The 17-40 is a superb lens and find that colour saturation and contrast is just amazing.

So, you're saying that what I experience is only expected when I compare these two lenses? Amazing!

Also, I would appreciate if someone could confirm my assumption regarding the WB.

Thanks again!

Enigma (very happy with his new glass

Can you post some comparisons?

I'm still undecided over the 70-200mm f/4L or the 70-300mm IS. I was thinking of getting the 70-200 for the quality of L, but I need a real multipurpose lens that will last which means it will have to fit different conditions (ie. hand-held AND/or tripod). But if the L quality is much better, I may just lug around a monopod with me wherever I go.

I wonder if it's even a fair comparison. We all know the kit lens is trashy trash so comparing to virtually anything should look "better". But does the L really justify losing IS? (in my case at least)

I love my 70-200f4L. Buy it and use it handheld. P.S. I like my kit lens too. Don't believe everything they tell you. I've seen some pretty nice images from this cheapy.

I would certainly want the 70-200 f/4L for the quality, but handheld? Is it even possible to use that thing handheld on anything but a bright sunny day? Like said, I would like a pretty multi-condition lens. So if I can only use the 70-200 f/4L while I'm shooting at the sun, perhaps I'll sacrifice the L quality for the sake of wider use.

Sorry to be going off topic on the thread here, but I'm concerned if the L quality that you say is ridiculously amazing is worth getting over an IS lens that I'd like to handle many conditions.

As for the kit lens, I only say it's trash because of my own personal uses with it. Perhaps I'm just really lousy, but I've found it very very difficult to take a good shot that doesn't use flash or isn't out in the blazing sun. Hopefully that's just a compromise that all photographers make.