OK, so which is the expensive lens?

Yes the jar was moved "slightly", but not from its original position, as I think you can see from the pattern on the table-cloth .
Yes, I did use a tripod.
And by-the-way, they are both Canon lenses.

I say #1. It looks slightly sharper and is a little brighter.

Are any of the design features that account for the £500 difference on show in this photograph? I think I could take a shot through the end of a milk bottle and make it look like these.

My guess?

First one: 28-135 IS, second 24-105/4.0 IS L (guessing based on focal length, aperture, given price difference and your gear list ).
Anyhow close?

Both would be nice lenses with a good reputation, though maybe not necessarily on par with the 'gold standards' like the 24-70/2.8L and the 70-200/2.8L. Or primes, by the way.
But hey, most likely I am waaay off.

Best regards,
Andy

OK, I did try (by saying that I had BORROWED these lenses) to hide the fact that they were in fact BOTH already in my gear list (Andythaler got some way there, but not quite)

Those of you who went for the first image to be the more expensive lens..... were WRONG.

The pic taken with the expensive lens was the SECOND one - taken with the 17-40L glass.

However, the first pic was taken with my 18-55 KIT LENS!!!!

Makes me wonder why I spend all this money!

Thanks everyone for your input. That was quite interesting.

TJ

Me too - especially for the bokeh - I'm thinking that the lens of the second shot should be the one more expensive.
But the jar has been moved - or the shooting point - and I have also a little doubt about the light.

This thread exemplifies well one of the most common myths on photography forums, i.e., that you can tell lens quality/pedigree be a few web-size photo posts. On occasion that is possible if an inimmitable lens feature is highlighted, such as bokeh with a very fast lens, or CA with a very wide/open lens, etc. Hower, more often that not those isolated sample images do not work very well as lens identifiers.

While I would say #2 looks better to me I don't consider the test exercise to be valid for it's intended purpose. We are not being allowed to compare the "same" shots taken with two different lenses. There is more glare in the first photo and that lowers the contrast.

Kit lens, huh? Foxbat wasn't far off with the 'bottom of a milk bottle' comment...

I actually like some of the results I have had with the kit lens. I think with care and practice (and only in certain situations) it produces some good results.

When you see the real difference in the kit lens is outdoors.

Not enough detail, contrast, and range of colors/intensities in the photo for it to be an interesting test.

I glad I guessed right,
The better way to tell the lenses apart would have been if you had a complex background you were trying to blur out with bright shiny highlights and a bright light source just out of view of the lens. Most decent lenses will do a good job on the in-focus subject if you get the white balance correct. It is the difficult situations which show the difference between the okay, good and great lenses.

I know this because I have 4 lenses that will do 50mm and 4 that will do 85, and I can definately see the differences between my $100 lens, my $400 lenses and my L glass when the situations change. Although except for wide apetures it is more difficult between zoom and prime L's at 85. I will admit though for selected situations I could not tell the difference between them (outdoor snapshots come to mind).

Just my opinion,

I think the second one is the expensive one

TeeJayThe pic taken with the expensive lens was the SECOND one - taken with the 17-40L glass.

However, the first pic was taken with my 18-35 KIT LENS!!!!

Makes me wonder why I spend all this money!
[/QUOTE wrote:
=TeeJayThe pic taken with the expensive lens was the SECOND one - taken with the 17-40L glass.

However, the first pic was taken with my 18-35 KIT LENS!!!!

Makes me wonder why I spend all this money!

... with my 18-35 KIT LENS Is [was] there such a Canon lens ?
Did you mean the EF-S 18-55 ?

I did think the second one is the expensive one then i read the texts I was right - its not really a fair test but youd like to think given the price difference that 25% of the time you could tell the difference. I think my guess was a little jammy