look Hatchling 2 posts Joined Mar 2005 More info | Jun 29, 2006 17:57 | #1 I am almost decided on this lens but being quite color-sensitive I am fraid the color may not be as good as I would be happy with it. If it is the same / on par with L-glass color or EF 50 1.4 color, it is fine with me and then decision is easier
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JRabin Goldmember 1,496 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2004 Location: NJ More info | Jun 29, 2006 19:05 | #2 look wrote: ...but being quite color-sensitive I am fraid the color may not be as good as I would be happy with it. If it is the same / on par with L-glass color or EF 50 1.4 color, it is fine with me and then decision is easier... Welcome to POTN. Try a little searching, there are usually many good posts already on subjects: https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=1645282&postcount=32
LOG IN TO REPLY |
EOS_JD Goldmember 2,925 posts Likes: 2 Joined Dec 2005 Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland More info | Jun 29, 2006 19:10 | #3 Surely colour is editable in PS anyway. Using RAW colour calance can be tweaked too. All My Gear
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Toogy "I like pictures of myself!"  6,248 posts Likes: 3 Joined Nov 2003 Location: Ontario, Canada More info | Jun 29, 2006 20:23 | #4 Taken with the 17-55 F2.8 IS. I think the colour and sharpness are superb. 
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JimAskew Cream of the Crop  More info | Hi,  HOSTED PHOTO please log in to view hosted photos in full size.  HOSTED PHOTO please log in to view hosted photos in full size. Jim -- I keep the Leica D-Lux 7 in the Glove Box just in case!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
buckwheat Member  229 posts Likes: 1 Joined Sep 2005 Location: Canada More info | J Rabin wrote: Welcome to POTN. Try a little searching, there are usually many good posts already on subjects: https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=1645282&postcount=32 I am not sure what "color-sensitive" means. We're all whacked-out sharpness, contrast, and color sensitive on these Fora! The 17-55 f/2.8 IS certainly has color rendition equal or better than the 50mm f/1.4. I never liked that lens despite the accolades it receives. The L lenses colors are not better, just different. The sharpness of L lenses is not better in the center, but they are sharper in the frame corners on APS-C cameras. Worrying about color rendition on an $1,100 lens is less important than other features. Jack This is closer to my experience (the above web link) where the author talks about a more neutral colour rendition. I absolutely found this to be true! I like the 'richer' colour out of my 16-35L and 24-70L by far. This is why I sent my 17-55 2.8 IS back. Too bad...what a great focal length spread. 5D/35L/50 1.4/85 1.8/100 Macro/ 16-35L/24-70L/24-105L
LOG IN TO REPLY |
malcolmp Senior Member 361 posts Likes: 15 Joined Oct 2005 Location: Australia More info | Jun 30, 2006 23:32 | #7 My experience is that the 17-55 has good color rendition, but the 17-40 has slightly more saturation. They are different. I can't fault the 17-55 color, it's just preference. malcolmp
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2219 guests, 136 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
