Can you tell which is which?

Having read some recent gripes about lens performance in color and saturation of lenses vs. the L standard, I thought I'd post this challenge.
A: Canon 70-200L, B: Canon 10-22, C: Canon 17-55, D: Tamron 28-75, and E: Olympus 135mm. One lens has with filter and also without filter; the filter has the accumulation of haze on it vs. after cleaning. The challenge is for you to match the photo (1-6) to the lens and also to determine which of the 5 lenses has the with-filter vs. the no-filter shot.
Of course the point is to determine whether or not any of the lenses stands out clearly as an L lens, purely on the basis of color richness.

Photos are numbered 1-2-3 on the top row (l-r) and 4-5-6 on the bottom row (l-r).

Match number (photo 1-6) to lens (letter A-E). Then tell me which two photos are from the same lens, both with and without filter; and identify which of the lenses this was taken with! All shots were taken at f/5.6 in Av mode, completely un-postprocessed JPG out of the 20D...

OK, I'll bite:

1.B
2.E
3.A
4.C
5.D
6.A (filter)

It's kind of hard to tell with such small shots, though. I mean, is it more contrasty? Or just underexposed?

In any case, I'm probably 100% wrong.

I will try also. Probablly way off but what the heck. AirBrontosaurus is right - Hard with such small pics. Even then Im not sure I would get them right.

1 - C
2 - A with Filter
3 - A
4 - B
5 - D
6 - E

AirBrontosaurus got one answer right, but failed to identify that photo-lens combination as having the filter.
dkangel got 3 answers right.

Giving those two assessments would not lead to any correct answer, with regard to any replies in common between the two!

And we are not judging on 'contrastiness' of any lens, but basing jugements solely upon the richness of color rendition, especially with regard to statements about the superiority of L lenses in that characteristic!

My point is to debunk myth about L optical performance being so much better and easy to discern than other lenses, or that any non-L lenses are clearly inferior! In fact, nobody has identified the L photo yet.

I can't tell. There are some obvious differences at least on my monitor, and some look less contrasty and saturated than others....but I'm sure I'd only be guessing.

Guess we should all be using kit lenses!

Steve, your reply is not too far from the truth!

With all the pixel peeping, yes the resolution advantages of a particular lens does make sense. If choosing a non L with super MTF values vs. a L with not-so-super MTF values, many would opt for the L because of assumed IQ advantages that are not that apparent, in reality, such as color rendition. In truth, if you look at the examples above, the L does not stand out, and the non-L does not look that bad (unless impaired by a hazed filter!)

OK, let's make this easier...Guess the shots with Canon lenses

1 and 6 are the Olympus. 1 being filtered...I assume you mean there's haze on the filter from trying to clean it unsuccessfully.
4 is with the Canon 10-22
5 Tamron
3 Canon 17-55
2 Canon L

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2773226
1 and 6 are the Olympus. 1 being filtered.
4 is with the Canon 10-22
5 Tamron
3 Canon 17-55
2 Canon L

Two right. Wrong about the filter being used on #1. Wrong about the L.

Wilt wrote in post #2773235
Two right. Wrong about the filter being used on #1. Wrong about the L.

Woo hoo what do I win? Do I get the 135mm Oly? Hope you include an adapter.

To be honest, I bought my 2 budget L lenses partly because of the hype, and partly in spite of it. i wanted the constant maximum aperture, and I wanted USM with FTM focus, and I wanted the build quality. there is something sensuous about a well crafted bit of kit, and i take great pleasure in using my lenses and enjoying them for what they are. I also love my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - which is an EX lens and has similar physical properties that i label as 'quality'

i have a thrifty 50 which I loved on my film camera, and am less enthused with on a crop camera, mainly because I don't like the effect of the crop factor ( this is why I got the sigma) and i still use my kit lens on occasion - it doesn't have the handling pleasure that the Ls give me, but there are many pictures in my archive that I have to look at the metadata to see what lens it came out of.

Wilt, you're preaching heresy; flat-out heresy. You are just asking for trouble from a certain crowd.

And are you saying my 70-200 f2.8 L IS doesn't blow my (non-L) 120-300 EX DG out of the water?...

Well, you're right

...you may continue to preach on then.

1.D
2.C (filter)
3.A
4.C
5.E
6.B

LightRules wrote in post #2773419
Wilt, you're preaching heresy; flat-out heresy. You are just asking for trouble from a certain crowd.

And are you saying my 70-200 f2.8 L IS doesn't blow my (non-L) 120-300 EX DG out of the water?...

Well, you're right

...you may continue to preach on then.

Has the eagle landed??!!??!!

LightRules wrote in post #2773419
Wilt, you're preaching heresy; flat-out heresy. You are just asking for trouble from a certain crowd.

And are you saying my 70-200 f2.8 L IS doesn't blow my (non-L) 120-300 EX DG out of the water?...

Well, you're right

...you may continue to preach on then.

I bow not to the L god! I respect, but do not flat out kneel, as there are many other worthy competitors!

Here is all 5 lenses shot at 1/5 f/5.6, this time without the filtered shot (I cleaned the filter, so its haziness was not available for this second series!)

here is Series 2: