Can you tell which is which?

---------------

OK, I think the point is made, that optical differences of non-L (even other non-Canon lenses) vs. L lenses, is VERY difficult to discern in general. Yes MTF are objective differences that can be used to judge lenses. So can vignetting and CA. But one cannot even universalize that, in general, "L MTF ratings are better then non-L MTF ratings" (which was not the point of this thread, BTW)! Nor can they universalize about color rendition.

the answers to the first photo: 1C-2E-3D-4B-5A-6E

the answers to the second photo: 1C-3E-4D-5B-6A

where,
A= Canon 70-200 f/4L
B= Canon EFS 10-22
C= Canon EFS 17-55 f/2.8
D= Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
E= Olympus 135mm f/2.8

The filtered and unfiltered shots were done with the Olympus 135mm f/2.8. using an Olympus brand filter. Now can anyone guess which lens's shots were without filter (I own filters to fit all my lenses, so that is not a hint!)?

Interesting. The only one I am suprised about is the tamron and 70-200. But then again I haven't used either. Now that I look at it I should have known the Filter was on the Olympus. The shading of colors are more consistant with it. I liked this test, it was fun.

The reason I was so sure about the 17-55 was because the words were sharpest at the bottom, and the reason I got the 10-22 is because I have one and know how contrasty it can be.

dkangel wrote in post #2778309
Interesting. The only one I am suprised about is the tamron and 70-200. But then again I haven't used either. Now that I look at it I should have known the Filter was on the Olympus. The shading of colors are more consistant with it. I liked this test, it was fun.

The reason I was so sure about the 17-55 was because the words were sharpest at the bottom, and the reason I got the 10-22 is because I have one and know how contrasty it can be.

OK, go out and find a scene on a nice overcast day, and mark the bottom and top edges and the L/R edges of a fairly planar scene or a Macbeth card, so you can frame consistently and not have visual clues about FL due to perpective differences. With each set as close to 50-70mm as you can, then shoot with same framing for every one of your lenses, and post the photos and see how many can guess which one is which.

thanks wilt that was fun

Good to see this point so well made. One can say this 'till blue in the face but people have to be shown.

The only surprise for me was the filter having an effect, was it a single coat do you know?

dude, you're in for it now with the poLice... you'd better have someone else start your car for the next couple of days.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2782910
Good to see this point so well made. One can say this 'till blue in the face but people have to be shown.

The only surprise for me was the filter having an effect, was it a single coat do you know?

Lester,
The filter only had effect simply because it had collected decade+ of atmospheric crud on its surface. When I took the shots of the Macbeth, I was in a low contrast light environment...the card and camera were 90degrees to any windows, the sky outside was overcast and rainy. But the hazy crud had accumulated enough that it was readily visible and affected shot#2 of the first set...shot #6 was taken after I noticed the haze and wiped it off with a microfiber cloth, so you can see how contrast loss was caused by the hazy filter. In set 2, #3 had the filter.

Yeah, I am a sinner for blaspheming the Lens reLigion and questioning the zeaLots

Wilt wrote in post #2783515
Lester,
The filter only had effect simply because it had collected decade+ of atmospheric crud on its surface. When I took the shots of the Macbeth, I was in a low contrast light environment...the card and camera were 90degrees to any windows, the sky outside was overcast and rainy. But the hazy crud had accumulated enough that it was readily visible and affected shot#2 of the first set...shot #6 was taken after I noticed the haze and wiped it off with a microfiber cloth, so you can see how contrast loss was caused by the hazy filter. In set 2, #3 had the filter.

Thanks for the claification.

You need a title now, something like the L slayer of such.

Wilt wrote in post #2778196
OK, I think the point is made, that optical differences of non-L (even other non-Canon lenses) vs. L lenses, is VERY difficult to discern in general.

Not to be argumentative or anything, but...

Do you honestly think a screen capture of a 50% view further scaled down to an ~ 240x160 pixel thumbnail really gives any clue to overall image quality?

The color differences are there, some more obvious than others, but determining IQ is simply out of the question.

Having (and loving) both L and non-L lenses the image quality differences are not significant under most circumstances, particularly if you're never going to do anything "big" with the images (I mostly print 4x6 myself).

When I'm out for something larger, or need a faster shutter/larger aperture I know I can count on one of my two L's to make getting the shot easier.

mbellot wrote in post #2784165
Not to be argumentative or anything, but...

Do you honestly think a screen capture of a 50% view further scaled down to an ~ 240x160 pixel thumbnail really gives any clue to overall image quality?

The color differences are there, some more obvious than others, but determining IQ is simply out of the question.

Having (and loving) both L and non-L lenses the image quality differences are not significant under most circumstances, particularly if you're never going to do anything "big" with the images (I mostly print 4x6 myself).

When I'm out for something larger, or need a faster shutter/larger aperture I know I can count on one of my two L's to make getting the shot easier.

You make an extremely valid point about looking at screens or 4x6. But given the fact that few people truly print things commercially to 8x10 and larger, it does give you pause to wonder how anyone makes any statement about superiority of L glass for color rendition! I was not questioning 'image quality' per se, which has acutance, resolution, bokeh, and many other parameters that all totally together make up IQ...I was questioning the statements of color rendition.

I am not disputing that L's have physical advantages (dust and weather sealing, rugged manufacture to withstand pro abuse, etc.) The optical advantages that people fawn over, I question.

I have done some intense pixel peeping with precision targets with L vs. Tamron vs. non-L EFS lenses, some of which get bashed consistently (17-85mm EFS). And in spite of that effort to try to quantify the differences, I have to admit no real discernable advantage in the L or disadvantage in the bashed lenses (ignoring barrel distortion or CA at 17mm)!

My point is not to bash L, my point is that there is all too much preoccupation today (vs. 20-30 years ago) over 'lens performance'...resolut​ion, bokeh, color rendition, boogie woogie...which often cannot be substantiated! Pixel peeping, rather than going and enjoying photography and the capture of artistic imagery. Ansel Adams, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Wiggie...all never owned an L, yet made very impactful impressions on the world of photography.

We, as a population of photographers, are too preoccupied with the purchase of the tools, rather than the making of the fine cabinetry! And we make claims about the quality of the tools which all too often are merely unprovable statements.

Wilt, you just made me buy the 24-70L for no reason lol. NOW what purpose do I have to test these two against each other!?

august23 wrote in post #2784519
Wilt, you just made me buy the 24-70L for no reason lol. NOW what purpose do I have to test these two against each other!?

To show me how wrong I am?

I have tried to stay out of this debate as it seems endless. It reminds me of trying to teach a pig to sing: "You don't accomplish anything and anoy the pig in the process."

My 2 cents worth...I own the 17-55 and the 24-70 and use both on my 30D. IMHO the 17-55 out performs the 24-70. IQ is equal and I personally like the colors and contrast of the 17-55 much better. Build doensn't matter to me as I do not own a weather sealed camera body. IS on the 17-55 is a definate plus.

Thanks,

JimAskew wrote in post #2784618
I have tried to stay out of this debate as it seems endless. It reminds me of trying to teach a pig to sing: "You don't accomplish anything and anoy the pig in the process."

My 2 cents worth...I own the 17-55 and the 24-70 and use both on my 30D. IMHO the 17-55 out performs the 24-70. IQ is equal and I personally like the colors and contrast of the 17-55 much better. Build doensn't matter to me as I do not own a weather sealed camera body. IS on the 17-55 is a definate plus.

Thanks,

Thanks for contributing the experiences of someone who owns both, about the colors and contrast.

BTW, I heard it as, "It reminds me of trying to teach a pig to do tricks...it frustrates you and it angers the pig."