Can you tell which is which?

Wilt wrote in post #2784549
To show me how wrong I am?

No, to show how right you are. I'm part of your L slaying army. I know from personal experience there's no difference between the two. But now I'm going to do a formal write-up about it.

Wilt wrote in post #2784633
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."

Wilt,

The whole point is that folks are just going to have to "agree to disagree" on this one. We are all individuals and we all know when we see something we like. I simply like what I see with the 17-55 EF-S IS Demand that I give one up and the 24-70 EF L is yours

Jim, I agree.
We all have our likes and our dislikes, for our own reasons. What is one's man's delicacy is another man's distasteful garbage. We should all state our likes and dislikes, so that others can judge what is important or unimportant to them.
Yet it is important for all of us not to state opinions which are not based upon empirical facts that can be substantiated by others' similar observations. My objective test is reflected in your own subjective observations. The challenge now is for august23 to run an objective comparison, and further prove or disprove what we have said!

lol. Well had I know jim had both, I woulda made him run the test.

I'm not biased, because whichever turns out optically favorable is the one I'll keep, so no worries about opinions.

I've done real life subject tests and a good UV filter does nothing to the IQ that a normal print will show

poah wrote in post #2784763
I've done real life subject tests and a good UV filter does nothing to the IQ that a normal print will show

Off topic a bit, but in ordinary circumstances what you found can be true, but in very harsh circumstances, even the best filters make themselves visible to some degree!

Fun test. It was tough based on just color. I did it by putting the ones i though looked best in order from best to worst. I then applied common perceptions about which lens was supposed to be best. It didn't work out well for me. I did find that my top three on both tests were identical based on color contrast alone:

Test 1: 4,1,3 (ie 10-22, 17-55, 28-75)
Test 2: 1 and 5,4 (same lenses but couldn't pick a winner between the 10-22 and 17-55 photos)

The ONLY thing I'm worried about the 24-70 doing is giving me a reason to send back my 85mm, as it's incredibly close to that FL, and seeing as I don't use tele as it is, that just might be the perfect solution to saving money.

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. 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!)?

Confirmed my belief that Olympus (the OM series at least) lenses were well designed and made. None of this "did I get a good copy" with Olympus; they were all good. I sure miss mine.

EDIT: Just look at how black that black square is.....errr...and how grey the white square is

Meaty0 wrote in post #5048860
Confirmed my belief that Olympus (the OM series at least) lenses were well designed and made. None of this "did I get a good copy" with Olympus; they were all good. I sure miss mine.

EDIT: Just look at how black that black square is.....errr...and how grey the white square is

I more recently ran another test last week, in response to someone asking about photographs taken with 'film lenses' and how they stack up to EF and EFS lenses, including some very notable non-L and L performers.

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=5024367&po​stcount=18

I should have color balanced all shots with my Macbeth card and LR, but ignoring color balance (all shots with CFL and balanced to a common color temp rather than to a neutral point in the photo) you can see the performance.