differences in terms of contrast, colors, etc.?

I am wondering this myself for already quite a long time.

Let's recall the famous 17-55 / 24-70-105 threads if you like
I know both 3 lenses are very sharp; comparable, if not, the same.

But I have my doubts for example the contrast and colors. Is it all about the difference between using the 24-105 on a 5d or 30d?? even compared with the 17-55? or does the 24-105 renders colors 'richer and more warm' compared with a 17-55 on for example a 30d?

I've tried to find it out myself, by looking for example at both these 3 threads:
17-55 https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=234558
24-70 https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=173736
24-105 https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=142974
I found that the L lenses produce, in my opinion, indeed better contrast pics with more warmth and richer colors. So is that because of the 1d/5d, or just because of the lens?

thanks in advance

edit: I'm comparing the 17-55 to these 2 L-lenses, because the 17-55 is considered as one of the top ef-s lenses. Comparing the 18-55 with the 24-70 would be useless indeed

On the same 30D body, if I swapped the 70-200 F2.8 for the 17-55 IS, the files very definitely were not as contrasty and the color was different. When I switched to the 24-70, suddenly all my files looked the same and I didn't have to apply different processing to get them to match. Maybe my 17-55 wasn't the greatest copy - it was sharp when I nailed focus, but I agree that it's not the same as what I get from L's. The color was noticebly warmer, but not in a good way - it meant that I had to process files at different WB settings to make them match.

I don't know about the 17-55, but the 70-200 is much better than the 70-300 in the color dept.

yes... it is said that for example the 17-55 has a so called 'L-glass' and it only lacks build quality.
But I'm having more and more the feeling it is more then only the build quality...

Well you do know that what makes an "L" an "L" *IS* build quality right? So to say the 17-55 is just an efs L is crap. L doesn't mean its the sharpest (although it probably puts it in a strong running). L means it is built the best, the toughest.

The 17-55 f2.8 that I tested was super sharp, but there was something about the shots that made me think "not quite as nice as 'L' lenses" - quite probably colour-related

yea...I confirm that feeling. I didn't experience it my own, but just by looking at the different pics! that's why I am asking you guys out here

I've seen the difference between my 24-70L and my 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 primes, with the primes delivering the better looking images.

The colours, sharpness and overall IQ "pop" are noticeably better on my 70-200L than the 17-55IS.

There is some special glass in the L lenses that give that cool color and great contrast. The EF primes do well to compare in those areas but I don't think there are other zooms out there that have the L feel.

philthejuggler wrote in post #4844307
The 17-55 f2.8 that I tested was super sharp, but there was something about the shots that made me think "not quite as nice as 'L' lenses" - quite probably colour-related

that was my experience too. pretty subtle but not the same.

ed rader

ok, thanks guys!

I was already wondering if it really was 'only' the camera

TitusvilleSurfer wrote in post #4843964
Well you do know that what makes an "L" an "L" *IS* build quality right? So to say the 17-55 is just an efs L is crap. L doesn't mean its the sharpest (although it probably puts it in a strong running). L means it is built the best, the toughest.

This is a misleading statement. Sure, L lenses are built better than the consumer line, but it goes beyond that. The L lenses also use a better grade of lens elements and coatings that produce the noted results. To say that an L is only an L because its built "the best, toughest" is not accurate to say the least.

To the OP: The better contrast and colors that you notice with an L lens are prettty much due to the lens itself, not the body. When I upgraded from the 28-105/Mk II to the 24-105L, I was still shooting with a 30D. I took some pics with each to see how the lenses compared, and while the 28-105 gave the 24-105L a run for the money, the L won out with its better contrast and colors out of the camera. After I added a 5D body, I tried the same test, with the same results. There's a reason the L's are priced as they are...its mainly because of the optics.

Also I heard the paint they use to paint the red ring with is worth more than gold

argyle wrote in post #4847455
This is a misleading statement. Sure, L lenses are built better than the consumer line, but it goes beyond that. The L lenses also use a better grade of lens elements and coatings that produce the noted results. To say that an L is only an L because its built "the best, toughest" is not accurate to say the least.

To the OP: The better contrast and colors that you notice with an L lens are prettty much due to the lens itself, not the body. When I upgraded from the 28-105/Mk II to the 24-105L, I was still shooting with a 30D. I took some pics with each to see how the lenses compared, and while the 28-105 gave the 24-105L a run for the money, the L won out with its better contrast and colors out of the camera. After I added a 5D body, I tried the same test, with the same results. There's a reason the L's are priced as they are...its mainly because of the optics.

That's why I am wondering if top EF-S lenses have the same optics. I know they are close...but thát close? I know not alot ef-s lenses can be compared with the L's, that's why I recalled the famous 17-55/24-70-105 threads. but maybe the differences here are marginal.