Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 30 Oct 2009 (Friday) 00:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What is 'L' Colour? - A quick 'real world' comparison of 17-40L vs. 17-55IS

 
Jack_C
Senior Member
320 posts
Joined Dec 2003
     
Oct 30, 2009 05:54 |  #16

The 17-40 is designed to be a FF ultra wide lens used stopped down,
the 17-55 a 1.6x replacement for a mid range fast zoom.

In the end, lenses are like golf clubs
its the golfer's skills that makes the difference :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
DStanic
Cream of the Crop
6,148 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Canada
     
Oct 30, 2009 06:34 |  #17

That 17-40L leaf shot looks OOF.


Sony A6000, 16-50PZ, 55-210, 35mm 1.8 OSS
Canon 60D, 30D
Tamron 28-75 2.8, Tamron 17-35, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 85mm 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bacchanal
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,284 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
     
Oct 30, 2009 06:55 |  #18

BlueTsunami wrote in post #8922568 (external link)
I think some of the perceived "L" colors may come from shooting in harsher conditions (like strong daylight) where possible superior lens coating on the "L" lens may become apparent (in regards to loss of contrast due to flaring, which equals better colors and "pop")? That's just speculation though (not sure how Canon distributes different types of coating).

The images you've posted show how remarkably similar the color rendition is. Though, some of have said that the 17-55/2.8 is really an "L" in EF-S clothing :D

I think you're probably right.

I'm a believer in L color/contrast, but I never could see much difference with the 17-55 when I had one. I know people say that it is cooler than typical L color, but it's certainly hard to see. Though the 17-55 definitely has flare issues.

I see a bigger difference in comparing lenses like the 100 f/2 or 85 1.8 wide open vs. the 135L wide open...or say the 28 1.8 vs. the 24L or 35L.

I've also heard people say that Sigmas have a bit of a warm/yellow color cast compared to most Canon lenses.


Drew A. | gear | photosexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cyruz
Senior Member
Avatar
405 posts
Joined Mar 2007
     
Oct 30, 2009 07:31 |  #19

out of my 3 lenses, the 17-55 is definitely flattest/cooler of the 3. (17-55, 70-200 f/2.8 IS and 100-400L). its something i noticed the day i got the 70-200. do i wish the 17-55 had the color and contrast the that the "L"'s do, sure, but there is nothing really that can come close to the IQ, and range for a crop body, that has IS and a constant f/ through the range.

moral = the grass is always greener on the other side. get the "L" color and loose the pros for the lens, or just adjust it in PP and have the best preforming lens for a crop in the range.


Canon 7D2 w/ BG-E16 | Canon 40D w/ BG-E2N | 17-55mm f/2.8 IS | 70-200 f/2.8L IS | 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS | SpeedLite 430 ex II | 055xprob-488rc2
Zenfolio (external link) / Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,532 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Aug 2008
     
Oct 30, 2009 07:40 |  #20

I think filters should have been removed for the test. Besides that, its an interesting test. The 17-55 does appear to be sharper (as reviews I've read have indicated). Color can be adjusted in photoshop, so thats not a big deal. However the 17-40mm has a FAR better build. You said, I just wanted to quickly see whatever it was that made an 'L' lens an 'L' lens. I think the outstanding construction is what the L lens is all about. The L lens won't break like your 17-55mm did. You won't have dust problems either. In the few instances where the L lens is beat by the non L lens in sharpness, the L lens still may be the wiser purchase.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dipps
Senior Member
Avatar
538 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
Location: wisconsin
     
Oct 30, 2009 08:01 |  #21

to the OP, thanks for the comparison. those results are on par with what i had come up with while researching (for over a month) what i wanted to get as a replacement lens for my kit 18-55. looking through all the image sample archives for L lenses (24-70, 24-105, 17-40), it always seemed that the L lenses had a bit more warmth to them/better colors than the 17-55 2.8 (although there were some conditions where the 17-55 seemed to fair just as well), but the 17-55 was known to easily be sharper than the 17-40, which is what made me start looking at the 24-105 and 24-70 (the IS issues, dust issues, "cool" image issues -- in comparison to L -- were what kept me from getting the 17-55). eventually the bokeh of the 24-70 (and lower light capability) is what led me to the 24-70 (that and the fact that i can do curls while not taking pictures, lol). other lenses i have interest in and have noticed to have "cool" colors are the 50 1.8 (already in my bag) and 35 f/2. yeah, i know the colors can be fixed post-process, but my of my pics i don't do PP on, so i like to try and get good colors right out the gate. just my 2c anyway.


5DIII, 7D, 16-35 f/2.8L II, 24-70 f/2.8L II, 24-105 f/4L, 40 f/2.8, 135 f/2L, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8L macro, 70-200 f/2.8L II, 430EX II, POWERSHOT S95.... i'm your huckleberry.

"There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jack_C
Senior Member
320 posts
Joined Dec 2003
     
Oct 30, 2009 08:07 |  #22

If you really want to see what 'L' can mean in a lens, rent or buy an 85 L :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,066 views & 0 likes for this thread
What is 'L' Colour? - A quick 'real world' comparison of 17-40L vs. 17-55IS
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

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!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is hanah
993 guests, 318 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.