Color & Contrast - 10-22 vs 17-55 vs 70-200F4LIS

Hello,

If you were to shoot different types of photography styles, and what you were seeking is the deep contrast and acurate colors to go with each shoot.

I understand that the purpose of those lenses is different. They cover the "whole" field.

• Which lens in your oppinion wins here for color & contrast?
• Change the lenses to ones which in your oppinion make the best color & contrast set.

Thanks!

talberin said:

Re: Color & Contrast - 10-22 vs 17-55 vs 70-200F4LIS

I understand that the purpose of those lenses is different. They cover the "whole" field.

• Which lens in your oppinion wins here for color & contrast?
• Change the lenses to ones which in your oppinion make the best color & contrast

Click to expand...

I have both 17-55 IS and 70-200 F4 IS. I also had Canon 200mm f/2.8L + 70-200 F4 (nonIS) + Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 previously.

So far Nothing has even come close to 70-200 F4 IS in strong color / contrast reproduction. I used to LOVE my Canon 200mm f/2.8 L, but the Strong Color/Contrast of my 70-200mm F4 IS @200mm makes my L prime looked wash-out by comparison.

Funny... I also have the 17-55 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS combo, and I never noticed anything different between the two when it comes to color or contrast.

talberin said:

Hello,

Click to expand...

talberin said:

• Which lens in your oppinion wins here for color & contrast?
• Change the lenses to ones which in your oppinion make the best color & contrast set.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

here is an example of contras, color, sharpness, and bokeh that rivals the primes, and it happens to be 70-200mm f4L IS (i have posted this shot in other threads, so, forgive me if you are seeing this again!):

http://azbaha.zenfolio.com/p1025988134/h2c9e7668#h29840dc9

cheerz

Thanks.

I'd love to see some pictures backing up your claims in the same conditions

007peter said:

talberin said:

Re: Color & Contrast - 10-22 vs 17-55 vs 70-200F4LIS

I understand that the purpose of those lenses is different. They cover the "whole" field.

• Which lens in your oppinion wins here for color & contrast?
• Change the lenses to ones which in your oppinion make the best color & contrast

Click to expand...

I have both 17-55 IS and 70-200 F4 IS. I also had Canon 200mm f/2.8L + 70-200 F4 (nonIS) + Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 previously.

So far Nothing has even come close to 70-200 F4 IS in strong color / contrast reproduction. I used to LOVE my Canon 200mm f/2.8 L, but the Strong Color/Contrast of my 70-200mm F4 IS @200mm makes my L prime looked wash-out by comparison.

Click to expand...

--
Kind regards
Imqqmi



http://www.pbase.com/imqqmi

Hey 007,

I currently have a 17-50, and a 70-200 f/4 IS, and 10-22 so forth....

I, too, love the colors of my L. In your experience, does the 17-55 come closer to "L" colors than the 17-50? I'm contemplating getting the 17-55 just for the IS, but it's really not a deal breaker. Image colors similar to my 70-200 would be a deal breaker.

Rick

The outstanding color of the 70-200mm f/4L IS may have to do, as mmullen pointed out in another thread, with its use of a fluorite element. this is one of the things that makes it a special lens.
--
Peter

I haven't found much difference between the 17-55 and the 70-200, but haven't been searching for one.

There was a huge difference between the tamron 28-75 I had and the 17-55 though. If the 28-75 is anything like the 17-50, there should be a noticeable improvement in colors.

Anthony de Vries said:

Funny... I also have the 17-55 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS combo, and I never noticed anything different between the two when it comes to color or contrast.

Click to expand...

Really?

I owned all mentioned lenses (recently sold all EF-S migrating to FF) and still use 70-200/4 IS. Canon 17-55/2.8 IS is really good and sharp lens even wide open (probably the best standard zoom for APS-C) but in terms of color rendition and contrast 70-200/4 IS is noticeably better. I’d say that 70-200/4 IS is absolute winner here. Just wonder why you don’t see the difference.

--
Eugene Skopinceff

you mean your Tamron 28-75 2.8 was not stellar?
Everyone who has one on DP posts it's awesome!
Tell us more please!?
-Steve

willy383 said:

I haven't found much difference between the 17-55 and the 70-200, but haven't been searching for one.

There was a huge difference between the tamron 28-75 I had and the 17-55 though. If the 28-75 is anything like the 17-50, there should be a noticeable improvement in colors.

Click to expand...

I have canon 10-22, 24-105L, 400 f5.6 L, 50mm 1.4 and use them for different purposes.None of them could be replaced by other one. I rely on photoshop for color and contrast. My point is I dont find any difference in the final product ( I print large prints as 8 X11) in color and contrast between L series and non L-series. Have a look at them pls. All taken with canon 30D

Colors. 24-105mm



50mm f1.4, Taken through moist glass in the zoo.



Canon 10-22mm

(NT)

Comparing the three of them is like comparing apples to oranges. They are used differently. If I look at the photos taken by them alone, I would rank them on color & contrast from good to OK in the following order:

• 70-200 f4L IS
• 17-55 f2.8 IS
• 10-22

The 10-22, being an UWA, can never be as good as lens from the more "normal" zoom range. Also, most UWA scenes have high overall dynamic range. That may make the local contrast seem low. I usually need to make local adjustment in LightRoom. There is nothing wrong with the lens, but the nature of ultra-wide scenes.



The 17-55 is very good, but it is prone to flare. Even when flares are not visible, some scenes may still look washed out.



Photos from the 70-200 looks good probably due to its ease to isolate objects with narrower field of view. Having an object "pop" makes the contrast & color look better.



I never shoot any test chart. These are my subjective opinions based on different type of photos.
You can see some representative photos here:
http://www.pbase.com/peterkwok/lensshowcase
--
Peter Kwok
http://www.pbase.com/peterkwok
WYSIWYG - If you don't like what you get, try to see differently.

Thanks,
very nice photos indeed.
The only one which surprised me was the 17-55 one which looks a bit dull...