Color rendition: 85/1.8 vs 100/2

<p>I own and love the 85/1.8. It seems to have a decidedly warm color rendition, especially in comparison to other EF lenses I've owned; just wondering how the 100/2 EF compares in that regard. Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>Of all of the factors that might actually be relevant to a choice between these two excellent lenses, "color rendition" comes about as close to being irrelevant as any...</p>

<p>I have both lenses. I don't see much if any differences in them. Same family, one is 85mm and the other is 15mm longer. There are times when i favor one over the other and times that the opposite is true. They are both great lenses with good color, contrast, sharpness and bokeh. The main criteria for using one over the other is what you want to frame. Good luck!</p>

<p>I can't say I've noticed it with mine - and I have quite few EF lenses. Can't you just change the color balance a little during processing to match the others? Seems like a non-event to me.</p>

<p>Is colour rendition even an issue in the digital age?</p>

<p>I have the same question as Mark. Color can be so easily adjusted in post processing, I can't imagine it being a deciding factor in the choice of a lens.</p>

<p>Dear All: Thanks for your responses to date. I thought I was asking a simple, factual quuestion; I did so simply out of intellectual curiosity. I didn't say I was deciding between the lenses - I'm not. I didn't say it was a problem - it's not. Are characteristics of different lenses of interest to me? Yes, they are. Perhaps one of my kind EOS brethren will answer the question as asked, rather than opining on the relevance of rhe question.</p>

<p>Surprisingly, the OP has no control over the responses (unless you are a moderator, anyway). ;)<br /> This was once a hotly debated topic (Were Nikkor lenses 'cold'?, etc.) back in the film days. Although the glass itself can make minor differences, I think the bulk of perceived "warm' or 'cool' results are the result of lens coatings. Frankly, different versions of a Zeiss, for an example, lens will be warmer or cooler depending on when it was made and what coatings were applied to it. I see this in different issues of the classic Zeiss lenses that I own.<br /> Discussion of "lens color rendition" here on P.net will show examples of this discussion and "camera lens color rendition" on a wider Google™.</p>

<p>As an examination of the hits to those searches will reveal, this is not a "simple factual question" except in theory -- and maybe not even in theory.</p>

<p>If this sort of thing is your idea of fun, try posting a question on the color tone of various Cokin-style neutral density filters....</p>

 

<p>I once posted a question when I noticed I had an 81A skylight filter on my digital lens for protection. The question was what happens to the auto white balance when you shoot through an 81A which is a slight warming filter from the film days. The answers were all over the place-nobody seems to know.</p>

<p>Auto white balance pretty much voids all previous color temperature concerns, as people have implied already.</p>

<p>John<br>

I have the 85 /1.8 and also find mine distinctly warm compared with the rest of my EF lenses. Like you, maybe, I factor it in during post and compensate (or not) as maybe. I had also noticed a similar characteristic.</p>

<p>John<br>

I have the 85 /1.8 and also find mine distinctly warm compared with the rest of my EF lenses. Like you, maybe, I factor it in during post and compensate (or not) as maybe. I had also noticed a similar characteristic.</p>

<p>Why not post some photos and we can see what you are talking about. I don't find my 85/1.8 to be particularly different in color rendition than my other EOS lenses.</p>

<p>I have noticed that some lenses (mostly newer ones) tend to have more contrasty and saturated colours, regardless of white balance. This is, as others have mentioned, due almost entirely to lens coatings. I can only assume that this is what the OP meant when he asked the question; if he meant it exactly the way it was worded, then it does seem like a WB issue.</p>

<p>If that was what you meant John, then you should find the 100 f/2 very similar. It is, if I'm not mistaken, a very similar lens design, and it was released at around the same time so coatings ought to be similar. For what it's worth, it's an excellent sports lens. I'm a Nikon shooter, and I wish Nikon had one. I know that they have similar lenses, but they don't quite have that one.</p>

<p>Canon works hard to make the color balance of all its lenses consistent.</p>

<p>I once did a careful test on a Canon 30D body that compared the color balance of a Nikon 35mm/1.4 AIS with a Canon 17-55/2.8. I was amazed how much warmer the Nikon was...until I realized that the protective filter on that Nikon lens was a skylight and the filter on the Canon was a UV. Duh! The subtlest of filtration differences swamped the results.</p>

<p>Hah! For what it's worth though, I strongly prefer the colour on the AIS lenses, especially for people. It's just a shame that they like to flare and have CA issues so much more than the newer coated lenses.</p>

<p>Jim, Jeff, Zack, Ken - thanks very much for your thoughts! I still shoot a fair amount of slide film for direct viewing or projection, so the color rendering of various lenses is of great interest to me.</p>

<p>I find that 100 f/2 to be different from my other lenses in its rendition of purple to blue, and is very noticeable in the viewfinder even; I don't remember that with the 85 f/1.8 at all. This is really only an issue for me in garden photos, and wouldn't go back to the 85 for this reasonl, and I do prefer the 100 for my imaging. I have an X-Rite colour target that I could record images using the 100, but since I don't I have the 85 anymore there is no point.</p>