Guess what lens it was shot with!

[DocFrankenstein]

http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p10106359.html
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p10106360.html

Click on "full size" at the bottom right corner.

And tell me what lens I used. :D

[FlyingPete]

Bugg*r, no Exif tag. Oh well.

The DOF and perspective indicate to me something bright and fairly short. Not a 50/1.8 though, as it looks like the lens has 8 blades, not five.

Hmmm...

[retro]

Could it be with the 1.4 50mm? I think I read something in one of your recent posts about one.

[tim]

Could it be the kit lens and you're teasing us? It looks to be in the region of F4-5 to me.

[dobova]

Is it a lensbabies stuff ? Eheheh

Ciao

[pehabe]

ahhh... these might be from one of those kit lens
hmm... or... hmm...

[Olegis]

Something tells me that it's the 50mm f/1.4 version ... :rolleyes:

[flyfishnj]

Pinhole camera?

[ron chappel]

I think it's either:
ef-s 18-55
or ef 24-70 L
or 28-75 XR
in other words i have zero idea! LOL

[snibbetsj]

I think it's the 50 f1.4. He's been looking for one and I guess he found it :D

Nice bokeh BTW

[OviV]

I just thought of something scary. You guys are more likely to know what my next photographic purchase will be than my wife.

Oh and I have no idea about which lens.

Ovi

[Steven M. Anthony]

http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p10106359.html
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p10106360.html

Click on "full size" at the bottom right corner.

And tell me what lens I used. :D

Just look at your camera--the lens you used is probably still on it! :)

[DocFrankenstein]

Umm... how can it be the kit lens if it has 6 blades on it? :D

And no, it's not the 50/1.4 :D

I'll give one more day :P

[chops]

Hmm.... Maybe it's the 85mm F/1.2 L.

[Quinn Porter]

http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p10106359.html
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p10106360.html

Click on "full size" at the bottom right corner.

And tell me what lens I used. :D

Perhaps you found a way to shoot through your telescope?

[pehabe]

Umm... how can it be the kit lens if it has 6 blades on it? :D

And no, it's not the 50/1.4 :D

I'll give one more day :P

sorry for my dumb question:
how could we see that it has 6 blades?
forgive me for interuption ;)

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

16-35 f/2.8 L?

[Jonny]

sorry for my dumb question:
how could we see that it has 6 blades?
forgive me for interuption ;)

Indeed, i am equally intrigued...Who the hell can you tell how many blades from a pic?

[Jon]

Look at some of the out-of-focus blurs (bokeh). You can count the sides. One place is in the cup of pens and pencils. There are a couple of hexagonal blurs there.

[Pekka]

50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro?

[FlyingPete]

Look at some of the out-of-focus blurs (bokeh). You can count the sides. One place is in the cup of pens and pencils. There are a couple of hexagonal blurs there.

Hmmm, must test my counting, I got eight on one in the second image.

[maderito]

I think you're demonstrating wide angle and short telephoto with a fast lens:

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

[DocFrankenstein]

It's not a zoom :D

You have 6 hours :lol:

[maderito]

It's not a zoom :D

Canon 28 mm f/1.8 USM - a "normal" (and versatile) lens on a 1.6 crop sensor.

That's all I want for Xmas:D

[stuartf287]

I'm with Pekka on this one (what a risk taker I am, eh?). I could only find 4 non-zoom Canon EF lenses that have 6 diaphragm blades: 24mm 2.8, 135mm 2.8 Soft Focus, 65MP F2.8, the 50mm 2.5 compact macro. The perspective just doesn't look like 24mm or 135mm to me, even on a 1.6 crop sensor. I have the 65MP so I know it can't focus more than a few mm away from the front of the lens. Unless the Doc used a ringer (e.g., an M-42 screw mount lens adapted to EOS), it must be the 50mm F2.5 compact macro.

[Pekka]

I'm with Pekka on this one (what a risk taker I am, eh?). I could only find 4 non-zoom Canon EF lenses that have 6 diaphragm blades: 24mm 2.8, 135mm 2.8 Soft Focus, 65MP F2.8, the 50mm 2.5 compact macro. The perspective just doesn't look like 24mm or 135mm to me, even on a 1.6 crop sensor. I have the 65MP so I know it can't focus more than a few mm away from the front of the lens. Unless the Doc used a ringer (e.g., an M-42 screw mount lens adapted to EOS), it must be the 50mm F2.5 compact macro.
My second guess, if there are 8 blades, would be 85/1.8. Does not look like 85/1.2L, if it is then mine is sharper :)

[Tom W]

50 mm f/1.8 Mark I - 6 blades.

[DocFrankenstein]

I'm with Pekka on this one (what a risk taker I am, eh?). I could only find 4 non-zoom Canon EF lenses that have 6 diaphragm blades: 24mm 2.8, 135mm 2.8 Soft Focus, 65MP F2.8, the 50mm 2.5 compact macro. The perspective just doesn't look like 24mm or 135mm to me, even on a 1.6 crop sensor. I have the 65MP so I know it can't focus more than a few mm away from the front of the lens. Unless the Doc used a ringer (e.g., an M-42 screw mount lens adapted to EOS), it must be the 50mm F2.5 compact macro.
but the lens I shot this with clearly has 8 blades :D

But you won! I did use a ringer. I know... I know... it wasn't fair. :)

It an old soviet 58mm helios f/2 lens. Before getting an M42 to EOS adapter I decided to see if that lens was any good, so I vandalized my canon body cap and made it into an adaptor for M42 :lol:

Pekka... you say that L is sharper? How on earth can you tell? I'm looking at the photo of the eye... and I think it's one of the sharpest pictures I ever made.

[slin100]

If I'm not mistaken, the 50/1.8 Mk I has 5 diaphragm blades. Let's hope DocFrankenstein is excluding 3rd-party lenses from the selection. I'm gonna guess the EF 50/2.5 macro.

[Tom W]

It an old soviet 58mm helios f/2 lens. Before getting an M42 to EOS adapter I decided to see if that lens was any good, so I vandalized my canon body cap and made it into an adaptor for M42 :lol:


That was going to be my second guess. ;)

(j/k)

[DocFrankenstein]

What do you think of the quality?

I think it outresoves the rebel sensor or is real close...

[Pekka]

Pekka... you say that L is sharper? How on earth can you tell? I'm looking at the photo of the eye... and I think it's one of the sharpest pictures I ever made. I was teasing .... well, nevertheless I think L is sharper (if that is shot at f2) and you can see easiest it in skin. The eyelashes are easy to have "sharp" because they are black against light - the hard part is to have texture/surface detail wide open.

One 851.2L shot at f2.2: http://www.photography-on-the.net/1DmarkII/markIIfiles/HV8O2549.jpg

But the lens you used looks very good!

[DocFrankenstein]

I'm starting to think that I'll pass on 50/1.4 EF even though I wanted it badly.

If I get an m42/EOS adapter, it might just do all I need in terms of portraiture. It has the nice bokeh I need. I'll set the distance manually or something... :D

[eosster]

hmmm, could it be 50mm f/1.8....

Cheers,

Charles,

[FlyingPete]

Hey I got the 8 blades right!!!

[stuartf287]

Man, I was almost sure it was six. I thought Jon's "hexagonal" observation was correct. Now that I look more closely, I can more or less see that the bokeh may have 8 sides, but it is awfully difficult to tell for sure. Even tho' unfair, it was a fun question. I've learned to look more closely at the out of focus highlights in my pictures and how difficult it is to judge the focal length used solely from perspective.

[Tom W]

Man, I was almost sure it was six. I thought Jon's "hexagonal" observation was correct. Now that I look more closely, I can more or less see that the bokeh may have 8 sides, but it is awfully difficult to tell for sure. Even tho' unfair, it was a fun question. I've learned to look more closely at the out of focus highlights in my pictures and how difficult it is to judge the focal length used solely from perspective.
I saw 2 spots in the second image that looked like six as well (I also saw one that looked like 8 but I chose not to believe it). Having once been the proud owner of the 50 mm f/1.8 Mk I, I believed that this might be the lens. Middle-length primes are, after all, the easiest lenses to make well and most produce very good images (and these are nice images).

Of course I was wrong on both counts.

[snibbetsj]

Good show DocFrankenstein, I never would of guessed ;) That's one nice lens. (BTW did you get the f1.4 that was in the marketplace?)


NICE JOB.





snibbetsj on the hunt for the elusive soviet 57mm f0.8 with 32 blades.


Merry Christmas :)

[pradeep1]

Crazy, crazy guys you are. :p :p

[Azzure_7]

I wanna play but images are no longer available. . .
I want a time machine now.

[xarqi]

I wanna play but images are no longer available. . .
I want a time machine now.

Well, after 3.5 years, and with the answer known, it isn't all that surprising. Nevertheless, you could try -->The Wayback Machine (http://www.archive.org/web/web.php)<--.

[Canon Soldier]

I wanna play but images are no longer available. . .
I want a time machine now.

Ooookayy how did you find this thread? After 3.5 years somebody just randomely reawakens it?? Too much time on your hands eh? :confused::)

[hughps]

This is thread necromancy to the highest degree.

[zeva]

lol raise the dead?

[Azzure_7]

Well, after 3.5 years, and with the answer known, it isn't all that surprising. Nevertheless, you could try -->The Wayback Machine (http://www.archive.org/web/web.php)<--.

LOL, the problem is that I read only halfway through the thread.
I was researching for something and this super duper interesting post comes up.
Up to this point I still don't know the answer as I have not finish reading the thread.

[TeamSpeed]

LOL, the problem is that I read only halfway through the thread.
I was researching for something and this super duper interesting post comes up.
Up to this point I still don't know the answer as I have not finish reading the thread.

Read post #28...