Which lens belongs to which picture ?

I know, I know about the lighting and the size of the pic, but regardless
which lens is responsible for which shot,what do you think?

10-22mm and 16-35mm were used.

1)

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

EXIF says they were both taken with the 16-35

:p I was just gonna post that but didnt want to waste my energy typing which I already am right now jk

silvrr wrote in post #9579792
EXIF says they were both taken with the 16-35

Actually that is incorrect

I shot with 10-22 on my brothers crop which is 40D, then took out the CF card and put it into my FF and shot with my 16-35 took the card out and loaded the pics into Lightroom and after that dropped into Flickr.


See what happens when you go by EXIF!!

WICKEN wrote in post #9579806
:p I was just gonna post that but didnt want to waste my energy typing which I already am right now jk

lol

Nice info. learned something new.

Offtopic warning:

I will try to use my 5d2 to take pix, then use the same memory card in the 10D to shoot 1 photo. See if people would believe the image quality of the "10D" I hope LR will mess the exif up for me.

P99 wrote in post #9579838
Nice info. learned something new.

Offtopic warning:

I will try to use my 5d2 to take pix, then use the same memory card in the 10D to shoot 1 photo. See if people would believe the image quality of the "10D" I hope LR will mess the exif up for me.

IM GOING TO DO A LITTLE EXPERIMENT IN A MINUTE TO SHOW PEOPLE SOMETHING NICE!

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=824765 Well here is the experiment concluded.

so moving right along,but which picture was taken by which lens is back to the Original Question

The vignetting is worse on the second image, so I'll go for that as being the 5D and therefore the 16-35.

Second image looks a smidge sharper to me, but it's extremely difficult to tell in horrible light and a tiny pic like that. Who compares lenses at an effective print size of about 2 inches?

Jman13 wrote in post #9580137
Second image looks a smidge sharper to me, but it's extremely difficult to tell in horrible light and a tiny pic like that. Who compares lenses at an effective print size of about 2 inches?

good point,but still its a fun exercise right? kills time.

1) 10-22 = a lot more distortion near the edges...
2) 16-35 = sharper with less distortion