What lens is this?

Given the perspective- I'm thinking around 24-28mm. 16-35 maybe? 28mm is? 24L?

Qlayer2 wrote in post #17265009
Given the perspective- I'm thinking around 24-28mm. 16-35 maybe? 28mm is? 24L?

None of it

135 mm

hrm.. EF 85 1.8

light_pilgrim wrote in post #17264758
I will wait for more options.....but what interests me is the reasoning.....so when you guys give your options, can you explain why you think so? Thanks.

Sorry, I kinda meant to... I also don't think I'm especially good at this, so bear that in mind.

I was looking mostly at the background / OOF areas. A few things stood out to me:

It seems like a lot of background, which is why I said 35 over a 50. Now, I'm a crop user myself, and I know that changes how lenses frame things, but I still think 50 wouldn't quite bring in as much background. But it also doesn't look ultra-wide: nothing near the edges looks very stretched out to me. 35 just seemed to fit that well.

But, 35 is pretty wide, and your background is pretty blurred. Hence saying wide open.

I also went with the "expensive lens", because of how smooth the bokeh is. The paving stones are the closest thing to a transition out of focus, although none of them are really sharp. But that transition looks nice and smooth, which I associate with a more expensive lens.

Really curious to find out what the correct answer is... I know that you didn't just set out to quiz people, but now it's just going to bug me.

Obviously I was joking about my last response.^^^

My guess is that you purchased a lens such as a zeiss that is supposed to have a visible quality that makes it different form other lenses due to all the hype and yet you can not tell the difference yourself and don't think we can and this image is from that lens. My second guess is the above except this image was taken with a cheaper lens like a sigma and you are trying to prove to yourself and others that this lens is so good it is mistaken for a more expensive lens.

Both arguments seem like a waste of time. It is a good image and it does not matter what lens was used. One image is just that one image, owning a lens and using it day in and day out will reveal its strengths and weaknesses. What were the other images like... any flare, missed focus, CA, busy tree bokeh, is its cheap build going to break unexpectedly, these are some of the things that separate one lens from another for me.

You are the closest and it is a great deduction

bseitz234 wrote in post #17265084
Sorry, I kinda meant to... I also don't think I'm especially good at this, so bear that in mind.

I was looking mostly at the background / OOF areas. A few things stood out to me:

It seems like a lot of background, which is why I said 35 over a 50. Now, I'm a crop user myself, and I know that changes how lenses frame things, but I still think 50 wouldn't quite bring in as much background. But it also doesn't look ultra-wide: nothing near the edges looks very stretched out to me. 35 just seemed to fit that well.

But, 35 is pretty wide, and your background is pretty blurred. Hence saying wide open.

I also went with the "expensive lens", because of how smooth the bokeh is. The paving stones are the closest thing to a transition out of focus, although none of them are really sharp. But that transition looks nice and smooth, which I associate with a more expensive lens.

Really curious to find out what the correct answer is... I know that you didn't just set out to quiz people, but now it's just going to bug me.

A very interesting thinking, really...

david lacey wrote in post #17265101
Obviously I was joking about my last response.^^^

My guess is that you purchased a lens such as a zeiss that is supposed to have a visible quality that makes it different form other lenses due to all the hype and yet you can not tell the difference yourself and don't think we can and this image is from that lens. My second guess is the above except this image was taken with a cheaper lens like a sigma and you are trying to prove to yourself and others that this lens is so good it is mistaken for a more expensive lens.

Both arguments seem like a waste of time. It is a good image and it does not matter what lens was used. One image is just that one image, owning a lens and using it day in and day out will reveal its strengths and weaknesses. What were the other images like... any flare, missed focus, CA, busy tree bokeh, is its cheap build going to brake unexpectedly, these are some of the things that separate one lens from another for me.

Id say sigma 35mm art

I'll go with the 40mm. Because of magnification/perspect​ive.

I'm going with nifty fifty....some of the best optics in a cheap plastic body.

This is definitely not anything longer than a 35mm.
Notice the distortion at the sides, especially on the left side car. 50mm+ does not produce this perspective.

I'd lean towards a 35mm at F2.8.
My second guess would be a 17mm on micro 4:3 at F2.
My third guess would be a 28 1.8.

jmai86 wrote in post #17265185
This is definitely not anything longer than a 35mm.
Notice the distortion at the sides, especially on the left side car. 50mm+ does not produce this perspective.

I'd lean towards a 35mm at F2.8.
My second guess would be a 17mm on micro 4:3 at F2.
My third guess would be a 28 1.8.

Yes, it is 35 mm question which one and why...

light_pilgrim wrote in post #17265194
Yes, it is 35 mm question which one and why...

Hm, well this question is a bit unfair in your favor! It would take someone who has used this particular lens extensively to notice its very minute characteristics immediately.

To my eye, there is nothing particularly special about this photo that screams a very particular lens. It's a fantastic photo no doubt, but I don't see anything that would scream a particular manufacturer. My Canon 35mm F2 IS produces a very similar look. So did my Olympus 17mm on m43. Same thing with my Canon 20-35L f2.8 at 35mm.

To most eyes, and at this resolution, a 35mm is a 35mm is a 35mm, assuming they aren't cheap $50 toy lenses.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #17265194
Yes, it is 35 mm question which one and why...

Well if you are saying it is 35mm I will guess it was taken on a FF camera at f/1.4, based on the bokeh. So from there I think a Sigma art 35 or 35L or Zeiss 1.4 could have taken this image but from one image in B&W it is too hard to tell. I am not to good at guessing these types of things. I think it would take more images to start to see the subtle differences.

Looks like 1.4 to me hard to do with a zeiss MF. 35L great lens does not need proof of what it can do. I am going to say Sigma art 35 taken at 1.4.