Sharp with good color?

it was worth a try!

The image quality is very good!

How about your 70-200, at 200, at f4. Corresponding FOV would be 320.

Just my guess! You know how I feel is you say the words "16-50"...

Edit------------->Is it your 70-200 2.8 with a 2x TC??

Sigma 70-200 with 2x TC. FOV...who cares i can't win anyway

Image quality is rather nice

stupot wrote in post #2466157
yes... yes there must! in fact, i clean my lenses using a jessops cloth! therefore i must use je... oh, no i dont

I only said that because he mentioned the brand 2x, emphasizing the 2nd time. As if there was some connection.

Sigma 400mm 5.6 wide open ?

Sigma EX 100-300 w/ 1.4 converter

So far some mighty fine entries by you Olympus 100-count-tissue-coveting folks:

Canon 100-400IS @ 400mm [2 entries]
18-55 @ 55mm
Sigma 50-150 @ 150mm
Tokina 16-50 @ 50mm (though it's not yet released)
Canon 400 f2.8
Canon 400 DO
Sigma 80-400 OS @ 400mm
Tokina 80-400 @ 400mm [2 entries]
Canon 70-200IS @ 200mm
Canon 70-200IS with 2xTC @ 400mm
Sigma 70-200 with 2xTC @ 400mm
Sigma 400mm f5.6
Sigma 100-300EX with 1.4xTC @ 420mm

I shall await a few more entries, and then the winner will be announced. However, it should be noted, that as of right now, there is no winner of these fine tissues But I still applaud your efforts!

Just going to be in this thread too, I know it's wrong:

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM

Whatever.

Now if he is dicks with the exif thats just wrong. Maybe a tamron SP AF200-500mm F/5-6.3 Di LD (IF) at 400mm 5.6

aero145 wrote in post #2466505
Just going to be in this thread too, I know it's wrong:

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM

Whatever.

YES!!! You are ............. wrong too

Let's play sherlock holmes.

the leaves in the background seem to be about the same scale as the sign itself, so it's a long focal length lens. The blurred highlight circles don't show the edges of diaphragm blades, so the lens is not stopped down. However, a fast long lens would give more background blur, so it's a slow long lens. Also the out-of-focus circles don't show target shapes or concentric circles, so let's rule out mirror lenses and DO lenses.

That's as far as I can take it from the photo itself (honest, I got there before looking at the exif). But there's one more clue, which is that our host thinks the answer would surprise us, otherwise he wouldn't have posted it. So I vote for a 3rd party lens, 80-400mm zoom (sigma or tokina) or 200-500 (tamron).

The white balance is a tad off, and once the WB is corrected (in photoshop, using Levels -> midpoint dropper on the white part of the sign), then increasing the saturation to about +6 or +7 makes it look better. The image is sharp, but even a point-n-shoot makes sharp images at full-frame.

Well unless Lights used an EXIF fixer to fix the exif to say 400mm we know it's a lens that has 400mm or is a prime 400mm lens.

No, it's those who CHECK THE EXIF that are wrong!

And this is also wrong

This so far is the most valiant effort. Cheers to David.

Unfortunately, no tissues

Answer is forthcoming...