Guess the lens??

<p>Just thought I would post a photo of a friend of mine I took on my M6, and wondered if anyone would be able to work out or guess the lens used to take it.<br>

I can appreciate that by uploading onto the net, the rez cannot be see to it fullest, and I have not sharpened the photo. I have only done exposure edits onto the photo. </p>

<p>This is no loaded question to prove any point about a type of lens either.</p>

<p>PS please don't criticise the photo, its just a random one picked.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'll bite - the lens is a Telyt R 500mm catadioptric lens (just guessing by looking at the out of focus highlights, which on my monitor look like the tell-tale donut shapes). Anyway, nice shot, and you friend can be excused for using the Olympus.</p>

<p>To help further, the lens has a 50mm focal length and comes in a M mount... so nothing exeptional. I was just curious if people could tell.<br>

Sorry for the Olympus...He was a friend before buying it! ;)</p>

 

<p>I'd say a Zeiss 50mm f/1.4</p>

Quite round lights in the blur. 50mm and M mount - I'll say Zeiss too, and the C Sonnar 1.5 at f4 or slightly wider.

<p>I looks like a 50mm Elmar f3.5 to me.</p>

<p>Guess I'll play and take a wild guess, 50 VC Nokton or 75.</p>

<p>Canon f/0.95</p>

<p>B&W&Grainy makes this difficult, but I'm fairly confident not a Leica 50mm. CV Heliar f/3.5?</p>

<p>When are you going to tell us?</p>

Looks more wide open than f/2. I'll guess VC lens.... but not the best light and/or processing in any case.

<blockquote>

<p>When are you going to tell us?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Until we exhaust all possibilities, of course.</p>

<p>Sorry, Had to sleep in the mean time!! (in UK)<br>

Ray, correct shot at F2, this was taken on TMY 400 with Xtol. It was my first roll trying the developer, so I'm not sure if the grain size is normal, or if my developing skills need refining!!</p>

<p>The lens was a Konica 50mm f2, shot at f2.</p>

<p>Does this look like a good or bad Bokeh? I still haven't got the keen eye that can tell good or bad bokeh.....how would you describe a bad Bokeh?</p>

 

<p>Noctilux?</p>

So what does your friend shoot with on the Oly? Looks like an SLR lens.

<blockquote>

<p>"how would you describe a bad Bokeh?" <em><strong>MH</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>When someone thinks it's a<strong> </strong><em><strong> "500mm catadioptric lens" - </strong></em>That's pretty bad bokeh...</p>

<p>Seriously, it's harsh and distracting irregular shapes and donut style rings to the out of focus image components.</p>

Mark, you seem to have chosen very flat lighting. But aside from that, processing includes not only

processing the film, but processing from negative to print. You could probably add some contrast to the

picture using curves in photoshop, for instance.

 

Agree with Gus in that nice bokeh is just what's pleasing to the eye. Take a look at something shot with a

50 Summicron, for example, and you should see a difference. That said, at this point, your skills as a

photographer may be more important to pay attention to than subtle differences in optical qualities of lenses.

I don't get what you're saying Ray. The shot was taken where it was taken. He didn't choose the light, it's the light he

had. It's not screaming for more contrast that I can see. I wouldn't point out that he needs to improve his photography

skills - too little evidence that he needs to and maybe he doesn't want to. One nice little game on photo.net for once.

That's all.

<p>While Mark, the original poster, asks for the photograph not to be criticized, but only wants readers to guess the lens used, I have to agree with Ray and emphatically disagree with Richard. Mark then went on to ask whether the bokeh is good or bad, but bokeh depends also on contrast and gradation and the Mark states that he has done "exposure edits." Okay, it's a game, but posting a picture taken in flat light with muddy tones doesn't do much for enabling anyone to guess the lens that was used, as evidenced by the range of the guesses. In other words, this game turns out to be not too interesting.</p>

<p>Ray is right: this is a photographic forum and to try to stifle discussion of the photographic aspects of the photograph, as Richard is trying to do, pushes this in an uninteresting direction — might as well be reading on the the dpreview forums. But then I don't think it's a good idea to post a picture here and ask it not to be criticized. Difference in philosophy, I guess.</p>

<p>—Mitch/Bangkok<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/5819837818/in/set-72157626881575542/lightbox/"><strong>Beijing – Layers<strong> </strong></strong><strong><strong> </strong></strong></a><strong><strong> </strong></strong><br>

<strong><strong> </strong></strong><br>

<strong><strong>

 

</strong></strong></p>

 

<p>The photo.net I know and love.</p>

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>What is it you are trying to get from this question? Do you like the 50/2 Hexanon and think the bokeh's great and yet feel it unappreciated: are you wanting validation? Or are you thinking it is poor and want validation of that? If you like the bokeh and want to prove a point, I would have picked a better shot. What was your purpose, or was it to prove that guessing a lens from its bokeh is a near impossible task, particularly for 50mm lenses? Just wondering.</p>

<p>Huub L asks what lens is on the Olympus. Zooming in, I can see Planar 50mm f1.4. Now thats an interesting choice for an Olympus !</p>

<p>It would be next to impossible to guess what 50mm lens this is, but considering the rather heavy dose of field curvature evident in out of focus background it would be easy to establish one fact, that it is not one of the better Leica lenses such as Summicron, Elmar-M or Lux.</p>

<p>You don't know what field curvature is. Sorry.</p>