Lens marker?

If not said, would it be obvious that this capture under the room light is by Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS II.<div></div>

<p>No. If not said, the image could easily have been taken with a 18-55 kit lens. If used at f2.8 and 200mm, the 70-200mm f2.8 will produce a level of background blur and a razor thin DOF that the kit lens is not capable of, but at f4 and 70mm the result will be indistinguishable - especially if all one has to judge by is a low resolution jpg image on a web site. Sorry if that disappoints you, but you asked.</p>

<p>Nope. Could have been any lens from the kit zoom on up. All would look much the same. Could also have been taken with a decent P&S camera.</p>

<p>Husain,</p>

<p>Again, no. The 70-200 f4 would look identical, in every respect, as would the 24-70 or the 24-105. All good lenses, but I pointed them out because they all have 70mm and f4. The 85 f1.8 would be indistinguishable at f4 too but for the slightly different framing. What is more, the 50mm f1.8 shot from the same place at f4 and cropped to match the framing would be indistinguishable.</p>

Quite interesting so far! Would like to see an indoors image at f2.8 which would be unique to 70-200mm f2.8L IS II. I have 85mm f1.8 as well as 24mm f1.4L etc but at this awards ceremony wanted the reach of 70-200mm and adequate DoF to cover the crowed!

BTW, is f2.8 setting on 70-200m so special and critical? As a matter of interest which 'decent P&S camera' would produce similar image under similar conditions?

<p>Husain,</p>

<p>The 70-200 at f2.8 is really no different from a multitude of other lenses at the same focal length and aperture. What it does, and does superbly, is give you the flexibility of all those prime lenses at a reasonable speed all mounted at the same time.</p>

<p>The only time a lens like yours might become distinguishable was if you had spectral highlights in the background, <a href=" this.</a> Then the shape of the aperture blades is reflected in the shape of the highlights. Your lens has a circular aperture making those highlights particularly smooth.</p>

<p>Hope this helps, Scott.</p>

<p>The 70-200/2.8L II is nothing special. It's just very good at what it does. It will look pretty much like any other lens of similar focal length and aperture.</p>

<p>The 85/1.8, 100/2, 100/2.8 macro, 135/2 and 200/2.8 would all produce images that were virtuallt identical to the 70-200/2.8L when shot at the same aperture (f2.8) and focal length. If you shoot the 70-200/2.8L stopped down there are dozens of lenses that will produce a similar image. You might be able to tell them apart by pixel peeping in the corners of the frame at 100% display resolution.</p>

<p>I suspect the Powershot G1x would give you very similar results. Even the Poweshot G12 might be close when the image was displayed on the web.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>is f2.8 setting on 70-200m so special and critical?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, not for most purposes. For some purposes, yes. Compared to f/4, for example,yit lets you shoot in somewhat lower light, without having to raise ISO and accept a little noise. For fast action, some cameras will autofocus faster and better with lenses that open up to f/2.8 or wider. If you shoot wide open, f/2.8 will give you somewhat narrower depth of field. (However, for candid photos, I usually don't open up wider than f/4.0 anyway, because narrower depth of field makes it harder to nail focus where you want it.) Therefore, some people who shoot a lot of low-light photography or sports find the extra weight and cost of the f/2.8 worthwhile. For my uses, it wasn't. I don't to action shots, and most of my indoor shots are with bounced or reflected flash, so for me the 70-200 f/4 was a better choice.</p>

<p>Don't misunderstand the comments you received. Images posted on line are small and low-resolution, so any decent lens, used carefully, will produce an image like this that look goods under these circumstances. However, Yours is a truly excellent lens that does offer many advantages over some less expensive lenses--for example, it is parfocal, is sharp even at wide apertures, focuses fast, has full-time manual focusing, has good bokeh, has minimal barrel and pincushion distortion, is internally focusing, etc.</p>

<p>I am not sure why you keep asking these questions? For what purpose?</p>

<p>Husain,</p>

<p>Would you, or anybody else, care to guess what lens this was taken with?</p><div></div>

<p>Scott: I am going with 135mm f/4 on a full frame body.</p>

Sorry, no idea, Scott!

<p>iPhone?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Would you, or anybody else, care to guess what lens this was taken with?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My guess is that it the image was taken with a 50mm or 85mm prime lens on an APS-H or 135 format body and at about F/2 and the ISO about 400 ~ 800.<br />But my instinct says FL = 50mm.<br />But that is just a guess.<br /> So what is the answer?</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>. . . it is nearly midnight here and I can't tolerate waiting . . .</p>

<p>FF, 24-70 @ 70 and f2.8.</p>

<p>Now you can go to sleep William!</p>

<p>Interesting that the two serious guesses said FF, I assumed Keith was tongue in cheek as how an iPhone could get that dof I don't know.</p>

<p>I posted it because the settings were so close to Husain's original image. My point was, with regards lens use, most of the time you just can't tell with any accuracy, in threads like this I am always reminded of <a href="00Sdr8">this old post</a>, unfortunately the original image no longer links, but it was a typical McCurry image, I am always amazed at the huge range of guesses made within the thread from enthusiasts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now you can go to sleep William!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, I did.<br>

Good Morning!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Interesting that the two serious guesses said FF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I assumed it was a full frame crop, of the original image.<br>

If so it is a Bust Shot, or Tight Half Shot.<br>

It exhibits a DoF of about F/2 on a FF camera OR the DoF of about F/3.5 if using an APS-C Camera.<br>

So that gave me some working options for my guesses of Aperture.</p>

<p>I went with a FF Camera, only because I thought you would keep in accord with the OP’s Question – i.e. the OP used a FF Camera – there was no way of my guessing with any skill other than trying to think how another person would think.</p>

<p>Now the Perspective was a technical matter and it appeared to me to be the perspective be of a lens between 50 mm and 85mm when used on a FF Camera.</p>

<p>So that left me with a large range of lenses.</p>

<p>I thought that you were thinking “the other way” and that you used a Prime Lens to show how difficult is to actually reckon WHAT LENS WAS USED. </p>

<p>So that left an 85mm lens or a 50mm lens as two easily identifiable common lenses which could have been used for you to show easily the point you were making.<br>

Of those two Prime Lenses the 50mm Prime was purely a 50/50 guess.</p>

<p>I could only reckon with any confidence:</p>

<ul>

<li>The range of FL of the lenses, which could have been used</li>

<li>The Approximate Aperture used (NB - and that I could reckon, only because of the shallow DoF exhibited.)</li>

</ul>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My point was, with regards lens use, most of the time you just can't tell with any accuracy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, there is a lot of agreement on that point.</p>

<p>I trust my explanation of how I arrived at my guess endorses that point further.</p>

<p>WW</p>

It then appears that for the images of say under 1000 px each side and for sharing these through the internet forums etc, the quality of equipment plays only a little part. I upload 2 images taken under similar arrangements, using 5DII ISO200 and f2.8 but different lenses - which lens in each case?<div></div>

And this one!<div></div>

<p>Husain,</p>

<p>For forum posting the equipment plays virtually no part. But that isn't limited to 1,000px sizes. I print a lot of 12"x18" prints from a variety of cameras, from phones to medium format film scans, and if you have the light then it is very difficult to tell anything apart, just <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml">look at this link,</a> and I have a G10.</p>

<p>Where your camera and lens vastly outperform a P&S is in iso performance and focus speed. But for any print short of 20" all your examples, in this thread and the others, could just have easily been shot with an APS-C camera, or even the latest generations of smaller 4/3 cameras.</p>

Scott, it looks that we got the floor to ourselves! I remembered that I have a Fuji F10 – so I tried it! You are right that the difference between the outcomes by expensive equipment (say £4K) and less expensive (say £200) at this level is not significant! I think the market forces are significantly influencing the general hobbyists to buy (and in many cases unnecessarily) these high end cameras/ lenses!

Saying all this, I don’t think that the P&S would come anywhere near covering big events and taking candid shots under the room lights - some captures are on my website www.husain2.webspace.virginmedia.com<div></div>

<p> "I think the market forces are significantly influencing the general hobbyists to buy (and in many cases unnecessarily) these high end cameras/ lenses!"<br>

Agree!<br>

But back to your 70-200, what are you thinking of it now, worth the $2k+ investment or unnecessary?</p>

<p>Certainly it's true that many other lenses, often much cheaper lenses, can take pictures practically identical to the 70-200/2.8 IS II. But I'm not really sure why that matters. The 70-200/2.8 IS is an amazing lens. I have the mk I and use it all the time, mostly for low-light work. It's an extremely versatile medium telephoto that can take hand-held shots in dark interiors without using a flash: That's what that lens is for; at least that's what I use it for.</p>

<p>I have used the 200/2 as well. Very heavy, very expensive, excellent IS, spectacularly sharp, but in all honesty I have to say the images are not dramatically different from the 70-200/2.8 at 200mm. Both lenses can get a lot of background blur.</p>

<p>If you really want a lens that leaves its mark on the image, I suggest a LensBaby. Much cheaper than these 70-200/2.8s as well. And you can tell at a glance it's a LensBaby shot.</p>

David, I'm happy with this investment but for different reasons! I extensively and productively use 17-55mm f2.8 on 500D for many occasions but for special events like the high profile socio-political gatherings (I'm a Councillor) involving the UK ministers/ prime minister or London Mayor, I need a fast lens with a reach of at least 70-200mm for distance shots under room lights. I have and will use high ISO on 5DII which along with 70-200mm f2.8L IS II is most fruitful. The 85mm f1.8 is not quite enough on these events and although the reach of 24mm f1.4 is adequate for a small gathering, it is not good enough for big conferences etc.

For other purposes, I'm happy with my 24-105mm, 85mm, 24mm and 17-40mm lenses!