Guess: what lens it is made with?

[alex ph]

Hi to all,

there are many wonderful and instructive samples showing the way that or this manual lens takes an image. And sometimes a reverse game is done which I find quite amusing. There is a picture, and you are to guess which lens it could be.

So, I propose such an image. At your point of view, to what lens this drawing matches the best?



I should say that I resized the original image, then applied some contrast and sharpening. A clue: it was f8 or f5.6.

The camera is NEX-5N.

Thanks

UPD: The original shot is uploaded here.

[Arkku]

If it's really at f/5.6 or f/8 then it must be a fairly long focal length to get such shallow depth of field. Also the bokeh looks busy and swirly, which makes me suspect it's a slow lens with the maximum aperture not much greater than f/5.6, and perhaps a zoom. Based on your other posts you seem to have some 70-205mm zooms, perhaps one of those near the long end?

[Nikonshooter]

[alex ph]

Wow, nice try! Since I had these heavy zooms, I got several other lenses.

This is not a zoom, it has a fixed focal distance.

Any ideas?

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Vivitar? Like Arkku also pointed out, this looks to be coming from some telephoto lens. An unprocessed example would have helped.

There is not much difference between lenses of similar specs/performance after you get through post processing. Sure, if you can examine samples side by side, you may see the difference, but figuring out the lens based on a sample is very tricky.

[alex ph]

The trick is that it is not at all a telephoto!

You are right saying an original could help. But the forum takes only 1600px at the long side. And the original is 4912px wide. Where may I put it? I have no flickr account.

I often saw expert photo-people saying in the forums: hm, the bokeh here looks like zeiss tessar, but the overall drawing is close to minolta standard. Mostly in cases where the lens name is already given in the title. I wonder, if looking at this image one may say something in this key? Or it is rather indifferentiable, as you note?

[Pancolart]

some swirl and round aperture close down. Interesting. Should be some preset. Pentacon 3.5/30mm perhaps?

[RSalles]

I had almost the same bokeh with my Pentacon 4/200 but the color of this photo is too warm, close to the rendering of a russian tele. What about a Tair or Jupiter lens?

Renato

[alex ph]

OK, I found where to upload the original image. Here it is.

Does it give a better idea?

[alex ph]

Pancolart, the focal lengh is almost that: it is 35mm. But the maximum aperture is larger. So, RSalles, it is not a tele. And, another hint, it is neither Russia, nor East Germany as production!

[visualopsins]

Takumar 35/2.3 or 35/2

[alex ph]

Visualopsins, I see at the bottom line of your message that you use a set of Takumars. Nice choice! Does this really look like Takumar?

One strange thing is the bokeh: individual OOF spots are more or less round but that "more or less" gives a kind of large grid if you look at the blue (sky) spaces of the shot. I have Takumar 55mm 1.8, it gives a creamier bokeh. Does the 35mm gives the bokeh like on this shot?

[RSalles]

Alex,

Does the 35mm gives the bokeh like on this shot?

I had this lens and nver ever had a bokeh like this.
East X West, let me miss the hit again: Leica Summicron 2.8/35

I saw the full res image few moments ago, and it can't be a Summicron, not sharp enough to be.,,,

It's really a pleasure to miss completely the target, i NEVER could imagine a japanese/oriental lens to perform the unfocus part of image like this. Japanese lens tends to have a much more quiet bokeh, more contrast, neutral colors, and so on...





Renato

[alex ph]

Renato, you are wrong and then you are right!

This could not be Summicron, as Leica, as far as I saw in samples, gives you a kind of point to point sharpness and quite a plate image plane being stopped down.

What gives this lens is quite weird: you look at the sharp central flower (at, say, f5.6) and just the flower next to it, 4cm of distance, has already OOF or glowing edges. And then you look the full resolution at the left bottom of the shot, where another flower is barely seen and you note that it is slightly better focused, in spite of the distance, then the one just a bit out of the center. So, it's a kind of eccentric lens, I may say. Could it be German, East or West?

[Fabian]

When you start talking about glow, Meyer.

(Primagon 35mm f/4.5 for example.)

[Nikonshooter]

I like this game. Very interesting. Kinda like a manual lens quiz at a photography school.

[alex ph]

Hm, you guys turn back to suspect the East Germany production, right? No, Fabian, it is not. And the maximum aperture is larger, what gives to the lens (I suppose, among other factors) that eccentric effect.

[Arkku]

[alex ph]

Nikonshooter, I enjoy it too! So, I should not lay down my cards too fast, right?

[Arkku]

[alex ph]

You are quite right, Arkku! I can't say this lens is rare, but neither very usual as MFL for digital photo.

I mean your previous comment. Not the one about about Distagon.

[Fabian]

Faulty edit. :/ Meant to make a new post:


Enlarger lens would make more sense than projection at that focal length by the way, but movie lenses usually have clickless aperture so I guess that's the corner you're hinting at.

Some Isco maybe.

[alex ph]

Arkku, at the end I will post another photo I made wide open and then stopped down. The character will be visible anyway.

For this shot I have only one, stopped down. This one was between f5.6 and f8. So, maybe closer to 5.6.

[alex ph]

Fabian, nice try! You come closer, if follow the eccentric idea and the aperture without fixed stops. But not a projection lens.

[alex ph]

You are right, Fabian, congratulations, this is a C-mount TV-lens! Should I say the mark or, at least, the country of production? Or we may wait for some people who may guess it?