Which lens signature is that? Our recognition capacity

[alex ph]

Some lenses have quite distinctive visual parameters, like the splendid sharpness of Re.Topcors or Trioplan OOF bubbles. But you usually reach them knowing the precise lens you use. Some less cherished lenses have similar character to their celerbrities counterparts. I guess one may easily take a shot by Rollei Planar for the one made with Re.Topcor. Trioplan bubbles are also widely known as a more generic long triplets feature.

Using various lenses of different makers I am asking myself what is the level of precision with which one may say: "that's this particular lens" judging exclusively by the image. Does our experience of MFL universe of the passed years develop such a "blind sample" capacity? I am not sure about myself. Sometimes I may guess apart Sonnar and Tessar, easier a triplet against a double Gauss. Sometimes I may say Minolta vs Schneider. But this is not as consistent as I wished it was.

Which level of precision do you have guessing lenses? And to which image parameters do you pay attention when determining the lens used for making the shot?

For example, could you say which lens or lens type or maker was used to produce the following shots?

#1 Corners are cropped


#2


#3 Corners are cropped


#4


#5


#6 Corners are partly cropped

[55]

[D1N0]

Some kit zoom for APS-C

[alex ph]

Hey fellows, sorry for my belated reaction.

D1N0, that's a fixed length manual lens, not an APS zoom.

55, your mention of sharpness among the parameters you may distinguish sounds intriguing. Did you have an opportunity to recognize a lens by its exceptional or, the other way round, poor sharpness? Anyway what are lenses which have distinctive marks for you in image character?

To keep up the game, I add here an image taken with another lens. At you opinion, what kind of lens this IQ reveals?

[Lightshow]

[kiddo]

Cropping image doesn't help at all identifying any type of lens, the corners help a lot on the ID
I'm also good enough to identify the lens used on my pics , and "sometimes" some other pics . But it's true , that ,depending on the intention of the photographer , not always should be easy.
In my opinion , most of the times ,the character of any specific lens ,should be seen wide open and it always help a lot to know what sensor was behind that image .

[Pancolart]

[visualopsins]

Copied from post in thread "Favorite non-swirly bokeh lenses?" here at http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=82677

[alex ph]

The shots without special mention are uncropped. All are taken with Sony Nex, so an APS-C sensor.

Kiddo, could you please post a couple of your shots made with different lenses which you can clearly tell the origin. What are main features you pay attention to?

[kiddo]

Most of my pics are family portraits ,and wide open ,except the group ones.
For myself , it's easy to tell ,for only using 4 lenses 50mm 1.4's , komura 100mm 1.8 is the most bubbles I've got wo (the other 100's are pretty close one to the other), septon shows it's 5blades closing iris , etc. It's easier to identify pics of the lenses that I own, many times color rendering helps a lot , but on 5.6-8-11 things are different .
I've used m4/3,apsc and FF and rendering it's different ,as expected , so it would be very hard to id somebody's lens (helios tunnel is more special)

[55]

[55]

[alex ph]

I see Kiddo, that helps indeed.

55, your Tamron has a nice balance between overall sharpness and gentle swirl.

This one is Trioplan 2.9/50 wide open



Out of curiosity I am adding the same subject shot with an atypical lens

#1


In the first shot you hardly note anything unusual due to the curved geometry of the items. But shooting forms that are presumed to remain rectilinear you discover a very much pronounced distortion which may be used as a special effect.

#2