Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

GUess the lens, if you can :)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Reminds me on Nippon Kogaku lens... but has similarities with Konica and Canon FL..


PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Name starts with "C" and ends with "o" Smile


PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CuriousOne wrote:
Name starts with "C" and ends with "o" Smile


Cimko?


PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nope, name has two similar letters in it Smile


PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Chiyoko Rokkor 3,5cm. Smile


PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
quidam wrote:
Chiyoko Rokkor 3,5cm. Smile


sounds good to me, and the lens is a wide. But it doesnt look like one (or at least any I know)


PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is "C.C. Auto" 35/2.8

Smile


PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's a Petri


PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This lens has quite interesting, dense, but not widespread haze, little CA and aristocratic colors:


Almost like Japan by agudzera, on Flickr


PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:56 pm    Post subject: Re: GUess the lens, if you can :) Reply with quote
CuriousOne wrote:
Here's a sample picture, JPG directly from camera (SLT-A57) :


Guess the lens maker by agudzera, on Flickr

Guess the make/model?


Honestly, this image could have been taken with any of a thousand or more fixed focal length or zoom lenses. There is no way to tell without looking at EXIF data


PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Haha, but with above shot you do see character, don't you?


Nice pookeh by agudzera, on Flickr


100% crop, no PP by agudzera, on Flickr


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CuriousOne wrote:
Haha, but with above shot you do see character, don't you?



Next time maybe start the game with this shot that shows the character rather than with a photo that could be almost any lens at all, hmm? =)


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The whole idea was to showcase that "character" is not in lens, it is in photographer, and it worked nicely.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I see that photography today rises on myths and self-created legends, just like audiophiles do. I just wanted to verify my observations, by asking and observing "mysteries" around the certain lens. I'm sure, if I showed a picture of some lesser known Leica/Takumar/Zeiss/whatsoever lens, responses would be much more higher, revealing the inner beauty, relaxed bokeh and so on Smile

Sorry, but truth hurts Smile


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Truth never hurts, arrogance and ignorance does.

But I rather see the need to actively do more photography, then talk about it.
Talk is cheap, at least some people know that Wink


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CuriousOne wrote:
I see that photography today rises on myths and self-created legends, just like audiophiles do. I just wanted to verify my observations, by asking and observing "mysteries" around the certain lens. I'm sure, if I showed a picture of some lesser known Leica/Takumar/Zeiss/whatsoever lens, responses would be much more higher, revealing the inner beauty, relaxed bokeh and so on Smile

Sorry, but truth hurts Smile



so you just wanted to proof, that the knowledge about lenses is based on mythes?

how about to show your rare Leica/Takumar/Zeiss/whatsoever lenses and contribute to the forum?

...btw, thanks for your Petri lens bashing - i hope you have many followers, cause i look for them, beeing the cheapest way to go into IR photography..


PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CuriousOne wrote:
The whole idea was to showcase that "character" is not in lens, it is in photographer, and it worked nicely.


Umm, so are you saying that the title was dishonest and the point was not to guess which lens it is? If so, you've shown that by posting a photo deliberately chosen to not show any character of the lens, people will guess randomly, and if you give them a hint about the name they will just guess any name that matches the hint, because the original photo was such that it is not possible to tell which lens it is taken with, even for someone familiar with the lens…

If the title was honest and the point was to have a guessing game, then it didn't work out because you had to reveal the answer and no-one got it. This is why I criticised the choice of photo early on. Then I gave you the benefit of the doubt that maybe I'm just missing something and in the end you will reveal how the photo tells something about the lens, but, no, it was exactly as I thought that it could have been taken with any lens. (And by anyone, for that matter, so it did not showcase how the photographer puts the character in the photo, just that it's possible to take a characterless photo.)


CuriousOne wrote:
I see that photography today rises on myths and self-created legends, just like audiophiles do. I just wanted to verify my observations, by asking and observing "mysteries" around the certain lens. I'm sure, if I showed a picture of some lesser known Leica/Takumar/Zeiss/whatsoever lens, responses would be much more higher, revealing the inner beauty, relaxed bokeh and so on


I fully agree that there are some lenses that are ridiculously overhyped, and then many owners of those lenses post entirely “normal” photos taken with them – not that the photos are bad, but just not worthy of the hype, yet sometimes other fans of the mythical lens will then “see” some mystical properties in the photo. It's a bit silly, but also quite harmless (other than maybe driving up the prices of lenses, but surely anyone who agrees that the lens is not worth the price agrees that for that price one can have a different lens that can be just as good).

(Meanwhile I've been half-seriously considering starting an audiophile cable business every time I see something like a 1000 EUR per metre USB cable intended to “lift the veil” from audio. =)


However, I really don't see the connection you are trying to make between this kind of hype and this guessing game… Since the photo you posted did not show any recognisable character at all, you didn't show that some kind of “mythical character” can be created with this lens, or that the photographer can create such character with any lens.

Also, remember that “character” of a lens is not always positive – indeed, it is more often some flaw of the lens that makes it unique, e.g., swirly bokeh, bright edges in bokeh, glow, soft edges, low contrast, etc. Many people, myself included, enjoy exploring this sort of character – I'd much rather have a bunch of cheap lenses with obvious flaws than some “perfect” lens that shows no character at all. For instance, the Helios-44 is one of the cheapest lenses of all, yet with very recognisable character and it can even be modified quite easily to give various other effects, and so remains very popular (I have four, mostly modified).

So, for instance, had you started with the bokeh photo I quoted above, I think the guessing game would have been more fun. I'm not sure if this lens is well known enough (not to me at least) for people to have guessed it from that, but at least there might have been some more interesting guesses – now it was mainly based on the hint you gave, i.e., the name, not the photo.

CuriousOne wrote:
Sorry, but truth hurts


Not sure if this was directed at me, but if it was I'm not sure what truth is supposed to be painful. I have a couple of C.C. Petri lenses myself, and dozens of other cheap ones that I enjoy using just as much as the more expensive ones… Like I said, different character is interesting, and usually a result of flaws, and cheap lenses with interesting character are even more interesting because I don't want to spend too much money. =)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2