[mst]

We all have heard the phrase that it's not the lens that makes an image work. And quite a few here certainly have made that experience themselves.



On the other hand, I still often find myself surprised with the results I get from some lenses in the field. The kind of shots, you know, that make you wonder about the importance of lab tests <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Or the expectations we gearhads have when dealing with at least some type of lenses.



So, just for the fun of it, anybody want to guess the lens used for the shot below?



-- Markus

[Brightcolours]

No idea, Markus... But I can see a number of things. The lens has a very friendly (smooth) bokeh character for its focal length (at least in this scene, but probably in general). It has a clear outlining in the OOF "disks". It clearly has no IS. And it is not super sharp, probably. I am guessing it is a relatively wide angle-ish lens, oddly hard to guess in this shot.



Is it by any chance your "close up fun" lens, the Sigma 20mm?

[Rainer]

A large aperture wide ... that was my first thought when I saw the image.



I would put my money on the Sig 24/1.8 ... and I'm quite certain, that

its one of the 20/24/28 f1.8 tripple, that you atomized in the Nikon-FF-tests

not too long ago.



Just my uneducated guess ... Rainer

[mst]

Sorry, no, it's not one of the Sigmas, it's not even a wide-angle lens. The equivalent focal length is in the short tele range (roughly 74mm in this shot).



Nice analysis, BC, including the conclusion that it doesn't have IS. It is, however, decently sharp, the blur in this shot comes from the leaf moving a little (probably induced by the lift-off of the fly) combined with a slightly too long shutter speed (1/40s, ISO was set to 100).



I also like the bokeh character. I definitely expected less.



-- Markus

[Rover]

24-85 VR? or maybe an old "cheap and nasty" kit zoom thrown in for fun, 28-105sumthing...

[Guest]

Something like a 70-200mm?

[Klaus]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1349273168' post='20491']

Sorry, no, it's not one of the Sigmas, it's not even a wide-angle lens. The equivalent focal length is in the short tele range (roughly 74mm in this shot).



Nice analysis, BC, including the conclusion that it doesn't have IS. It is, however, decently sharp, the blur in this shot comes from the leaf moving a little (probably induced by the lift-off of the fly) combined with a slightly too long shutter speed (1/40s, ISO was set to 100).



I also like the bokeh character. I definitely expected less.



-- Markus

[/quote]



The old Nikkor 70-210/4 ?

[mst]

Nope, it's not a tele zoom. We see the long end of the lens' zoom range here.



And you all seem to reduce me on one camera. Or sensor size <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



-- Markus

[Brightcolours]

Well, I can't guess any "1" lenses as I have no idea about those <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Xastoul]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1349293570' post='20496']

Nope, it's not a tele zoom. We see the long end of the lens' zoom range here.



And you all seem to reduce me on one camera. Or sensor size <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



-- Markus

[/quote]



So that eliminate the new 18.5 mm for the V1