Which lens was used?

[maxpower2001]

Hello everybody,

I'm new here and I hope you can help me with this
Also, I'm not really new to photography I'm posting this here in the beginners forum.
Quite a while ago I found some cool street fashion photos. Some of them impressed my from a photography point of view.

My question is: What would you think what kind of camera and lens was used in this picture (/these pictures)? Or how may I find it out myself? (I wasn't able to read the EXIF data and the people from that website are not responding )

Photo: http://blog.stylesight.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/img_3625as.jpg
Website: Swedes Do It Better | Blog | Stylesight

The reason I am asking: I am thinking about upgrading to a full frame camera (in any case). And I really like the shallow depth of field in these pictures. Especially the one I posted where it's getting blurry right behind the model. Even on other photos on this website the background get's blurry even if it's not that far away from the model. I do know how to achieve such shallow dog images. But it doesn't seem (for me) like they used a long focal length and I wonder which focal length and which aperture they might have been using. Because I'd also like to take these kind of photos. Hopefully rather with something like a full frame camera and a 50mm 1.4 than a 300mm lens.

Thank you so much in advance!

Regards,
Max

 

[o hey tyler]

I would guess a 50 or 85mm prime (leaning towards 50 because the background separation isn't as steep) probably around f/2.2.

 

[480sparky]

I'm saying 40-60mm, shot at or near wide-open.

 

[frommrstomommy]

im gonna make a best guess and say 50mm at 2.5 maybe even 2.8

 

[amolitor]

Yeah. 50mm plus or minus. It feels a bit on the wide side of "normal" to me.

It COULD be almost anything, though, depending on the camera. Crop sensor? More like a 35mm lens. Medium format? 90mm to 110mm depending on which one. Large format? Probably a 210ish (4x5) or a 450ish (8x10) and so it goes on. It could also have been shot with a wider-than-that lens, and cropped down.

The point is, that it was shot with a "normal-ish" lens, more or less. A bit wide for potraits, and maybe just generally a bit wide.

 

[o hey tyler]

I will bet dollars to donuts that these were not shot with an APS-C camera.

 

[Derrel]

The lens has very nervous, jittery bokeh and TONS of green color fringing on strong edges. I'm gonna guess Canon 5d + 50mm 1.8 EF-II lens shot around f/2.2 to 2.5 on many shots.

EDIT: I looked at even more of those same-same-same pictures, and near the end of the blog, found one that had a small,round bokeh dot...so that means it's not the 1.8, which produces 5-sided bokeh blobs. The size of the OOF highlights indicates a shortish focal length...if the OOF highlights were BIG, and magnified, it'd show a long lens was used.

Something about these pics make me wanna say "85mm lens", based on how fast the DOF fades, and how big the background is in relation to a full-length, standing figure. But...that doesn't seem quite right...having looked at some of Rotanimod's portraits last night done with various Canon primes, I am gonna guess that these were shot with a modern CANON APS-C body, with the 50/1.4 EF at wide aperture settings.

 

[maxpower2001]

Thanks everybody, you helped me a lot!

That's kinda good news, so I don't need a huge lens while being 100m away from the model
Most of you guessed an aperture around f/2.2 ..why is that so? Phrased differently: why not f/1.4-1.8? Is it possible to see the difference when "guessing"? Or did you decide that regarding the sharpness, since most lenses are softer wide open?

Regards

 

[frommrstomommy]

I could be wrong but what I notice in my own shooting with 35 n 50mm 1.8 lenses is lower f stop = more, and bigger bokeh.. the bokeh looks not huge.. so its not likely 1.4 or 1.8 but blurred enough so that it must be a lower f stop. Also, the models would not likely be in focus head to toe or even waist up at an f stop of 1.4 or 1.8.

 

[frommrstomommy]

heres a visual.. this was 2.8:

DSC_0103 by capturedbybc, on Flickr

this 1.8:

DSC_0213 by capturedbybc, on Flickr

 

[hirejn]

You raise a good point with this question. You can't tell what equipment or brand was used to take a photo. That's the point of photography. It's not about the gear. It's about the image. You can make educated guesses, but let's say you have a fisheye, which is fairly obvious. Maybe you can even say with 99 percent certainty it was a 50 mm. You still don't know what brand for sure or what camera it was used on. You don't know for sure what the aperture or shutter speed or ISO was. You certainly can't tell whether it was a DX or FX format. And in some cases you probably wouldn't even be able to tell if it were film scan or digital. You just have the image, and that is what gear leaves you with, an image. If you have a camera and lens, you have the equipment necessary to take great photographs. If your photography is about equipment, you don't have photography.

 

[480sparky]

heres a visual.. this was 2.8:

DSC_0103 by capturedbybc, on Flickr

this 1.8:

DSC_0213 by capturedbybc, on Flickr

Not a very usable comparison since they have different focus distances.

 

[frommrstomommy]

heres a visual.. this was 2.8:

DSC_0103 by capturedbybc, on Flickr

this 1.8:

DSC_0213 by capturedbybc, on Flickr

Not a very usable comparison since they have different focus distances.

background was same location with roughly same distance between subject and the trees?? only difference was my proximity to subject in the two.

 

[480sparky]

.......... only difference was my proximity to subject in the two.

Hence why it's not a good comparison.

 

[amolitor]

It's a totally useful comparison - of what an OOF background that's far away is going to look like at f/2.8 versus f/1.8. You do have to ignore the subject and look at what's actually being offered for comparison, though.