File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Other than exif data could someone recommend me a lens to take pics as OP.
>> Anonymous
oops no exif.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
Looks like L quality to me.... also looks like it's a bit at the far end.
But yeah it could pretty much be any lens.
70-200 2.8 maybe.
>> Anonymous
>>152573it could pretty much be any lens.

you can't tell from just a picture unless it's painfully obvious.
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
could be any lens.

though it prob wouldve been taken with a tripod so take whatever lens you have and stop it down to 5.6/8 and shoot.

just make sure that if your driving a mazda you dont have a volkswagen number plate surround >_<
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
At least an f/2.8, probably not an L series.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>152574
It's painfully obvious here.

OP, that isn't a seperate lens, it's taken with a non-SLR film camera, but with a fantastic scanning job. The bokeh in the distance of that picture makes it obvious. Pic related.
>> Anonymous
rofl, gotta love how people can go in specifics like how it's a 70-200 and 2.8

nothing in that picture gives it away
>> Anonymous
>>152671
This isn't impossible. On a certain size sensor, at a certain distance, f/2.8 will produce the same depth of field. I'm not good at this, though.

Focal lengths are also discernable, and I agree this looks like a medium tele.

Lenses also have unique looks, well, most lenses do. So that's possible, too. I could see this being the EF 70-200/2.8, but I'm not sure.
>> Anonymous
>>152671

Leica glow.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:01 23:57:42Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width839Image Height600
>> Anonymous
>>152679

you could take the some shot with any goddamn lens

50/1.8/1.4/1.2
85/1.8/1.2
17-55/2.8
24.105/4
24-70/2.8

framed correctly, they will look the same, and again, unless there's a painfully obvious trait to the picture, you won't be able to accurately tell which lens it is
>> Anonymous
>>152684
Same setup taken at different focal legnths won't look the same.
>> Anonymous
>>152688

when i say framed correctly, you would, you know, frame it so it looks the same

-_-
>> Anonymous
>>152690

Perspective differences.
>> Anonymous
you won't be that far off
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>152690
Welcome to photography.
>> Anonymous
>>152694

uh dude, framed correctly

use the same goddamn focal length for all lenses when possible, or closest
>> Anonymous
>>152695
Your post doesn't make sense.
>> Anonymous
move your shit around, front and back

change focal length as needed

picture will look the same
>> Anonymous
>>152697
you're a troll or a retard, lol
>> Anonyfag of Borneo !bHymOqU5YY
>>152695
>>152697
Nothing was moved. Fail at f.o.v.
>> Anonymous
how hard is it to frame the same shot using different lenses

christ
>> Anonymous
Idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>152703

move on the fucking parking lot, you fucking gook retard
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>152703
I'm not so sure, but I think the background would look different (it would look more compressed with a tele lens as compared to a wide-angle framed in a similar manner). Just remembering some things from the top of my head, so I would appreciate if anyone can confirm or deny this.
>> Anonymous
Yes. But that picture looks like the camera was moved. At 18mm, from I'm guessing minimal focus distance from the front bottle, if you were to bring it to 55mm, that bottle would have been out of the frame. Or we should be seeing more of the ground at 18mm.
>> Anonymous
>>152694
Same effect used in jaws
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152659
CLACK! FUCK YEAH!
>> Anonymous
>>152713
Awesome trolling, for one thing the distances throughout the entire photo would be different. For example, the car would look longer/shorter if you used a shorter/longer focal length.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>152735
TROMBONE ZOOM!
>> Anonymous
It's a 3D render.