HELP! what lens & aperture were used here?

Hegemon · 12-01-2012, 10:12 AM

OK first let me apologize for editing out the faces but it's not my picture/kids (friends went on vacation and photo was taken by a "pro" they met on the beach). Considering this could be a FF or Canikon which one of our K mount lenses could produce similar results? Thanks in advance.

Cambo · 12-01-2012, 10:26 AM

Somewhere around 85-135ish @ f4-5.6ish

ish.

Cheers,
Cameron

GDRoth · 12-01-2012, 10:39 AM

Don't quite understand your question................this image is not so special that ANY of Pentax shorter (21,35,43 etc) could have taken it..........am I missing something?

Tanzer · 12-01-2012, 10:55 AM - **1 Like**

From the perspective, this is a wider-angle lens, most likely wider than a 35 mm "normal" focal length. The DA21 could do this. Normally I would say a faster lens is needed to produce the bokeh but the photo was taken quite close to the kids, so pretty much any lens would work on a DSLR sensor. Actually, I'm pretty sure even a kit zoom would do this, if you use a wide aperture and a very fast shutter speed (this is at the beach in bright sun, after all). The pro might have been using an ND filter if he was hanging around the beach to begin with.

I think the key to this photo looking pretty good is the composition. Kids are close, pier is far in the background. Most portraits are done with longer lenses, but wide works to get in close to the kids as they are kneeling down.

Hegemon · 12-01-2012, 10:59 AM

Thanks Cambo!! I thought it was a very well done photo with the clarity and DOF which gives you a great 3D effect. Merely inquiring that's all....trying to see if I'm missing something in my arsenal and if I need a faster lens to accomplish this kind of shot. GDRoth do you really think any of those lenses could produce that exact picture? Notice the boardwalk is just slightly out of focus....I don't like the background completely clear nor totally blurry. Initially when I posted...I imagined a fast 16-50mm lens but that was a guestimate

GDRoth · 12-01-2012, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Hegemon

Thanks Cambo!! I thought it was a very well done photo with the clarity and DOF which gives you a great 3D effect. Merely inquiring that's all....trying to see if I'm missing something in my arsenal and if I need a faster lens to accomplish this kind of shot. GDRoth do you really think any of those lenses could produce that exact picture? Notice the boardwalk is just slightly out of focus....I don't like the background completely clear nor totally blurry. Initially when I posted...I imagined a fast 16-50mm lens but that was a guestimate

Yes, I think if you are close to the kids (down on your knees) and open as wide as possible (maybe needing an ND) you could get it similar.

**Clinton** · 12-01-2012, 12:57 PM - **1 Like**

I'm going with some canikon kit lens for a few reasons.

The out of focus blur (bokeh) in the background has some sharp distracting edges, and the water highlights instead of being a nice rounded hazy highlight have fairly disruptive highlight bokeh with strange contrast inside.

This was clearly a slightly wide lens, but not really wide. The clue here is that on the right hand side, you can see that the posts start to slant up and right. My guess is that it was equivalent to somewhere between 25-30mm on our Pentax APSC bodies. If I was placing a bet on it I'd say 30mm.

If you wanted to duplicate this shot, you really wouldn't need much more than the kit 18-55 lens, however I suspect you would be much happier with the out of focus regions with the FA* 31 stopped down to about F4 or F5.6, or you could take several steps back, and use the DA* 55/1.4 at F4, or take some more steps back, and use either the DA* 50-135, or FA 77ltd at around F5.6

aleonx3 · 12-01-2012, 01:07 PM

If it is a Canon camera, the shots is likely taken using either a 24-105 L or 24-70 L at the wide-end. As Clinton pointed out, there appears to be some lens distortion on the left side, which is common with a focus and re-compose technique especially at the wider end. My guess would be 24/28mm @f4/5.6 on a FF camera. On the APS-C camera, it would be 16/18mm.

TenZ.NL · 12-01-2012, 01:20 PM

I don`t know...it looks overprocessed. Allmost as if the background was selected and blurred.

Hegemon · 12-01-2012, 02:03 PM

Man I love this forum! Thank you Clinton, aleonx3 and everyone else who took the time to share their thoughts!!!!!

Sagitta · 12-01-2012, 06:54 PM

Its not shot at 18mm, that much is for sure. Going in and looking at similar shots I've done with the kit lens at 18mm, the background stays in focus unless I'm practically shoving the camera down my kid's throat.

My guess is closer to 100mm give or take 50, and standing well back. The closest I'm seeing to how the background looks would be shots I've taken of my kidling either at 65mm f/6.7 with my FA28-90, or 170mm with my Sigma 70-300 at f/7.1. A wide angle THAT close would need to be stopped way, way down on a beach like that which means you'd have practically no depth of field without being so close as to lend screwy perspective to the kids. Also - kids. Grabbing a shot like that would require not being right next to them because they'd be nosy as to whats happening. Its a candid shot, and with children that means not being right next to them where they can wonder who's waving a camera in their faces.

Sigma 70-300 @ 170mm, f/7.1

FA28-90 @65mm, f/6.7

**Clinton** · 12-01-2012, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by aleonx3

On the APS-C camera, it would be 16/18mm.

I'm sticking by my estimate of 30mm APSC. I see too little edge distortion for 16-18mm, the sand also doesn't show the stretching that would be relevant for that focal length, and finally, I think the kids would look distorted, with really long arms at those focal lengths.

Sagitta · 12-01-2012, 10:27 PM

I'm not seeing any distortion either. If you look at the rails to the pier, everything remains nice and uniform to the edge of the frame.

What I *am* seeing is a photo taken with the sun close to dead left center, just off frame by a bit, which means the need for a slow aperture of some sort. I'm seeing kids not distracted by the photographer, which means the shot was taken back a way (a wide angle shot that would have bokeh like that would mean the camera would need to be right in their faces, which I don't think is happening here.)

It's shot with at least a normal lens, and possibly a telephoto. You don't start losing focus until juuust barely at the elbow of the further child, which means its a fairly hefty depth of field, which means either semi-close with a 35mm like Clinton suggests, or standing further back with something longer.

I'm thinking there could be a density filter in play as well, because the sun was pretty much at one of the worst points in the sky to pull off a beach shot like this. Whoever took the photo definitely knew what they were doing.

EDIT: Dumb question, but you don't have a copy of this with the EXIF information intact, do you? That would answer everything right off if you did.

Hegemon · 12-01-2012, 11:03 PM

I don't unfortunately but will see if my friend has the photographer's e-mail out of curiosity.

SpecialK · 12-01-2012, 11:23 PM

It's moderately wide angle. Beyond that, I have no idea :-)

12-01-2012, 10:12 AM	#1
Hegemon Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 104	HELP! what lens & aperture were used here? OK first let me apologize for editing out the faces but it's not my picture/kids (friends went on vacation and photo was taken by a "pro" they met on the beach). Considering this could be a FF or Canikon which one of our K mount lenses could produce similar results? Thanks in advance.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What are your most used lens and what do you use them for? What lens do you have that	pearsaab	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	55	01-26-2021 03:13 PM
LENS HELP: Auto Focus & A-Setting of Aperture Doesn't Function	richard balonglong	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	4	08-17-2012 11:56 AM
What's the timelapse technique been used here?!	Thanatos	Photographic Technique	3	10-08-2011 06:11 PM
What fast lens would you choose for portraits (if you were me)?	Metalwizards	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	01-25-2011 05:36 AM
Lens help: What's the anomaly here?	stillshunter	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	05-29-2010 10:48 PM

12-01-2012, 10:26 AM	#2
Cambo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,016	Somewhere around 85-135ish @ f4-5.6ish ish. Cheers, Cameron

12-01-2012, 10:39 AM	#3
GDRoth Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: S.E. Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 830	Don't quite understand your question................this image is not so special that ANY of Pentax shorter (21,35,43 etc) could have taken it..........am I missing something?

12-01-2012, 10:55 AM - 1 Like	#4
Tanzer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Perrineville, NJ Posts: 1,375	From the perspective, this is a wider-angle lens, most likely wider than a 35 mm "normal" focal length. The DA21 could do this. Normally I would say a faster lens is needed to produce the bokeh but the photo was taken quite close to the kids, so pretty much any lens would work on a DSLR sensor. Actually, I'm pretty sure even a kit zoom would do this, if you use a wide aperture and a very fast shutter speed (this is at the beach in bright sun, after all). The pro might have been using an ND filter if he was hanging around the beach to begin with. I think the key to this photo looking pretty good is the composition. Kids are close, pier is far in the background. Most portraits are done with longer lenses, but wide works to get in close to the kids as they are kneeling down.

12-01-2012, 10:59 AM	#5
Hegemon Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 104 Original Poster	Thanks Cambo!! I thought it was a very well done photo with the clarity and DOF which gives you a great 3D effect. Merely inquiring that's all....trying to see if I'm missing something in my arsenal and if I need a faster lens to accomplish this kind of shot. GDRoth do you really think any of those lenses could produce that exact picture? Notice the boardwalk is just slightly out of focus....I don't like the background completely clear nor totally blurry. Initially when I posted...I imagined a fast 16-50mm lens but that was a guestimate

12-01-2012, 11:05 AM	#6
GDRoth Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: S.E. Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 830	Originally posted by Hegemon Thanks Cambo!! I thought it was a very well done photo with the clarity and DOF which gives you a great 3D effect. Merely inquiring that's all....trying to see if I'm missing something in my arsenal and if I need a faster lens to accomplish this kind of shot. GDRoth do you really think any of those lenses could produce that exact picture? Notice the boardwalk is just slightly out of focus....I don't like the background completely clear nor totally blurry. Initially when I posted...I imagined a fast 16-50mm lens but that was a guestimate Yes, I think if you are close to the kids (down on your knees) and open as wide as possible (maybe needing an ND) you could get it similar.

12-01-2012, 12:57 PM - 1 Like	#7
Clinton Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,912	I'm going with some canikon kit lens for a few reasons. The out of focus blur (bokeh) in the background has some sharp distracting edges, and the water highlights instead of being a nice rounded hazy highlight have fairly disruptive highlight bokeh with strange contrast inside. This was clearly a slightly wide lens, but not really wide. The clue here is that on the right hand side, you can see that the posts start to slant up and right. My guess is that it was equivalent to somewhere between 25-30mm on our Pentax APSC bodies. If I was placing a bet on it I'd say 30mm. If you wanted to duplicate this shot, you really wouldn't need much more than the kit 18-55 lens, however I suspect you would be much happier with the out of focus regions with the FA* 31 stopped down to about F4 or F5.6, or you could take several steps back, and use the DA* 55/1.4 at F4, or take some more steps back, and use either the DA* 50-135, or FA 77ltd at around F5.6

12-01-2012, 01:07 PM	#8
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	If it is a Canon camera, the shots is likely taken using either a 24-105 L or 24-70 L at the wide-end. As Clinton pointed out, there appears to be some lens distortion on the left side, which is common with a focus and re-compose technique especially at the wider end. My guess would be 24/28mm @f4/5.6 on a FF camera. On the APS-C camera, it would be 16/18mm.

12-01-2012, 01:20 PM	#9
TenZ.NL Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Below sealevel Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,100	I don`t know...it looks overprocessed. Allmost as if the background was selected and blurred.

12-01-2012, 02:03 PM	#10
Hegemon Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 104 Original Poster	Man I love this forum! Thank you Clinton, aleonx3 and everyone else who took the time to share their thoughts!!!!!

12-01-2012, 06:54 PM	#11
Sagitta Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,081	Its not shot at 18mm, that much is for sure. Going in and looking at similar shots I've done with the kit lens at 18mm, the background stays in focus unless I'm practically shoving the camera down my kid's throat. My guess is closer to 100mm give or take 50, and standing well back. The closest I'm seeing to how the background looks would be shots I've taken of my kidling either at 65mm f/6.7 with my FA28-90, or 170mm with my Sigma 70-300 at f/7.1. A wide angle THAT close would need to be stopped way, way down on a beach like that which means you'd have practically no depth of field without being so close as to lend screwy perspective to the kids. Also - kids. Grabbing a shot like that would require not being right next to them because they'd be nosy as to whats happening. Its a candid shot, and with children that means not being right next to them where they can wonder who's waving a camera in their faces. Sigma 70-300 @ 170mm, f/7.1 FA28-90 @65mm, f/6.7

12-01-2012, 09:28 PM	#12
Clinton Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,912	Originally posted by aleonx3 On the APS-C camera, it would be 16/18mm. I'm sticking by my estimate of 30mm APSC. I see too little edge distortion for 16-18mm, the sand also doesn't show the stretching that would be relevant for that focal length, and finally, I think the kids would look distorted, with really long arms at those focal lengths.

12-01-2012, 10:27 PM	#13
Sagitta Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,081	I'm not seeing any distortion either. If you look at the rails to the pier, everything remains nice and uniform to the edge of the frame. What I am seeing is a photo taken with the sun close to dead left center, just off frame by a bit, which means the need for a slow aperture of some sort. I'm seeing kids not distracted by the photographer, which means the shot was taken back a way (a wide angle shot that would have bokeh like that would mean the camera would need to be right in their faces, which I don't think is happening here.) It's shot with at least a normal lens, and possibly a telephoto. You don't start losing focus until juuust barely at the elbow of the further child, which means its a fairly hefty depth of field, which means either semi-close with a 35mm like Clinton suggests, or standing further back with something longer. I'm thinking there could be a density filter in play as well, because the sun was pretty much at one of the worst points in the sky to pull off a beach shot like this. Whoever took the photo definitely knew what they were doing. EDIT: Dumb question, but you don't have a copy of this with the EXIF information intact, do you? That would answer everything right off if you did.

12-01-2012, 11:03 PM	#14
Hegemon Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 104 Original Poster	I don't unfortunately but will see if my friend has the photographer's e-mail out of curiosity.

12-01-2012, 11:23 PM	#15
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	It's moderately wide angle. Beyond that, I have no idea :-)