Can you identify these lenses based on their rendering?

[CK Dexter Haven]

I don't like 2 and 6 is 'iffy.' That's all i can say. But, if this weren't a direct comparison, they'd all be fine. Except 2....

 

[aizan]

what's everyone basing their guesses on is what i'm interested in. me, i'm just looking at macrocontrast and bokeh, since the images are too small to see resolution and microcontrast, and the scene doesn't really help you see corner performance or distortion, etc. very well.

 

[Rob-F]

No. 6 is the 40mm Minolta Rokkor.

 

[Peter Jennings]

me, i'm just looking at macrocontrast and bokeh

That's all I'm looking at, too

 

[David Hughes]

But should they be guesses? I am continually reading that each and every one has a definite and obvious signature. FWIW, some photographers have signatures, imo, and some lab. technicians have.

Regards, David

 

[michaelwj]

I can't tell any difference, except to say that some of the lenses listed don't focus to 0.8m, so they're the ones with the larger FOV. And the 40 must have a narrower FOV 😀
Apart from that I defer to Roland's answers!

 

[winzenbourg]

Some great guesses and interesting comments so far! I'll let a few more folks chime in before revealing the answers.

 

[bakemono]

Ok, my attempt (without looking at other answers first)

1: 35mm Leica Summicron-M ASPH f/2 @ 2.8
2: 35mm Leica Summaron f/2.8 @ 2.8
3: 35mm Zeiss C-Biogon f/2.8 @ 2.8
4: 35mm Konica L-Hexanon f/2 @ 2.8
5: 35mm Leica Summilux Pre-ASPH f/1.4 @ 2.8
6: 40mm Minolta M-Rokkor f/2 @ 2.8
7: 35mm Leica Summaron f/3.5 @ 3.5

Looks like my guess is almost identical to some others

 

[bakemono]

don't leave us hanging 🙂

 

[BLKRCAT]

"Can you identify these lenses based on their rendering?"

No.

 

[winzenbourg]

Jonmanjiro nailed it on the first try.

The answers:

1 - 35mm Leica Summicron-M ASPH f/2 @ 2.8
2 - 35mm Leica Summaron f/2.8 @ 2.8
3 - 35mm Zeiss C-Biogon f/2.8 @ 2.8
4 - 35mm Leica Summilux Pre-ASPH f/1.4 @ 2.8
5 - 35mm Konica L-Hexanon f/2 @ 2.8
6 - 40mm Minolta M-Rokkor f/2 @ 2.8
7 - 35mm Leica Summaron f/3.5 @ 3.5

In my opinion, it's safe to say they're all great performers, despite ranging in price from about $250 to $1,600. I'd be happy to keep any one.

 

[pyeh]

Amazing effort from Jonmanjiro, and Ferider too if you allow for his twin choices. Genius.

 

[rbiemer]

Jonmanjiro nailed it on the first try.

The answers:

1 - 35mm Leica Summicron-M ASPH f/2 @ 2.8
2 - 35mm Leica Summaron f/2.8 @ 2.8
3 - 35mm Zeiss C-Biogon f/2.8 @ 2.8
4 - 35mm Leica Summilux Pre-ASPH f/1.4 @ 2.8
5 - 35mm Konica L-Hexanon f/2 @ 2.8
6 - 40mm Minolta M-Rokkor f/2 @ 2.8
7 - 35mm Leica Summaron f/3.5 @ 3.5

In my opinion, it's safe to say they're all great performers, despite ranging in price from about $250 to $1,600. I'd be happy to keep any one.

So, which lens does he win from you? 😀

Rob

 

[sepiareverb]

Why is the monkey wearing a hat?

 

[jonmanjiro]

So, which lens does he win from you? 😀

Rob

The most expensive one, of course 😀

 

[bayernfan]

is the field of view between the 40 rokkor and 35s really that different? my 40 rokkor doesn't seem that tight compared to my summicron and summaron.

 

[aizan]

wow, impressed that someone got all of them right! jon is on point.

i sorted the bokeh (at that aperture) from smooth to harsh. how would you order them?

1) #1: 35mm Leica Summicron-M ASPH f/2 @ 2.8 - Smooth (1 stop closed)
2) #5: 35mm Konica L-Hexanon f/2 @ 2.8 - Smooth, almost as nice as #1 (1 stop closed)
3) #4: 35mm Leica Summilux Pre-ASPH f/1.4 @ 2.8 - A little better than OK, basically smooth (2 stops closed)
4) #3: 35mm Zeiss C-Biogon f/2.8 @ 2.8 - So-so (0 stops closed)
5) #7: 35mm Leica Summaron f/3.5 @ 3.5 - So-so, just not as shallow (0 stops closed)
6) #6: 40mm Minolta M-Rokkor f/2 @ 2.8 - Harsh, but not as harsh as #2 (1 stop closed)
7) #2: 35mm Leica Summaron f/2.8 @ 2.8 - Harsh (0 stops closed)

 

[anindyo]

#1 sumamron 35/2.8
#2 rokkor 40/2