02-06-2012, 06:46 PM
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1328536646' post='15527']
Good spot. I guess it would be a simple operation to extend the front a little on the focus ring which could be the case here. Also looking more the area around where the focal length is written on the primes looks a little too clean too, jpeg artifacts aside. But on the other side, could the lenses be that similar in construction (on the front at least) such that they could look the same? I haven't done a side by side as I'm on a spare work laptop right now, are the front sections literally pixel clones of each other?
[/quote]
The photoshopper with too much time on his hands scaled them slightly different to prevent a simple pixel perfect clone detection. However, besides the silly same optical elements, the type of the 24mm/28mm is both wrong in style and in perspective. He did not quite nail it. Also he went through a lot of trouble making the scale/distance windows different, but there are some tell tale duplicates in for instance the paint spatter pattern:
Good spot. I guess it would be a simple operation to extend the front a little on the focus ring which could be the case here. Also looking more the area around where the focal length is written on the primes looks a little too clean too, jpeg artifacts aside. But on the other side, could the lenses be that similar in construction (on the front at least) such that they could look the same? I haven't done a side by side as I'm on a spare work laptop right now, are the front sections literally pixel clones of each other?
[/quote]
The photoshopper with too much time on his hands scaled them slightly different to prevent a simple pixel perfect clone detection. However, besides the silly same optical elements, the type of the 24mm/28mm is both wrong in style and in perspective. He did not quite nail it. Also he went through a lot of trouble making the scale/distance windows different, but there are some tell tale duplicates in for instance the paint spatter pattern: