Portrait lens ?

<p>Ok I have started looking for a portrait lens and thought I had it picked out. I called the store where I purchased my camera to check the price and the guy threw in a couple of others that he said I should really look at before I bought the one I was thinking on. My choice was the 50 SDM 1.4 weather sealed, he said that I should look at the 100mm macro 2.8 or the 77mm 1.8 limited, or the 43 limited. I am still leaning toward the 50 SDM WR. any thoughts. remember I have the versital 18-250mm</p>

<p>All I can say is I truly love the 77mm f1.8 limited. It is lightweight, full-frame with film or digital, fantastic brokah, looks REALLY sharp (especially the black form), 49mm filter, built in lens hood,but not weather sealed. It is a hard to find a lot of faults with this lens. I use a Pentax 100mm f2.8 FA lens on film for portraits, but haven't really with digital so I can't comment on it. I would think the 43mm is a bit wide, for portraits but I maybe way off base.</p>

 

<p>The DA* 55 f/1.4 is the SDM portrait lens. The limiteds are all said to be stellar but you can't beat the FA 50 f/1.4 for the price/performance ratio. Useable from f2 onwards, terrific at f2.8 and simply amazing at f4 this is a must have lens. Compared to the the Sigma 50mm f/1.f EX HSM, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM and Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D this older technology lens still performs very well indeed. </p>

<p>To quote DPReview "The standout characteristic of the Pentax is arguably its extremely low distortion, which is the lowest of the 50mm F1.4s we've tested. And when the aperture is stopped down to F2.2 or smaller, it's impressively sharp corner-to-corner, right across the APS-C frame." You can find the DPReview here http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/pentax_50_1p4_p15/</p>

<p>Get the FA 50mm and FA 35mm and you'll also have a terrific low-light team.<br>

Cheers,</p>

 

Another vote for the 77mm limited. Next to this, my choices would be the 43mm ltd. and the FA 50mm 1.4 (both cheaper than the DA55).

<p>with money not being a factor would everyone still feel the same or would the 55 then be first choice</p>

<p>The FA 50 f/1.4 isn't a cheap lens, it's a superb lens that just happens to have a very economical price. You can use it on film bodies too. That's a huge bonus (if you have any interest in shooting film).</p>

<p>The DA* 55 is weather sealed and while that has perks you could easily pick up an FA 50 f/1.4 and an FA 35 f/2 for the same coin. Two stellar digital and film compatable primes would be a greater asset in my oponion. Then again I bought them for this very reason.</p>

<p>I prefer a bit more distance from people for portraits and would get the 77mm limited or a 90mm/105mm macro for a film body. You can use any cheap (Pentax-A) 50mm prime as well, I focus manually on the eyes anyway and use flash in manual mode. Both may be too long inside a small room for more than headshots.</p>

<p>77mm or 85mm - get one of these if you are only looking for a prime lens.</p>

<p>some have mentioned an 85mm but I have not seen it on pentax website where can I find one</p>

<p>85mm is discontinued. There's an FA* 85/1.4 that costs an arm, a leg and both nuts.. also discontinued.</p>

<p>In the current lineup I think the 55mm SDM is the best choice for APS-C if cost is no object. Or if you want smaller but still expensive the Limited 43.</p>

<p>If cost is an object, I'd get the FA50. With the crop factor these come out to around 70-80mm equivalent.</p>

<p>Jordan,<br>

Don't you already have a 50mm?</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>50 manual old glass does ok I figured the new with AF would be steps above it.</p>

<p>Although it's not fast, I'd also toss in the Voightlander 90mm Lanthar, especially if you start looking at 90 and 105mm macro lenses, the Lanthar should be fast enough (3.5 vs 2.8).</p>

<p>Now if you need a 2.0 or 1.4 for your needs (like the 85mm 1.4 for instance) then we are talking different lenses altogether, but if you start looking 90mm 2.8 then the 90mm f/3.5 Lanthar is a legit inclusion.</p>

<p>Bang for buck the 50mm FA is probably the best lens you can get, though while not being a big portrait guy myself, I prefer something slightly longer, 55mm isn't much longer, so 70 or 77mm Limiteds would be good options, as would the FA 85mm 1.4.</p>

<p> Hi Jordon, I do a lot of portrait and event stuff. I have not held the new SDM 55mm, but in theory it "should" be optimized for portraits; I would very much like to try this lens, but can not justify adding it. In my bags are the two DA* zooms, four DA limited's and the three FA limited lenses plus a FA 50mm (I got a deal on the DA limiteds from a guy leaving Pentax that I could not say no to). If I'm shooting an event or a studio lit portrait session I pull out my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 which I use for about 70% of my portrait / small group stuff. If it's a "special" portrait of one or bust shot of two people and the backgound needs good bokeh handling or that little extra special rendering I reach for the FA 77 limited. Of for a special more environmental shot the FA31mm. Those three lenses shoot 100% of my portrait stuff; though the DA50-150 is very capable too. I would love to compare the new SDM55 to the FA77, but frankly can not imagine it being much better.<br /> <br /> Personally I don't feel the FA43 is quite long enough for portrait work. The FA 50mm is a nice lens, but does not have the rendering or bokeh of the FA limited's, If you want excellent versatility at a great price The Tamron covers the portrait range perfectly on an APSC camera. If you're looking for that little something extra in a special prime the FA77 delivers.</p>

<p>I typically use the DA* 16-50 for all portrait work. Since I am 100% mobile, I don't get to back up as much as I'd like because I'm working in someone else's real estate, but I try to keep it at the long end as much as I can. Even if I have to get wider than 35mm, it produces very little distortion. I have the 100mm f/2.8 macro, and it is great for many things, but for me it is way long on an APS-C sensor for portraits.</p>

<p>Where do you shoot? Outdoors? Then any of these will work great. Indoor studio? Then think it through carefully. Are you taking just head & shoulder or tight head shots? Full view? 3/4 view? 1/2 view (waist up)? Look at the type of shooting you are doing or plan on doing indoors. If you have a zoom that covers the prime lens candidates focal length, then mount it and set it at approximately 77mm and look at how much room is required for the type of work you want to do and then add another 10-15 feet or so (space between subject and background and you some space behind camera). Now ask the simple question: Do I have the room? No? then you need a wider angle lens. Its that simple. Hope that helps.<br>

Mel</p>

<p>The DA 70mm LTD is another gem. Somewhat less expensive than the 77mm.</p>

<p>The FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited is a fine portrait lens on either a DSLR or film body. It has an aperture ring for use on any camera, past or present. I have used it on both with great results. It is remarkably compact for its focal length and speed, and its build quality is superb.</p>

<p>The FA 43mm Limited complements it well for half body portraits and small group shots. Its build quality is also of ultra-premium craftsmanship.</p>

<p>I like more working distance from the subject than a 50mm affords. I prefer the 77mm & FA 135mm f2.8. I also like the results I get with the Sigma 70-200mm and A 35-105mm zooms.</p>

 

<p><a href="../photo/9367396"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9367396-sm.jpg" border="2" alt="" hspace="20" width="133" height="199" align="right" /></a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ok I have started looking for a portrait lens and thought I had it picked out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It all depends on your working distance. Working distance determines focal length. All lenses noted here (plus others like the DA 200mm f/2.8, FA 85mm f/1.4 or SigMa 30mm f/1.4) are excellently suited for portraiture. Personally, I don't like to be too far from my subjects so I use a regular <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=783085"><b>50mm</b></a> prime most of the time. It's lightweight, small and very inexpensive. However, for candid street portraiture I use a fast 200mm telephoto.</p>

<p>To answer your question, I think the DA*55/1.4 would have had a lot more appeal for many of us if it was priced much lower. I'm not aware of any particular flaws though so if you think that's the right focal length for you, and price isn't a concern, then go for it. I personally think that DA70/2.4 and FA43/1.9 make a great combo for these purposes. I'm sure that FA77 or DA40 are also good substitutes. For whatever reason, I've never loved 50mm or 35mm on digital. I'm personally actually more interested in a Voight 58/1.4 than the DA*55. I guess it's nicer to have weather-sealing than not but my personal opinion is that this has more value in an electronics-packed zoom with more moving parts which I perceive to be more vulnerable. From what I hear the SDM is OK on the 55 but not particularly faster than the screw-driven AF alternatives like FA50.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, Pentax has somewhat neglected the 85mm focal length when compared to Nikon & Canon. DA*55 represents Pentax's latest stab at matching the perspective of a classic fast film 85mm, a popular focal length historically for portraits. Historically, lenses from 100-135 were also very popular for portraiture so anything up to 90mm including the DA70 (105-e), FA77 (115-e), 85 (127.5-e), or Voight 90 (135-e) are all super choices. For 85's, there's no current Pentax issue. The only autofocus-for-Pentax 85 was the FA* 85/1.4, which must be purchased used and is hard to find and expensive once found. I imagine the price would likely be in the same ballpark as the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/520389-REG/Zeiss_1486_390_85mm_f_1_4_ZK_Planar.html">Zeiss ZK 85/1.4</a> , purchased brand new--manual focus, but with autoexposure. You can also buy a less costly brand new manual focus 85 (appeared last year) that will allow autoexposure--it is sold under a number of brands including <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/600854-REG/Vivitar_85MMP_85mm_f_1_4_Series_1.html">Vivitar</a> , <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/614839-REG/Bower_SLY85P_85mm_f_1_4_Manual_Focus.html">Bower</a> , Samyang, etc. There was also a Pentax-A* manual focus 85/1.4, also rare & expensive.</p>

<p>This leaves older K, M, and screwmount 85's which require stop-down metering on D-SLRs, though M42's can be used in Av mode with manual stopping down. Often these will be slightly slower, generally f/1.8, 1.9, or 2.0. One of the easier to find and least expensive would be the M85/2 which might be found for $250-350. The Takumars and the K85/1.8 tend to go for $350 and up. There's always a chance that a relative bargain might be found on e-bay, especially if one of these gets 'lost' in a package including a camera and/or other lenses.</p>

<p>There's no reason that longer lense can't be tried too, like 100mm macro or even film 135's...the <a href="http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/tele/M135f3.5.html">M135/3.5</a> is particularly easy to find and cheap, often goes for less than $50 in great condition. Probably not bad for outdoors work like you've been doing but I find the focal length and relatively long minimum focus distance a bit restrictive indoors. Any of these are capable of delivering some nice bokeh and selective focus--this tends to be easier to do with longer focal lengths--you don't necessarily need speed < f/2.8 to do it.</p>

<p>I don't think these are the very best examples but I had them handy--these were both taken with K85/1.8.</p>

<p>

<table border="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><a title="Are you going to leave me... by Captain Fannypack, on Flickr" href=" title="Are you going to leave me... by Captain Fannypack, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3524/3316923465_9b75802ec9_m.jpg" alt="Are you going to leave me..." width="240" height="160" /> </a></td>

<td><a title="Stella, late evening by Captain Fannypack, on Flickr" href=" title="Stella, late evening by Captain Fannypack, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3614/3406253624_009ebaa94b_m.jpg" alt="Stella, late evening" width="240" height="240" /> </a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</p>

<p>Focal lengths 70-90 can be very handy for head & shoulders shots with comfortable working distance; this is one reason I continue to use my FA24-90 a lot.</p>

<p>FA*85mm or A*85mm are available in used market like ebay. You can check Pentax Forum marketplace as well. These are costly (~$1000+) though. </p>

<p>Jordan,<br>

The only thing I have against the 55mm SDM is the size, esp with that lens hood. It's quite huge on the k10d. I got to play with it for awhile and while the usual features of sdm and weather sealing are nice, I could not get over the size of that thing on my k10 especially after having the FA50mm f/1.4 on it. I just love how compact that FA50 is, even though it's not a pancake. You really can't go wrong on this lens. <br>

If you soley want to do portraiture then the 77mm might be the way, but it is more expensive. I too had a 50mm-A f/2 and wanted to get autofocus feature b/c I was going to take some portraits for my friend's babyshower and I need a low light lens. I'm pleasantly surprised how this lens is now my main lens, as I take it everywhere. This is why I'm glad I didn't go above 50mm, as for everyday shooting it is a bit too telephoto. I do wish I did spring a extra couple of bucks for the macro 50mm though, as I enjoy taking food shots. Here are some shots with my FA50 that show what an all round lens it is become for me:<br>

<a title="Raleigh skyline by Shaloot, on Flickr" href=" title="Raleigh skyline by Shaloot, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3334/3645291052_50deca0dc2_m.jpg" alt="Raleigh skyline" width="240" height="137" /> </a><br>

<a title="Bloom by Shaloot, on Flickr" href=" title="Bloom by Shaloot, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3321/3639405459_660abed9e3_m.jpg" alt="Bloom" width="161" height="240" /> </a><br>

<a title="Banjo player by Shaloot, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/shaloot/3626102931/" title="Banjo player by Shaloot, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3588/3626102931_8f41e7cbd3_m.jpg" alt="Banjo player" width="240" height="161" /> </a><br>

<a title="juicy by Shaloot, on Flickr" href=" title="juicy by Shaloot, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3598/3609310940_eee12e351c_m.jpg" alt="juicy" width="161" height="240" /> </a><br>

<a title="Fire in the sky by Shaloot, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/shaloot/3595973391/" title="Fire in the sky by Shaloot, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3659/3595973391_bbc0524b91_m.jpg" alt="Fire in the sky" width="161" height="240" /> </a><br>

<a title="pleasant evening by Shaloot, on Flickr" href=" title="pleasant evening by Shaloot, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3659/3543811749_31c203d2da_m.jpg" alt="pleasant evening" width="161" height="240" /> </a></p>

<p>How about the FA135mm. All taken at F3.5 or F4</p>

<p><img src="http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/image/114104331/original.jpg" alt="" width="873" height="778" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/image/88880035/original.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Daniel, Toronto</p>