HELP a portrait photog choose her next lens!!!

DogLover · 08-02-2010, 03:08 PM

The 31 is a fine lens, but portrait work is really not it's forte'. The FA77 Ltd. however, excels at portraiture. It has uniquely beautiful rendering that will give your work a potential leg-up on your competition. And it can be had new for less than what a 31 will cost used. Just my opinion.

builttospill · 08-02-2010, 03:30 PM

I agree with the above comments from the last few posts, but I didn't suggest the 77 or 85 because she already has the 90 and the 31 would fit in nicely with the 50 and 90.

ManhattanProject · 08-02-2010, 03:41 PM

Those DA* f/2.8 zooms are hard to resist (I know... because I failed) when you consider they have stellar optical quality and are weather sealed to boot. I really think you'd be quite happy with either, it's nice to replace the kit lens with the 16-50 or just have a great portrait zoom in the 50-135.

Ira · 08-02-2010, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by builttospill

I agree with the above comments from the last few posts, but I didn't suggest the 77 or 85 because she already has the 90 and the 31 would fit in nicely with the 50 and 90.

THAT makes total sense now that you've explained it this way!

mel · 08-02-2010, 03:59 PM

I use the 50-135 for a lot of portrait work and the 16-50, mainly at the 40-50 range to a lesser extent, when I want more of the subject in the shot, or when I can't get far enough away for the longer min. focusing distance needed for the 50-135.

jimH · 08-02-2010, 04:21 PM

I have a Tamron 17-50 f 2.8 that I like a lot, although it my not have enough length for your purposes. It works nice for group shots because of the wide, but you might like something that gets out to 80mm or some such thing on the long end. I do like the quality of my Tamron though.

A local portrait photographer uses several Tamron 28-80 f3.5-5.6 hooked up to several Pentax Kx cameras in her studio to photograph children. I've seen some of her work and it looks great. She also uses several soft-box type strobe lighting units triggered with radio triggers on each unit, so she has plenty of light.

Edit: If you want more speed the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 might be an excellent choice, in my mind it would nicely fit your situation.

RioRico · 08-02-2010, 04:45 PM

I'm confused; your current kit covers the portrait range pretty well.

Originally posted by Mom2Gage

Im craving a new lens!

Oh, so it's a craving now, is it? Ok, *that* I can understand.

Ah, you say you want sharpness and speed, and maybe a fisheye. But do you want near or far, new or old, flexible or fixed? (I have an Industar-58U 75/3.5 enlarger lens set in a black horn, with focus fixed at 1.5m, perfect for rather close facials.) For a fast sharp cheap manual fisheye, try the Zenitar 16/2.8 for under US$200. For a different feel than the FA50/1.4, try a fast sharp cheap manual Helios-44 58/2 for under US$30. For razor-thin DOF, try a not-so-cheap ultra-fast manual Helios-40 85/1.5. (You can also reduce DOF with a #1 or #2 diopter close-up meniscus.)

For a Holga look, splice a plastic OPTICAL LENS 50 f/5.6 (salvaged from a thrift-shop Diana or whatever) onto a focusing helicoid -- oops, no sharpness or speed there, sorry. Ok, for brutal sharpness and weird handling, try a Schneider Betavaron 50-125 zoom (on ~30mm extension) for ~US$75. For legendary IQ and sharpness, try a cheap fast manual Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5 for under US$50. For a glowing-halo effect, get any dirt-cheap 50-55/2 and carefully crack/scratch the front. For really sharp imagery, get a manual Macro-Takumar 50/4 for ~US$100. Et cetera.

**Lowell Goudge** · 08-02-2010, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Ira

Lowell, I'm TOTALLY confused:

Who the heck would use a 31 for portraits, or for that matter, choose a zoom over a prime?

that's my point exactly,. although from the ASP-C point of view that is like a 50mm lens, but I would go longer to get more flattering images personally.

that's why I asked.

Note I suggested an 85mm F1.4.

also for those who propose the 50-135F2.8 I would want more control of DOF , and 2 additional stops of the 85 get that

Mom2Gage · 08-02-2010, 07:32 PM

Hmm... 31mm is awfully close but I do a ton of newborns, so maybe that's why it sparked my interest. A lot of my work is done so close that you hardly see the background at all.

I find the range with my kit lens (18-55mm) works ok when I do small family shots which happens much more often than large group shots, it's the poor image quality that drives me nuts. Maybe thats the route I want to go down...

BUT I only have the one prime, and I sure do love her. The 77mm or an 85mm interests me too...

Yet I have no wide angle lens...

BAH! I don't know!!!

ManhattanProject · 08-02-2010, 07:41 PM

I dont know what your budget is, but it sound like you want a DA* 16-50. Unless you really want to go wide... like 8-16 wide

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 08-02-2010, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Ira

I don't think the specifics of your question are all that clear.

Your Tamron is fine for portraits, as well as your fast 50.

Ira is right. Are you sure you have examined your current lenses fully with regards to portraits? A 50/1.4 and the Tamron 90/2.8 should both be good for portraits. Unless you have money burning in your pockets of course, or have cought LBA? Then you could fill the gap between them with the DA70ltd or FA77ltd.

paperbag846 · 08-02-2010, 08:20 PM

If your 50 1.4 is not doing it for you, my first thought would be the smc PENTAX FA 77mm F1.8 Limited, which I wish I could buy

hangu · 08-02-2010, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Ira

Lowell, I'm TOTALLY confused:

Who the heck would use a 31 for portraits, or for that matter, choose a zoom over a prime?

This isn't 20 years ago, when zooms were clearly inferior to primes. Except for speed, zooms aren't any worse than primes nowadays.

I'm also in disagreement over wide angles being bad for portraits. They're just different. Wide angles can be very good portrait lenses in certain situations.

Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden

Ira is right. Are you sure you have examined your current lenses fully with regards to portraits? A 50/1.4 and the Tamron 90/2.8 should both be good for portraits. Unless you have money burning in your pockets of course, or have cought LBA? Then you could fill the gap between them with the DA70ltd or FA77ltd.

I agree fully with you and Ira. The Tamron 90mm macro and 50 f1.4 make excellent portrait lenses.

MadAmos · 08-02-2010, 10:28 PM

I've been reading Scott Kelby's books and recently read through the recommendations on weddings. So I thought I'd chime in with a question. Do you have a backup body, flash etc...? If you don't, you may want to get that before you get more lenses. That will give you redundancy in a failure situation and you won't have to swap lenses, you just grab the other body you've got slung.

Otherwise I have to agree that I've heard nothing but good about the 50-135 2.8.

Pentaxor · 08-03-2010, 02:51 AM

I believe the OP will be fine with the 90mm. and there's no point in getting a 77mm or 85mm unless the OP want to fill the gap or want something faster or much prefer using a 77mm focal length, speed and it's rendering. also the OP got a 50/1.4.

so the only thing to go for IMO, is either the FA31 or Sigma 30.

08-02-2010, 04:21 PM	#21
jimH Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: South Central Nebraska - USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,771	I have a Tamron 17-50 f 2.8 that I like a lot, although it my not have enough length for your purposes. It works nice for group shots because of the wide, but you might like something that gets out to 80mm or some such thing on the long end. I do like the quality of my Tamron though. A local portrait photographer uses several Tamron 28-80 f3.5-5.6 hooked up to several Pentax Kx cameras in her studio to photograph children. I've seen some of her work and it looks great. She also uses several soft-box type strobe lighting units triggered with radio triggers on each unit, so she has plenty of light. Edit: If you want more speed the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 might be an excellent choice, in my mind it would nicely fit your situation. Last edited by jimH; 08-02-2010 at 04:29 PM.

08-02-2010, 08:52 PM	#28
hangu Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: NYC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,071	Originally posted by Ira Lowell, I'm TOTALLY confused: Who the heck would use a 31 for portraits, or for that matter, choose a zoom over a prime? This isn't 20 years ago, when zooms were clearly inferior to primes. Except for speed, zooms aren't any worse than primes nowadays. I'm also in disagreement over wide angles being bad for portraits. They're just different. Wide angles can be very good portrait lenses in certain situations. Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Ira is right. Are you sure you have examined your current lenses fully with regards to portraits? A 50/1.4 and the Tamron 90/2.8 should both be good for portraits. Unless you have money burning in your pockets of course, or have cought LBA? Then you could fill the gap between them with the DA70ltd or FA77ltd. I agree fully with you and Ira. The Tamron 90mm macro and 50 f1.4 make excellent portrait lenses. Last edited by hangu; 08-02-2010 at 08:58 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What do you say as a working photog to people who say its the photog, not the gear?	Reportage	General Talk	56	05-23-2010 08:12 AM
Wedding Photog Lens	hinman	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	10-01-2008 07:03 PM
Help me choose my new lens...	bluebronco	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	07-08-2008 06:44 PM
Choose my new lens...	bluebronco	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	07-08-2008 05:46 PM
Help Choose which bride portrait!!	Truax_photo	Post Your Photos!	10	07-02-2008 01:34 AM

08-02-2010, 03:08 PM	#16
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	The 31 is a fine lens, but portrait work is really not it's forte'. The FA77 Ltd. however, excels at portraiture. It has uniquely beautiful rendering that will give your work a potential leg-up on your competition. And it can be had new for less than what a 31 will cost used. Just my opinion.

08-02-2010, 03:30 PM	#17
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	I agree with the above comments from the last few posts, but I didn't suggest the 77 or 85 because she already has the 90 and the 31 would fit in nicely with the 50 and 90.

08-02-2010, 03:41 PM	#18
ManhattanProject Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 221	Those DA* f/2.8 zooms are hard to resist (I know... because I failed) when you consider they have stellar optical quality and are weather sealed to boot. I really think you'd be quite happy with either, it's nice to replace the kit lens with the 16-50 or just have a great portrait zoom in the 50-135.

08-02-2010, 03:47 PM	#19
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Originally posted by builttospill I agree with the above comments from the last few posts, but I didn't suggest the 77 or 85 because she already has the 90 and the 31 would fit in nicely with the 50 and 90. THAT makes total sense now that you've explained it this way!

08-02-2010, 03:59 PM	#20
mel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,531	I use the 50-135 for a lot of portrait work and the 16-50, mainly at the 40-50 range to a lesser extent, when I want more of the subject in the shot, or when I can't get far enough away for the longer min. focusing distance needed for the 50-135.

08-02-2010, 04:45 PM	#22
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I'm confused; your current kit covers the portrait range pretty well. Originally posted by Mom2Gage Im craving a new lens! Oh, so it's a craving now, is it? Ok, that I can understand. Ah, you say you want sharpness and speed, and maybe a fisheye. But do you want near or far, new or old, flexible or fixed? (I have an Industar-58U 75/3.5 enlarger lens set in a black horn, with focus fixed at 1.5m, perfect for rather close facials.) For a fast sharp cheap manual fisheye, try the Zenitar 16/2.8 for under US$200. For a different feel than the FA50/1.4, try a fast sharp cheap manual Helios-44 58/2 for under US$30. For razor-thin DOF, try a not-so-cheap ultra-fast manual Helios-40 85/1.5. (You can also reduce DOF with a #1 or #2 diopter close-up meniscus.) For a Holga look, splice a plastic OPTICAL LENS 50 f/5.6 (salvaged from a thrift-shop Diana or whatever) onto a focusing helicoid -- oops, no sharpness or speed there, sorry. Ok, for brutal sharpness and weird handling, try a Schneider Betavaron 50-125 zoom (on ~30mm extension) for ~US$75. For legendary IQ and sharpness, try a cheap fast manual Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5 for under US$50. For a glowing-halo effect, get any dirt-cheap 50-55/2 and carefully crack/scratch the front. For really sharp imagery, get a manual Macro-Takumar 50/4 for ~US$100. Et cetera.

08-02-2010, 05:19 PM	#23
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by Ira Lowell, I'm TOTALLY confused: Who the heck would use a 31 for portraits, or for that matter, choose a zoom over a prime? that's my point exactly,. although from the ASP-C point of view that is like a 50mm lens, but I would go longer to get more flattering images personally. that's why I asked. Note I suggested an 85mm F1.4. also for those who propose the 50-135F2.8 I would want more control of DOF , and 2 additional stops of the 85 get that

08-02-2010, 07:32 PM	#24
Mom2Gage New Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Belleville, IL Posts: 21 Original Poster	Hmm... 31mm is awfully close but I do a ton of newborns, so maybe that's why it sparked my interest. A lot of my work is done so close that you hardly see the background at all. I find the range with my kit lens (18-55mm) works ok when I do small family shots which happens much more often than large group shots, it's the poor image quality that drives me nuts. Maybe thats the route I want to go down... BUT I only have the one prime, and I sure do love her. The 77mm or an 85mm interests me too... Yet I have no wide angle lens... BAH! I don't know!!!

08-02-2010, 07:41 PM	#25
ManhattanProject Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 221	I dont know what your budget is, but it sound like you want a DA* 16-50. Unless you really want to go wide... like 8-16 wide

08-02-2010, 07:54 PM	#26
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374	Originally posted by Ira I don't think the specifics of your question are all that clear. Your Tamron is fine for portraits, as well as your fast 50. Ira is right. Are you sure you have examined your current lenses fully with regards to portraits? A 50/1.4 and the Tamron 90/2.8 should both be good for portraits. Unless you have money burning in your pockets of course, or have cought LBA? Then you could fill the gap between them with the DA70ltd or FA77ltd.

08-02-2010, 08:20 PM	#27
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	If your 50 1.4 is not doing it for you, my first thought would be the smc PENTAX FA 77mm F1.8 Limited, which I wish I could buy

08-02-2010, 10:28 PM	#29
MadAmos Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 50	I've been reading Scott Kelby's books and recently read through the recommendations on weddings. So I thought I'd chime in with a question. Do you have a backup body, flash etc...? If you don't, you may want to get that before you get more lenses. That will give you redundancy in a failure situation and you won't have to swap lenses, you just grab the other body you've got slung. Otherwise I have to agree that I've heard nothing but good about the 50-135 2.8.

08-03-2010, 02:51 AM	#30
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	I believe the OP will be fine with the 90mm. and there's no point in getting a 77mm or 85mm unless the OP want to fill the gap or want something faster or much prefer using a 77mm focal length, speed and it's rendering. also the OP got a 50/1.4. so the only thing to go for IMO, is either the FA31 or Sigma 30.