Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-20-2010, 09:10 PM   #31
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
just my $0.02
Make that a dollar.

09-20-2010, 10:00 PM   #32
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 113
can someone compare tamron 90 and sigma 105?

the first one is universally praised, and the second one is longer (plus for me) and has less CA according to photozone.de. But is sigma really better?

100WR is also an option (a bit more expensive though) but it has very bad resolution at large apertures which is bad for macro.

Did anyone measure the distance between front element sans hood (I mean physical, not lens which is retracted) to minimum subject distance in 1:1 mode? Which is farther?
09-20-2010, 10:56 PM   #33
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by olenl Quote
But is sigma really better?
Why should it not be? I've heard nothing but praise for it as well.
These shots from a "Sigma 105mm EX DG or Tamron 90mm Di or Canon EF 100mm f/2.8" comparison thread" look "alright" to me.

QuoteOriginally posted by olenl Quote
100WR is also an option (a bit more expensive though) but it has very bad resolution at large apertures which is bad for macro.
Not sure about the "bad resolution"but in any event you cannot shoot true macro shots at wide apertures. Unless you considerably stop the lens down (>f/8) the DOF will be just too thin for most shots involving 3D objects.

QuoteOriginally posted by olenl Quote
Which is farther?
Do you mean comparing the Tamron 90 and Sigma 105?
Have you tried to google for that information? Make sure you are comparing the same measurements. Sometimes there is a confusion about "minimum focusing distance" which is measured from the sensor and "stand-off distance" which is measured from the front lens element. I'd be surprised if the Sigma didn't have the higher stand-off distance.
09-20-2010, 11:37 PM   #34
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 113
QuoteQuote:
Not sure about the "bad resolution"but in any event you cannot shoot true macro shots at wide apertures. Unless you considerably stop the lens down (>f/8) the DOF will be just too thin for most shots involving 3D objects.

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1189771#ixzz108x4Hxaq

Sorry, I meant large aperture numbers meaning f/16 and above. photozone review shows considerably worse resolution for D-FA, although it's not a WR but I assume it's about the same optically?


09-21-2010, 12:12 AM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oz
Posts: 408
I do lots of portrait shots of my family and friends.As long as they're over the age of 5 I whip out my 50mm or 135mm manual focus.I only use my af da21 with children under 5.You can then get right up to their face not having to worry about personal space
09-21-2010, 03:22 AM   #36
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
An AF portrait lens may be of more general use, but true macro work is usially so deliberate, and focus is so difficult to achieve with AF because the camera is NOT looking necessairly at what you want to be in focus, that AF is not worth it.
Indeed. I'd even extend that. In both macro and formal portrait work, where the photographer has control over positions and lighting, both SR and AF are unneeded or even counter-productive. SR, because you're probably tripodded. AF, because where the CAMERA wants to focus may not be where YOU want to focus.

Beyond that, there are often such differences in the goals of portrait and macro work, that it's almost contradictory to tie them together with the same lens. Yes, I *can* use my Vivitar-Komine 90/2.8 macro for sharp macros, and strong portraits, and general short-tele shooting, although at 470g it's a bit more to lug around than the nearby Nikkor 85/2 (300g) or Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8 (260g) which are also good portrait and general lenses. But much portraiture is MEANT to look quite different from most macro work. And we have different interactions with the subjects, heh.
09-21-2010, 03:53 AM   #37
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Make that a dollar.
I guess that is what inflation is doing to one of my favorite idioms

Riorico

The main reason I thought AF for portrait is that if you are in the 70-105 mm range this is pushing you to outside work and also informal or candid shots. In that environment AF can be a benifit. I agree true portraits are just as static as macro, but the 70-105 mm lens may get used for a lot more than that
09-21-2010, 12:32 PM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oz
Posts: 408
Lowell,
That's what I was getting at. I just can't get good results with an AF lens doing portraits. What if one eye is slightly lower than the other? I'd need to make the far eye just the right amount blurred while the other eye sharp.AF isn't that smart!

09-21-2010, 02:35 PM   #39
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
The main reason I thought AF for portrait is that if you are in the 70-105 mm range this is pushing you to outside work and also informal or candid shots. In that environment AF can be a benifit. I agree true portraits are just as static as macro, but the 70-105 mm lens may get used for a lot more than that
And that's why I stipulated 'formal' portraits. As I've mentioned before, back when photpgraphy was my job I shot many (un)official formal portraits. I used 6x6, 135/FF and 135/HF cameras, and preferred 80mm for all. Outdoors and with informal and grab shots, AF and SR are great, even necessary. That's one reason the DA18-250 is still my most-used lens.

I think we have a nomenclature problem. (This damn Anglish language!) Portraiture (from portrayal) used to solely indicate a person "sitting for a portrait" and it was indeed a formal proceeding. (Not to be confused with literary 'portraits' or profiles.) And of course there are sketch portraits or caricatures, still a mainstay of some street artists. But on these forums and elsewhere, we now refer to any image of a persona as a portrait. Snapshots with and without faces, with and without persons. We can shoot formal portraits of hands, of dogs, of houses, of plants. Good flower shots are floral portraits. Setting one's naked arse on a photocopier is a retro-portrait, eh? An audio presentation may be a sound portrait. Any medium that portrays a persona is a portrait. Et cetera.

Thus, problems of discussing 'portrait' lenses. I prefer to speak of those lenses that are most applicable for formal portraits in controlled conditions. Other forms of 'portraiture' are really general photography, IMHO. But we don't have strict definitions, so we can chatter however we want without worrying about meaning or the lack thereof. My Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye, Macro-Takumar 50/4 v1, Schneider Betavaron 50-125 enlarger zoom, and Enna 240/4.5 can all make fine portrayals. For portraiture at a Mafiya funeral, I'd use my 1000mm cat from a safe distance, u-betcha. But 80mm still rocks for PORTRAITS.

Last edited by RioRico; 09-21-2010 at 07:28 PM. Reason: fixup
09-21-2010, 04:44 PM   #40
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
RioRico

Theonly safe use of a 1000mm lens at a mafia funeral is when there is an equal capability rifle and shooter behind both

With respect to formal portraits controlled subject and I assume I can set the setting, I would opt for my SMC 135f2.5

If limited in space it would be a toss up between 105mm and 85 mm and I would go with which ever worked within the space opting to stay with the longest. But, thats just me
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, length, lens, macro, pentax lens, portraits, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best COMBO Macro AND Portrait Lens(es)? PentaxForums-User Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 06-18-2009 05:31 AM
My first portrait, and a macro at that jamonation Post Your Photos! 4 08-16-2008 07:18 AM
Portrait Lens and Macro metalfab Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 05-15-2008 12:12 AM
Ring Flash for Macro and Portrait? zenzenyoyo Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 11-28-2007 12:06 AM
Pentax FA 50mm f1.4 for Portrait & Macro ? Rodney9 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 0 06-18-2007 02:55 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:29 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top