[filmamigo]

Having bought a DA 35/2.4, I can definitely recommend it for this purpose. It also focuses as close as 30cm, which means never having to back up from your subject (unless you want more of them in the frame!)

[Lowell Goudge]

Thanks, Lowell. Small apartment maybe much smaller then small house. Maybe portraiture wasn't appropriate word. Think of it as a snaps of people in small/crowded places where you can't have 4m of working distance between lens and ob object.

Also, don't forget that in real life 4.1 is just not enough cause your object is not flat and attached to wall. And there is a person behind lens too which also not flat and attached to wall. So, even with 4.1m distance you need much more working space which i just don't have.

No problem, and yes I do understand people are not flat 2 dimensional objects (at least until photographed)

Just wanted to give a few tips on guiding you in the right direction.

Many people like to offer their lens, as what you should get. I prefer to offer you the tools to figure out what you need, because it is easier to understand the practical limits, when you do a calculation. it shows just exactly what you can do. how you fill that need, could be a huge debate as there are many fine options around in the 28-40mm range.

[jolepp]

Thanks, Paperbag. I was checking A 28mm f2.8 but people complain about softness at wide open. I just need fast sharp lens for indoor work. If i had to stop down to f4 I will loose advantage of fast lens.

An indoor snap with the A 28mm 1:2.8 wide open.

[Black_ronin]

An indoor snap with the A 28mm 1:2.8 wide open.

Sharpness is ok. But this is resized and on monitor. Will it look sharp on A4 print?

[jolepp]

Sharpness is ok. But this is resized and on monitor. Will it look sharp on A4 print?

If a better resolution .JPG (or the orginal raw file) would help, PM me with an email address. The forum appears to downsize attachments quite a bit.

[paperbag846]

not to start a fight here, but we have beaten this to death many times. there is no such thing as a "true normal" each definition, i.e. the diagonal of the frame, or what ever other arguments there are that take it between 43mm and 57-58mm for a 35mm frame are simply different opinions.

You are likely correct . I suppose I am not using the term correctly... but by normal I mean the perspective I see with my eyes matches that of the viewfinder. I find that the proportions or dimensions of a scene do not change at all with a 28mm lens on ASP-C, rather, the scene is simply cropped to the size of the viewfinder. It is very natural... and good for indoor full body shots because of that fact.

----

I find the sharpness of the A 28 2.8 to be problematic wide open more because it is hard to manually focus at 28mm, rather than it being the optical properties of the lens. What I meant is that shots at 2.8 often look soft due to focusing errors, which are more likely than at focal lengths like 50mm in my experience. Of course, stopping down a bit is always helpful, so you might want to consider bouncing a flash off your roof .

That said, here is a 28mm shot, wide open:

Attachment 73863

And at 100%

Attachment 73864

Sorry... my friend is not the best model . Hopefully it shows, however, that wide open a sharp shot is possible... it just has a pretty thin DOF and can be tricky to manually focus.

If you are on a tight budget I can't really recommend it more... but I will say again that the DAL 35mm 2.4 looks mighty nice and will likely be joining the 28mm sooner rather than later .

[paperbag846]

Having bought a DA 35/2.4, I can definitely recommend it for this purpose. It also focuses as close as 30cm, which means never having to back up from your subject (unless you want more of them in the frame!)

Except at 30cm, would you not have pretty bad distortions for portraits? Don't get me wrong - the samples I have seen from this lens make it look very very appealing... just wondering how bad distortions are at this distance.

[Pentaxor]

from what it appears, the OP needs something like a DA21 or 24mm lens. believe me, even his cramped apartment won't be a problem when doing people shots. I'm sure the OP can find a cheap 24mm lens like the Kiron/Vivitar 24/2 or 20mm lens like the M20/4.

if not, he can either choose between the DA21 or the slightly cheaper Sigma 10-20. with the Sigma 10-20, he can have the versatility of an ultrawide if he's into it. but the DA21 is enough to do the job for most occasions.

[Clicker]

You have an 18-55 just learn to bounce your flash with a diffuser.

btw i wouldn't be shooting groups wide open .

[Pentaxor]

You have an 18-55 just learn to bounce your flash with a diffuser.

btw i wouldn't be shooting groups wide open .

I think the OP wanted something better than the kitlens. not saying that the kitlens is bad or can't do the job, but if he wants spending on something better, it's not that bad at all.

[paperbag846]

I think the OP wanted something better than the kitlens. not saying that the kitlens is bad or can't do the job, but if he wants spending on something better, it's not that bad at all.

The kit lens is not bad, and not great. I noticed a huge jump in quality moving from the kit to the not-particularly special 28 2.8... and an even bigger jump with the A 50 1.7. I'm sure his experiences with the 50mm have taught him what to expect from a lens .

[m42man]

Sorry to be negative here, but I'm not sure there exists a solution for ALL your needs, Black_ronin.

What you're saying (I think) is that you need to capture groups (sometimes) in very low-light conditions, and also be able to shoot single-subject full-body shots with acceptable portrayal of depth.

So, for groups you're implying quite a wide-angle lens, but shot with sufficiently narrow aperture to satisfy the DOF requirement. Also it would need to be autofocus, because I don't believe anyone can focus a wide-angle lens accurately enough in low light (unless maybe using Live View or a split-prism focusing screen???). So, even for a K-x, you'd be using fairly low shutter speeds and/or relatively high ISOs. Mind you, don't forget that SR can be very effective, so as long as your subjects are fairly static, you're probably OK.

For full-body shots, you don't want to be using quite such a wide-angle lens, otherwise the subject will end up with a large nose! So, a zoom lens is indicated.

What I'm saying here, really, is that in my opinion, you should forget about a "fast" MF prime, and instead go for the opposite - a slower AF zoom. If it was me, I think I'd go out and buy a DA 16-45 f4 (it has, I believe, very decent IQ, even at wide settings and wide-open). Or instead, how about a decent flash, and use the 18-55 stopped down a bit? Especially if there's going to be a lot of movement.

However, if you've really got your heart set on a fast prime, the DA-L 35mm f2.4 suggestion may turn out OK (but I doubt it would be wide enough).

[tentacles]

I'd think that if he was to consider an AF zoom then the tamron 17-50 f2.8 would be a better choice than the DA16-45 f4 - the tamron is known to be sharper and the extra stop is very useful, though you do lose ~1mm on the wide end. But he has budget limitations - if a $200 DAL35 is too much then the zooms we're mentioning are way outta the question for him right now.

[audiobomber]

I'd think that if he was to consider an AF zoom then the tamron 17-50 f2.8 would be a better choice than the DA16-45 f4 - the tamron is known to be sharper

I haven't heard that. Do you have a link to comparable reviews? The 16-45 is a very sharp lens, as sharp as a lot of primes. Not what I'd consider an indoor lens though, not without a flash.

[Nick Siebers]

There are the older Sigma Mini-wide (28mm) and Super-wide (24mm). Both f/2.8, both can be found with A contacts (Marked "II"). Also can be found in AF, but cost more. I have one of each, and really like them.

Sigma also makes newer 24 and 28mm lenses that are fast = f/1.8, but they are big and heavy. I prefer the mini-wide to a version II 28/1.8.