Best used portrait lens wide open?

robgo2 · 04-10-2011, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by paperbag846

If you want the sharpest at lower apertures I'd wager you can't do better than the FA 43..

I agree completely. If you have done a proper AF lens calibration, the FA43/1.9 will amaze you with its center sharpness at f1.9. It is definitely sharper wide open than the FA31/1.8.

I tried multiple copies of the DA*55/1.4, which I wanted to use for portraits, but could not find one that could focus accurately and consistently. However, even when it did manage to hit the correct focus point, I got the feeling that it was very soft and low contrast wide open. It was better at f2 but still not as sharp as the FA 43.

The real question regarding the FA43 is whether it is a focal length that you want to use for portraits. Given that I have taken many great portraits with the FA31, I see no reason why the FA43 should not serve that purpose very nicely. Its focal length is equivalent to 65mm in 35mm format, which is not quite the classic 75-85mm for portraiture, but close enough for my work. I also have the FA77 for when I want tighter shots of faces, but most of the time the 43 should be great. Some people say that it is too sharp for portraits, but I do not subscribe to that theory.

Rob

Last edited by robgo2; 04-10-2011 at 11:11 AM.

Spotmatic · 04-10-2011, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by lguckert79

this i have found to be false you can use a macro lens for portraits and they do work really good in my opinion but, in my suggestion i use a old pentax 50mm f2 A lens u can get them pretty cheap to from like 20-50 usd

Yes, a macro can be used for portraits. They are especially good when you want every pimple and nasal hair sharp as a tack. Women really like that look.

I would get the suggested 50 f2.0 and a soft focus filter. You can use saran wrap
over the lens held in place with a rubber band too.

robgo2 · 04-10-2011, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Spotmatic

Yes, a macro can be used for portraits. They are especially good when you want every pimple and nasal hair sharp as a tack. Women really like that look.

I would get the suggested 50 f2.0 and a soft focus filter. You can use saran wrap
over the lens held in place with a rubber band too.

It is so simple to soften focus digitally, and with such great control, that I can see no reason to use a softening filter (if that effect is desired.) In Color Efex Pro, one can use either the Dynamic Skin Softener, Glamor Glow or Classic Soft Focus filter, and each can be brushed in locally to the exact areas where the effects are needed.

Rob

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Some wide open Tulips	JeffJS	Post Your Photos!	6	04-18-2010 07:37 AM
Landscape Wide Open Garden	rustynail925	Post Your Photos!	2	03-09-2010 08:22 AM
77/1.8 wide open...	igor	Post Your Photos!	14	08-17-2009 05:36 AM
F- 50mm 1.7 Wide Open	bwield	Post Your Photos!	2	07-08-2009 12:46 PM
Pet portrait w/ 77mm wide open	ltdstar	Post Your Photos!	1	06-27-2009 03:00 AM

04-10-2011, 10:46 AM	#31
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by paperbag846 If you want the sharpest at lower apertures I'd wager you can't do better than the FA 43.. I agree completely. If you have done a proper AF lens calibration, the FA43/1.9 will amaze you with its center sharpness at f1.9. It is definitely sharper wide open than the FA31/1.8. I tried multiple copies of the DA55/1.4, which I wanted to use for portraits, but could not find one that could focus accurately and consistently. However, even when it did manage to hit the correct focus point, I got the feeling that it was very soft and low contrast wide open. It was better at f2 but still not as sharp as the FA 43. The real question regarding the FA43 is whether it is a focal length that you want to use for portraits. Given that I have taken many great portraits with the FA31, I see no reason why the FA43 should not serve that purpose very nicely. Its focal length is equivalent to 65mm in 35mm format, which is not quite the classic 75-85mm for portraiture, but close enough for my work. I also have the FA77 for when I want tighter shots of faces, but most of the time the 43 should be great. Some people say that it is too sharp for portraits, but I do not subscribe to that theory. Rob Last edited by robgo2; 04-10-2011 at 11:11 AM.*

04-10-2011, 11:29 AM	#32
Spotmatic Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ft. Myers Florida Posts: 169	Originally posted by lguckert79 this i have found to be false you can use a macro lens for portraits and they do work really good in my opinion but, in my suggestion i use a old pentax 50mm f2 A lens u can get them pretty cheap to from like 20-50 usd Yes, a macro can be used for portraits. They are especially good when you want every pimple and nasal hair sharp as a tack. Women really like that look. I would get the suggested 50 f2.0 and a soft focus filter. You can use saran wrap over the lens held in place with a rubber band too.

04-10-2011, 11:45 AM	#33
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by Spotmatic Yes, a macro can be used for portraits. They are especially good when you want every pimple and nasal hair sharp as a tack. Women really like that look. I would get the suggested 50 f2.0 and a soft focus filter. You can use saran wrap over the lens held in place with a rubber band too. It is so simple to soften focus digitally, and with such great control, that I can see no reason to use a softening filter (if that effect is desired.) In Color Efex Pro, one can use either the Dynamic Skin Softener, Glamor Glow or Classic Soft Focus filter, and each can be brushed in locally to the exact areas where the effects are needed. Rob