[ruuuud]

Hej!
Jag har en Pentax K-5 och skulle vilja inskaffa mig ett nytt objektiv för porträttfotografering, landskap m.m. Undrar om någon har något tips om vilket objektiv som skulle passa bäst och samtidigt inte vara så dyr?

Jag har tittat på:
Pentax SMC-FA 50/1,4 (kostar runt 4.000kr)
Pentax SMC-DA 35/2,4 AL (Kostar runt 2.000kr)
Om det är någon som har dessa objektiv så kan ni gärna skriva och säga vad ni tycker om dom, annars om ni har något annat tips om andra objektiv kommentera gärna!

[Ash]

ruud, welcome to the forum.
Firstly, I can suggest that you utilise the forum's Pentax Reviews - Pentax Lens Reviews & Pentax Lens Database section for general advice on the lenses of your choices. There are also Pentax Lens Reviews | Pentax in-depth reviews | PentaxForums.com for further knowledge of Pentax lenses.

Secondly, the lenses you listed above are good for some portraiture, but not very much in the way of landscape photography. They're not wide enough. If you do not already have the 18-55 kit lens, you could consider that one for starters as it is very cheap (but not bad in terms of quality). However, a step up from that lens for landscapes is the DA 16-45, which is also not very expensive, but a substantial increase in image quality. If you are more interested in prime lenses, then you will need to invest more into a wide landscape lens such as the DA 15 or DA 21.

Portraiture is another story. The FA 50 may do you well overall, but the DA 35/2.4 is a cheaper alternative and I think at least as impressive as the FA 50 at all apertures. It's a matter of knowing what your preference is in focal length. Tighter crops of head and shoulders means an FA 50 would be better suited to you than the DA 35, but full body portraiture will be easier with the DA 35. If you would also consider manual focus lenses, then there are a number of cheaper possibilities in the 50mm range of M or A lenses - it's just a matter of finding one. The forum's marketplace can be a good place to look for one of these.

All the best in that.

[ruuuud]

Tack så mycket för ditt svar, ska kolla upp hemsidorna du länkade

[Metalwizards]

35 will give you portraits with distorted features. You might want to consider the 55-300mm lens, as in the 75-100mm range it is a portrait master. 75-100 seems to be the ideal focal length for portraits.

[yusuf]

FA50mm is a wonderful lens at affordable cost.

[robgo2]

If you are looking for a single lens that would be suitable both for portraiture and landscapes, then you most likely are going need a zoom. The DA*16-50/2.8 is weather resistant and is very good optically, with the exception of distortion and chromatic aberration wide open near 16mm. These defects are easily correctible in post-processing. It has been my main lens for the past two years, and I highly recommend it. Lots of people like the Sigma 17-70, but I have no personal experience with it.

If you are willing to consider two prime lenses, good choices would be the DA*55/1.4 for portraits and either the DA21 or DA15 for landscapes. Of course, there is no law that says you cannot use any focal length for any purpose. I shoot many landscapes at 50mm or longer and many portraits at 31mm or shorter. A single prime lens that can serve multiple purposes is the legendary FA31--expensive, but worth every penny, if it is within your budget. Be warned: Once you get the FA Limited bug, it is virtually incurable.

Hope that this helps you with your thinking.

Rob

[bilybianca]

Hi Ruuuud!
I'd recommend you to start with the kit lens (18-55mm), to see what focal lengthts you like to use. There are just soooo many lenses to help you spend soooo much money, if you don't restrict yourself to what you actually need. If you send me a private message or join the Swedish Pentaxians group on this forum we can discuss this in detail in Swedish.

Kjell

[Marc Sabatella]

But I'd observe that whiel the kit lens has a good range of focal lengths for landscape, it only barely touchs on the lower end of the portrait range. So a telephoto zoom to complement it would be the obviosu choice. A cheap one perhaps to get a feel for what focal length(s) you really like, then cnsider spending the $$$ on a really good lens or lenses at the focallength where you feel you'll get the most use.

Had an interesting experience shooting with the 18-55 - a lens I don't use very often - today. I've long known that I tend to use it at certain focal lengths more than others, and that has influenced my choice of which prime lenses to buy. Virtually every shot I took with it today confirms my choices. I used it a bunch at 18 and would have gone wider if I could. I used it a bunch within a couple of mm of 28mm and a bunch within a couple of mm of 40 mm. I used at 55mm just for quasi-macro shots.

[Piotr]

Hej!
Jag har en Pentax K-5 och skulle vilja inskaffa mig ett nytt objektiv för porträttfotografering, landskap m.m. Undrar om någon har något tips om vilket objektiv som skulle passa bäst och samtidigt inte vara så dyr?

Jag har tittat på:
Pentax SMC-FA 50/1,4 (kostar runt 4.000kr)
Pentax SMC-DA 35/2,4 AL (Kostar runt 2.000kr)
Om det är någon som har dessa objektiv så kan ni gärna skriva och säga vad ni tycker om dom, annars om ni har något annat tips om andra objektiv kommentera gärna!

My vote is for FA 50/1.4.
Very good lens and not so expensive.
If you want to take portraits 50mm is more convinient.

[Tonto]

+1 for FA 50 1.4 (portraits) and DA 16-45 (landscapes, group portraits)

I missed picking up the DA 16-45 when I got my K7 and regretted it ever since as it is a great range for travel aswell as light and pretty cheap too. If you get the ultra wide bug then grab a DA14 or sigma 8-16 or 10-20 later on.

I feel a zoom is best at the wide end as there is larger 'leaps' as FL gets wider and aperture is less of an issue as you tend to stop down for a large DOF anyways.

[RioRico]

What do you mean by 'portrait'? If you mean snapshots of moving people, the FA50/1.4 is great. If you mean more formal portraits, then autofocus is not needed, and an A50/1.7 is superb. Nor is autofocus needed for landscapes, as most landscapes tend not to move very fast -- except in earthquake country! Still, the DA16-45 is a good landscape lens.

[m42man]

It's been said before on this forum (often by me!), that the best perspective for a realistic portrait is obtained by shooting from about 3-4 feet. Now, if you're happy being this close, you'll need to use a focal length which will give you the required framing: for head and shoulders this would mean about 50mm, but if you want to get more of the body in the frame you'll need something wider.

But you can't go too wide, really, because you'll run into problems with lens distortion; the solution is to use something slightly wider and use your feet to move away from the subject.

The bottom line is that 35mm is fine for shots which contain more of the body than head and shoulders, but you'll need a 50 for the head and shoulders shots.

All this assumes you're trying to get the best perspective for the portrait. However, you may not want to be so close to your subject, in which case you'll need a longer lens - this is perhaps why lenses in the 75+mm are sometimes mentioned. Personally though, I would say that 75mm is too long for any portrait other than a head and shoulders shot.

On the subject of lens speed, do note that you can't make use of wide apertures if you're shooting tightly-framed portraits: for a head and shoulders shot from 3 feet, you'll need to be at f4 in order to get the requisite depth of field. However, for more distant loosely-framed shots you're probably OK wide open.

Regarding landscapes, usually you'll be operating with a fairly short focal length lens - but you'll need to get a feel for this. So, I would echo the advice about making use of your kit 18-55 to find out your favourite FLs. Ditto for portraits, actually! Make use of your kit lens!