[Don From The Radio]

The Pentax DA* 55 is close to that range. I think mine was 700ish. Excellent lens.

[Soap]

The DA70 and the FA43 are doing that job splendidly for me....
DA70 is just perfectly sharp and gives nice head and shoulder shots and the colour rendering on the FA43 is just....breathtaking

[nick52]

Fa 43mm I think will suit me best. I can find an older Pentax 30mm or wider for a good price if I need it!

[builttospill]

Fa 43mm I think will suit me best.

You're not alone on this. It's my most-used and favorite lens. The focal length is perfect for me in many applications. You could even sell your 50 if you like the 43. My guess is you'll start looking for the 77 and 31 after getting familiar with the 43.

[Marc Sabatella]

I'm not too sure I like the photos produced by the Tamron... It just doesn't seem as contrasty or sharp as I'd like.

Which full size images or 100% crops shot on tripod and processed the same way you would have are leading you to this conclusion?

[builttospill]

The OP stated he's not interested in the Tamron 28-75. That's okay, don't ask him to defend his position. All he's asking for are other recommendations, not for some to try to talk him into buying a lens he doesn't like.

There are some lenses I'm not impressed with (and probably a few some of you don't care for), but I don't think I need to justify why in detail I'm looking at other lenses.

Many other good suggestions here though!

[nick52]

The OP stated he's not interested in the Tamron 28-75. That's okay, don't ask him to defend his position. All he's asking for are other recommendations, not for some to try to talk him into buying a lens he doesn't like.

There are some lenses I'm not impressed with (and probably a few some of you don't care for), but I don't think I need to justify why in detail I'm looking at other lenses.

Many other good suggestions here though!

AMEN, SIR!

[Marc Sabatella]

Yes, but without specifics to say what exactly he doesn,t like about a lens that by all objective measures is at least as good as virtually every other lens being siggested to replace it, it's kind of hard to make recommendations. And frankly, it,s just way too common for people to blame the equipment for problems that actually have nothing to do with the equipment they are blaming. So we could be recommending spending hindreds of dollars fixing a nonexistent problem. Maybe that,s not the cas but again, without more specifics, it's hard to make intelligent recommendations.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Yes, but without specifics to say what exactly he doesn,t like about a lens that by all objective measures is at least as good as virtually every other lens being siggested to replace it, it's kind of hard to make recommendations.

In post #15 the OP stated "I'm not too sure I like the photos produced by the Tamron... It just doesn't seem as contrasty or sharp as I'd like."

As someone who has taken thousands of photos with the Tamron 28-75mm, I found that to be an incredible statement. Especially in regards to the sharpness.

Here are a few photos I took around the house this evening for another thread in which the JPEG engine of the K-x was being discussed. For purposes of that thread, the pictures were shot in JPEG and are straight out of the camera with absolutely ZERO post-processing. The sharpness, contrast, colors, and lack of vignetting and distortion in the pictures comes naturally from the 28-75mm. The teapot was shot at f/2.8, and shows how incredibly sharp this lens is, even wide open.

With a little work in Photoshop, the pictures could be improved, and contrast and sharpness could even be increased. Click on the pictures for the full, 12MP image:

[builttospill]

Marc you make some fine points, and in the first post the OP did say if someone can prove him wrong they might reconsider the 28-75. My post wasn't just directed toward you though, but instead it was an effort to keep this on track. It's not a "comparison" thread, but a "suggestion" thread.

Edgar, as usual, you have fine examples of what that lens can do. If anyone can get the OP to reconsider his options it would be you. Even though I have nothing against that lens the OP wasn't a fan of it so I went another direction.

Nick, it depends on what you prefer, but if it's fixed focal length lenses I'd still suggest the 43, or the 77 because you already have a lens close in length to the 43. If you like zooms there have been other good options mentioned too.

[twitch]

I prefer my DA70 to my FA77 and DA*50-135 for portraits in most situations. I guess that means I'm saying it's my favourite portrait lens, which is akin to heresy here.

[pinholecam]

Pretty curious why the Tamron 28-75 is not working too well for you.
Its plenty sharp even from wide open and contrasty enough (and its easy to add more contrast in PP).
Certainly on my books for top zoom lens for the money.

Anyway, if you want something else for ~$600, I really like :
FA43ltd - nice working distance on APS-C and indoors; Easier to fit in 2 ppl in the frame if necessary. Fast, very sharp; contrasty and nice oof rendering (to me); small and light too.
FA35/2 (though I think the 35/2.4 would work too) - easy FL to work with. Nice for head and shoulder portraits.
F100/2.8 macro (though any of the 100/2.8 macros will do too) - sharp and can get close; macro use as well.

[Digitalis]

Sharpness isn't everything, especially in a portrait lens.

this is a bit of a half truth, there are many situations where a lens with excellent corner-to-corner sharpness is a huge benefit, I seem to recall Benjamin Karanek using the DA limited pancake lenses for precisely that reason. On the flipside I remember my grandfather stretching a black stocking over his expensive Zeiss 150mm f/3.5 lens to tame it's brutal sharpness. I also have a few early 1930's 8"X10" format lens designed exclusively for portraiture that absolutely suck by modern IQ standards, but they render subjects beautifully.

It really depends on what you are doing but the rule of the thumb is #1 get a lens that gives a working distance that you are comfortable with, #2 that also is reasonably fast to provide decent subject/foreground septation,#3 has a colour balance and image rendering that suits the intention your work.

[writeb]

I've had opportunity to own the fa* 85mm, samyang 85mm, fa77, da70, Da* 55mm, m50/fa50 1.4, F 50 1.7, Da*50-135, and a few more less memorable (for portriature) but competent lenses. In my experience,you want compression and pop in a portrait lens, and something that isn't going to materially distort your subject on aps-c. For me, that sweet spot -focal length wise is 55mm and up. Even the venerable da40 renders human subjects a little unflatteringly in portrait orientation up close. In terms of bang for buck, I'd recommend you give the da70 a try. Its kind of unstoppable on the k-5. In terms of sheer versatility and image quality, the 50-135mm remains one of the awesomest lenses for portraiture I've slapped on a Pentax.

The fa77 was fine but my copy didn't really perform $200 better than the da70, and in some instances fell short, especially when you factor in post processing. People say the da70 is more "clinical" than the 77, but I felt it had much more "pixie dust" than anything 50-55mm in Pentax glass. (M50 is very close but requires some boost in post). If you boost your budget a bit, I'd say go with the 50-135. I really think you'll be pleased with getting the equivalent of four prime lenses for the cost of two.

[twitch]

The other nice thing, that doesn't get mentioned too much about the DA70, is focus accuracy, which is pretty useful in a portrait lens as you can be dealing with thin DOF. I find the accuracy on my DA70 to be far better than my FA77 (or my FA31 for that matter). It's not just a matter of f/1.8 being thinner than f/2.4, there's something more to it that results in the DA lenses having a better hit rate with AF accuracy (in my experience) than the FA limiteds.

OK I'll shut up about the DA70 now, I've said enough. Anyone would think I've got a stash of them that I'm getting ready to sell on the market place .