[TOUGEFC]

The DA*55 and FA77 are the portrait king lenses under $1000.

---

Last edited by TOUGEFC; 12-30-2011 at 05:09 AM.

[miltona580]

I'm using the FA 31 Limited for the most part and it works out great. Some pictures I took with the Pentax FA 50 f/1.4. I have a FA 77, but my experience is for my house that focal length is too long unless I am doing a "studio" type shot with my monolights and backgrounds. So I'd recommend the lower focal lengths. I'll post some pictures when I get home

[DaveHolmes]

Dave, thanks for showing the pictures, they are lovely
Was that taken with Pentax K-x? I would expect the K-7 to perform slightly worse at ISO 6400
Cheers,
Marek

Aye... K-x in use...
Have you seen the https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/106600-k-7-high-iso-success.html thread?
Even so... I could have dropped the ISO 2 stops (1600) and opened aperture 2 stops (f2.8) and there'd be considerably less noise...
I'd happily swap my K-x for you K7 if you'd like?!
IMO the K7 easily outclasses the K-x (and even the K-r)

[DaveHolmes]

Wouldn't the DA35 ltd or plastic be good enough?

The 35mm is so cheap and from what I've seen the images are great!

You answered your own question there mKlus in the very next post!!
If budget is of concern I think you can rest easy that 'good to great' results can be obtainedwith the DA35-2.4...

[mKlus]

thanks miltona580. I'm looking forward to your pictures

I'm using the FA 31 Limited for the most part and it works out great. Some pictures I took with the Pentax FA 50 f/1.4. I have a FA 77, but my experience is for my house that focal length is too long unless I am doing a "studio" type shot with my monolights and backgrounds. So I'd recommend the lower focal lengths. I'll post some pictures when I get home

[mKlus]

Great pics! That is just what I want to see coming from my camera, but that does not depend on the camera and lens set up, does it? hehe

The DA*55 and FA77 are the portrait king lenses under $1000.

[HEEGZ]

Just some quick thoughts. The F 50 and FA 50 do not focus very fast indoors under dim lighting. The 35mm f2.4 focuses extremely fast and is a great indoor length, plus the price can't be beat. I just bought the 40mm and it seems to focus and function almost identically to the 35mm f2.4 The main difference is that the 40mm has quick shift, and I missed it in my 35mm. If you don't need quick shift I would strongly consider the 35mm f2.4 and 43mm ltd. for indoor portraits.

Autofocus speed is not to be over looked though. I missed a LOT of shots this past week for Christmas because my F 50mm couldn't find focus wide open in indoor lighting. The 35mm and 40mm focus much more quickly. Incidentally, I have read a lot of things about the 35mm f2.8 limited taking a long time to autofocus and I would not recommend it to you for children. For face portraits I am planning on buying the 70mm eventually and it has good feedback on autofocus speed. Based on all of this, and your comments about quick shift, I would recommend you buy the 40mm and 70mm limited lenses, which will be under $1000.

[rvannatta]

while there are many negative writers about the DA*16-50 it really shines under the indoor poor lighting conditions



this shot taken at iso 1600 f/2.8 and 1/50th.---with a K5. The SDM is quick and this was done auto everything.

[dmort]

Howdy, I have a similar kit and I also have an 11 month old who's life has been largely documented with my K5. I have really enjoyed taking pictures of my son with my 43mm. You get great out of focus effects with f1.9 plus the corresponding low light performance. I just reviewed all my photos from this year with that lens and realized how many of my favorites were taken with the 43mm. Here are a few samples.

[Ikarus]

With babies, you don't really need auto-focus, nor a zoom lens. I've taken most of my baby shots on my Pentax K-x at 3200 ISO max with a Super-Takumar, either the 50/1.4 or the 55/1.8, which cost me less than 100$ combined.

[psychdoc]

The DA 70mm wont let you down. [1st photo]
On the other hand, the Tamron 28-75 is more versatile, so I use it more. [2nd photo]. If you have a $1000 to spend. Why not get both?

[robgo2]

Hi everyone!

I haven’t posted too many messages here, but I have been browsing the forum for years.

In few months we are expecting our first baby. I’ve been searching and reading posts from this and the other forum to get some idea what lens I should get to shoot newborn babies and later toddlers.
I would appreciate any comments, suggestion and help on this

Currently I have K-7, DA 18-135mm WR and DA 55-300mm.
I’d like to get some faster lens(es) to shoot inside and also outside for nice bokeh
My budget is no more than $1000.

Thinking about it again and again I ended up with the following choices:
1. DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Ltd & DA 70mm F2.4 Ltd – cons: not as fast as choice 2., 5, or 7.; pros: both are excellent primes, macro can be useful for shooting baby close ups or other
2. DA 35mm F2.4 & FA 77mm F1.8 Ltd – cons: DA 35mm F2.4 is plastic, has no quick shift, not as sharp as the macro ltd; pros: FA 77mm is superb quality and fast
3. DA* 50-135mm F2.8 – cons: bulky, heavy, I have the range covered by my DA 18-135mm WR; pros: zoom, faster than the 18-a35mm WR
4. FA 31mm F1.8mm – cons: expensive, can’t afford to buy second lens with this one (DA 70 or FA77); pros: one of the best lenses, fast
5. FA 50mm F1.7 (or F1.4) ? – I could get this one to start with, it is fast, sharp and cheap, and I could decide what to get later
6. FA 43mm F1.9 - pros: super sharp, good focal length; cons: can't think of any other than I don't know which other lens to add here...

EDIT: after looking at the reviews I had to add FA 43mm Ltd to my list too! Gosh the decision is becoming harder and harder!

Cheers,
Marek

I have an 11 month old grandchild. The FA43 is my favorite lens for taking pics of her. I own the other two FA Limiteds and the DA*16-50 as well, but the FA 43 is the best of the bunch, IMO, and not just for baby pictures.

Rob

[Ikarus]

The DA 70mm wont let you down. [1st photo]

I don't mean to nitpick, but the bottom left corner suggests the lens was front-focusing by at least two inches.

[psychdoc]

I don't mean to nitpick, but the bottom left corner suggests the lens was front-focusing by at least two inches.

I suppose. I thought it had to do with shooting a running around 2year old at f2.4 and chasing her around the party. One of these days, I will test my lenses with one of those LensAlign things. For my amateur needs, I have not gotten around to do that yet.

[mKlus]

Thanks HEEGZ. The DA 40mm Ltd seems bit slow for me for prime, I'd rather invest into FA 43mm Ltd, which I more and more like

Just some quick thoughts. The F 50 and FA 50 do not focus very fast indoors under dim lighting. The 35mm f2.4 focuses extremely fast and is a great indoor length, plus the price can't be beat. I just bought the 40mm and it seems to focus and function almost identically to the 35mm f2.4 The main difference is that the 40mm has quick shift, and I missed it in my 35mm. If you don't need quick shift I would strongly consider the 35mm f2.4 and 43mm ltd. for indoor portraits.

Autofocus speed is not to be over looked though. I missed a LOT of shots this past week for Christmas because my F 50mm couldn't find focus wide open in indoor lighting. The 35mm and 40mm focus much more quickly. Incidentally, I have read a lot of things about the 35mm f2.8 limited taking a long time to autofocus and I would not recommend it to you for children. For face portraits I am planning on buying the 70mm eventually and it has good feedback on autofocus speed. Based on all of this, and your comments about quick shift, I would recommend you buy the 40mm and 70mm limited lenses, which will be under $1000.