Options for a longer portrait lens?

psychdoc · 04-24-2013, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by geekkt

I don't need to stay Pentax, I'm pretty open. Budget friendly makes me especially happy :P I do think something in the 70-85 range is probably perfect for me. 100 might be pushing on the long side, but I also don't have a longer zoom at the moment either, so it's not ruled out entirely. Auto focus preferred

The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is budget friendly [relatively speaking]. I use the DA* 50-135 more often but that's an expensive lens.

Here is a 'real-world' review of this lens:
Tischer's Review of the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

**Kerrowdown** · 04-25-2013, 01:59 AM

I use at times an 85 and even 135 mm, to get what I need, just try them out and see what works for you.

ChooseAName · 04-25-2013, 05:33 AM

I have a Pentax M 85/2 and it is my favorite lens. They are very rare though and run about $300 these days, I think. I second/third/fourth the suggestions for the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 85/1.4. It is manual focus and it is huge but then again it's 85 mm and it's fast. It's pretty much exactly what you're looking for....great portrait focal length and affordable.

I also have the Tamron 28-75. The 75 end also makes great portraits. You can usually pick one up for between $300-$380 used, but then you don't get the 6 year warranty. New is about $500, I think.

kswong_00 · 04-25-2013, 05:44 AM

+1 on tamron 28-75. For me it's better to avoid mf for baby photos as i'm too slow.

kswong_00 · 04-25-2013, 05:45 AM

+1 on tamron 28-75. For me it's better to avoid mf for baby photos as i'm too slow. They will not stand or sit still for you.

geekkt · 04-25-2013, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by ChooseAName

I have a Pentax M 85/2 and it is my favorite lens. They are very rare though and run about $300 these days, I think. I second/third/fourth the suggestions for the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 85/1.4. It is manual focus and it is huge but then again it's 85 mm and it's fast. It's pretty much exactly what you're looking for....great portrait focal length and affordable.

I do think 85/1.4 would be the best fit for what I'm looking for. Does the Samyang (et al.) 85/1.4 come up for sale used often? It's a great price point even brand new, but I'd be tempted to save that $$ and put it toward a used AF lens if I couldn't get a good deal on it.

The 70 or 77 would probably also work well, but if anyone has used the 70 and a 50 in particular - do you find them too similar?

I have that whole "I CAN spend X, but I was thinking maybe I'd spend more like Y, but well then my tax return is about to come and who needs a new deck anyway?" thing going on, lol. :P

ChooseAName · 04-25-2013, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by geekkt

The 70 or 77 would probably also work well, but if anyone has used the 70 and a 50 in particular - do you find them too similar?

I have that whole "I CAN spend X, but I was thinking maybe I'd spend more like Y, but well then my tax return is about to come and who needs a new deck anyway?" thing going on, lol. :P

I don't have a prime in the 70s range, but I do have my Tamron 28-75 and can say that there is a good bit of difference between 50 and 75. I also have a 35 mm prime and just a 15 mm difference between 35 and 50 is a pretty big difference. I don't think it would be a waste of money to have both a 50 mm and 70 mm lens.

builttospill · 04-25-2013, 05:02 PM

The FA 77 is outstanding. It is also quite different from a 50. From what I've read the DA 70 is quite nice too.

retroflex · 04-29-2013, 01:47 AM

I'd recommend M100/2.8 if you can live with the focal length. I use it for portraits, but you need a bit of space inside. It has really good optics and great price! It's also a small well-built lens. Would probably cost you $100 or a bit more. The A100/2.8 is nicer to have of course, but not worth the extra $$ (for me at least).

top-quark · 04-29-2013, 04:54 AM

You don't need a super-expensive limited lens for what you're after. An el-cheapo telezoom (50-200 / 55-300) will produce perfectly acceptable results:

RonHendriks1966 · 04-29-2013, 11:37 AM

If you stumble up on a FA*85mm/f1.4 then you have a great lens for portrait.

Bcrary3 · 04-29-2013, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

If you stumble up on a FA*85mm/f1.4 then you have a great lens for portrait.

Only problem with this is that FA* lenses (especially the 85) do not come up often, and when they do... You better be prepared to drop a few hundred dollars.

RonHendriks1966 · 04-29-2013, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Bcrary3

Only problem with this is that FA* lenses (especially the 85) do not come up often, and when they do... You better be prepared to drop a few hundred dollars.

Well maybe even a good $1k, but it is worth the money.

Bcrary3 · 04-29-2013, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

Well maybe even a good $1k, but it is worth the money.

That much?! Wow! Haha, I was basing my guess off of the FA 50 1.4

scratchpaddy · 04-29-2013, 12:33 PM

Just a heads-up: KEH has several Tamron 90mm macros starting at $245, which is an great price for an outstanding lens, and from a trustworthy seller to boot. I wouldn't worry about the cheapest one being qualified as "bargain," since they are extremely strict about their wear-and-tear ratings. You'd get a short telephoto, portrait, and true 1:1 macro all in one, and it's alot cheaper than any FA* glass.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Whats the best portrait lens for a K20D?	jeryst	Pentax DSLR Discussion	50	11-07-2011 06:13 AM
Any cheap options for a lens wider that 18mm?	kevinschoenmakers	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	04-04-2009 05:26 AM
300mm or longer, what options?	jah3	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	12-24-2008 12:05 PM
more longer lens images... only a few for now	Marc Langille	Post Your Photos!	25	11-07-2008 07:03 PM
For Strobists: options for indoor portrait fill	aerodave	Photographic Technique	15	12-06-2007 03:26 PM

04-24-2013, 04:22 PM	#16
psychdoc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Bham Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 949	Originally posted by geekkt I don't need to stay Pentax, I'm pretty open. Budget friendly makes me especially happy :P I do think something in the 70-85 range is probably perfect for me. 100 might be pushing on the long side, but I also don't have a longer zoom at the moment either, so it's not ruled out entirely. Auto focus preferred The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is budget friendly [relatively speaking]. I use the DA* 50-135 more often but that's an expensive lens. Here is a 'real-world' review of this lens: Tischer's Review of the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

04-25-2013, 01:59 AM	#17
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,816	I use at times an 85 and even 135 mm, to get what I need, just try them out and see what works for you.

04-25-2013, 05:33 AM	#18
ChooseAName Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Southeast USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 390	I have a Pentax M 85/2 and it is my favorite lens. They are very rare though and run about $300 these days, I think. I second/third/fourth the suggestions for the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 85/1.4. It is manual focus and it is huge but then again it's 85 mm and it's fast. It's pretty much exactly what you're looking for....great portrait focal length and affordable. I also have the Tamron 28-75. The 75 end also makes great portraits. You can usually pick one up for between $300-$380 used, but then you don't get the 6 year warranty. New is about $500, I think.

04-25-2013, 05:44 AM	#19
kswong_00 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 63	+1 on tamron 28-75. For me it's better to avoid mf for baby photos as i'm too slow.

04-25-2013, 05:45 AM	#20
kswong_00 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 63	+1 on tamron 28-75. For me it's better to avoid mf for baby photos as i'm too slow. They will not stand or sit still for you.

04-25-2013, 08:52 AM	#21
geekkt Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Edmonton Posts: 60 Original Poster	Originally posted by ChooseAName I have a Pentax M 85/2 and it is my favorite lens. They are very rare though and run about $300 these days, I think. I second/third/fourth the suggestions for the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 85/1.4. It is manual focus and it is huge but then again it's 85 mm and it's fast. It's pretty much exactly what you're looking for....great portrait focal length and affordable. I do think 85/1.4 would be the best fit for what I'm looking for. Does the Samyang (et al.) 85/1.4 come up for sale used often? It's a great price point even brand new, but I'd be tempted to save that $$ and put it toward a used AF lens if I couldn't get a good deal on it. The 70 or 77 would probably also work well, but if anyone has used the 70 and a 50 in particular - do you find them too similar? I have that whole "I CAN spend X, but I was thinking maybe I'd spend more like Y, but well then my tax return is about to come and who needs a new deck anyway?" thing going on, lol. :P

04-25-2013, 11:18 AM	#22
ChooseAName Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Southeast USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 390	Originally posted by geekkt The 70 or 77 would probably also work well, but if anyone has used the 70 and a 50 in particular - do you find them too similar? I have that whole "I CAN spend X, but I was thinking maybe I'd spend more like Y, but well then my tax return is about to come and who needs a new deck anyway?" thing going on, lol. :P I don't have a prime in the 70s range, but I do have my Tamron 28-75 and can say that there is a good bit of difference between 50 and 75. I also have a 35 mm prime and just a 15 mm difference between 35 and 50 is a pretty big difference. I don't think it would be a waste of money to have both a 50 mm and 70 mm lens.

04-25-2013, 05:02 PM	#23
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	The FA 77 is outstanding. It is also quite different from a 50. From what I've read the DA 70 is quite nice too.

04-29-2013, 01:47 AM	#24
retroflex Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Mölnlycke Photos: Albums Posts: 98	I'd recommend M100/2.8 if you can live with the focal length. I use it for portraits, but you need a bit of space inside. It has really good optics and great price! It's also a small well-built lens. Would probably cost you $100 or a bit more. The A100/2.8 is nicer to have of course, but not worth the extra $$ (for me at least).

04-29-2013, 04:54 AM	#25
top-quark Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Aylesbury, Bucks Photos: Albums Posts: 492	You don't need a super-expensive limited lens for what you're after. An el-cheapo telezoom (50-200 / 55-300) will produce perfectly acceptable results:

04-29-2013, 11:37 AM	#26
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	If you stumble up on a FA*85mm/f1.4 then you have a great lens for portrait.

04-29-2013, 11:41 AM	#27
Bcrary3 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Wisconsin Photos: Gallery Posts: 391	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 If you stumble up on a FA85mm/f1.4 then you have a great lens for portrait. Only problem with this is that FA lenses (especially the 85) do not come up often, and when they do... You better be prepared to drop a few hundred dollars.

04-29-2013, 11:45 AM	#28
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by Bcrary3 Only problem with this is that FA* lenses (especially the 85) do not come up often, and when they do... You better be prepared to drop a few hundred dollars. Well maybe even a good $1k, but it is worth the money.

04-29-2013, 11:48 AM	#29
Bcrary3 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Wisconsin Photos: Gallery Posts: 391	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 Well maybe even a good $1k, but it is worth the money. That much?! Wow! Haha, I was basing my guess off of the FA 50 1.4

04-29-2013, 12:33 PM	#30
scratchpaddy Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Phoenix Posts: 3,361	Just a heads-up: KEH has several Tamron 90mm macros starting at $245, which is an great price for an outstanding lens, and from a trustworthy seller to boot. I wouldn't worry about the cheapest one being qualified as "bargain," since they are extremely strict about their wear-and-tear ratings. You'd get a short telephoto, portrait, and true 1:1 macro all in one, and it's alot cheaper than any FA* glass.