[ChopperCharles]

Does anyone have some samples of Portrait shots using 35, 40, and 50mm, of the same subject and at the same distance? I find my 50mm is just too tight for anything except head shots unless I back way up... but I really, really love the low light capability f1.7 gives me.

I have a 40mm XS lens, but rarely bring it because at f2.8 it's much slower and requires I bump the ISO up further than I prefer. It's also not that much wider than the 50, I don't feel a striking difference when I use it, and it's not as much... fun, as my fast 50. The 50mm f1.7 is ridiculously sharp and the color rendition and bokeh is absolutely beautiful. The 40mm XS has the sharpness, but it just doesn't give me the same feel, the images I produce with it seem flat in comparison.

I've been thinking about the 35mm f2.4, which as I understand it is really more like a f2.2. I'm wondering if this will be a big enough jump from the 50mm to be worth buying, and and I'm wondering if I can get the same Pop from the 35mm that I get out of my 50mm. Dreamy bokeh and sharp subject with colors that really stand out.

Guess I'm not really sure what i want, or what all of my criteria even are, but I would appreciate some commentary.

Charles.

[SpecialK]

google this:

portraits with different focal lengths

lots of examples

[alamo5000]

I went through all this quite some time back... and what I came up with is an F28 f2.8...which that has led me to start to really want a 31mm.

In all that equivalency stuff a 28mm lens is roughly equivalent to the FOV of a 42mm lens on a FF camera... the 31mm would be equivalent to 46.5mm, and it allows f1.8 for speed.

I bought the 28mm and it is by far my most used lens now. I don't own the 31mm but rest assured LBA will get it for me. Just walking around with that focal length is awesome.

The DOF of a 50mm f1.8 at say 10 feet is .86 feet...the 31mm at f1.8 same distance is 2.27 feet. The 50mm will be less forgiving. At 5 feet of distance to subject the DOF is .55 feet with the 31mm.

As far as bokeh goes... that is all subjective. It depends on not only your distance to subject but your distance to the nearest objects behind your subject. It also is a function of what kind of background is chosen... I have taken a few shots where I was shooting stopped down but my other stuff was all in order therefore the 'bokeh' looked pretty nice at least to me.

It all just depends if you want to completely obliterate everything in the background or if you want to use the background to create an effect...

I can tell you this much though... my next lens purchase will be the 31mm. You can save yourself a lot of time by going ahead and forking out the money for one

[Adam]

Does anyone have some samples of Portrait shots using 35, 40, and 50mm, of the same subject and at the same distance? I find my 50mm is just too tight for anything except head shots unless I back way up... but I really, really love the low light capability f1.7 gives me.

I have a 40mm XS lens, but rarely bring it because at f2.8 it's much slower and requires I bump the ISO up further than I prefer. It's also not that much wider than the 50, I don't feel a striking difference when I use it, and it's not as much... fun, as my fast 50. The 50mm f1.7 is ridiculously sharp and the color rendition and bokeh is absolutely beautiful. The 40mm XS has the sharpness, but it just doesn't give me the same feel, the images I produce with it seem flat in comparison.

I've been thinking about the 35mm f2.4, which as I understand it is really more like a f2.2. I'm wondering if this will be a big enough jump from the 50mm to be worth buying, and and I'm wondering if I can get the same Pop from the 35mm that I get out of my 50mm. Dreamy bokeh and sharp subject with colors that really stand out.

Guess I'm not really sure what i want, or what all of my criteria even are, but I would appreciate some commentary.

Charles.

Sounds like you might want to take a look at this lens:
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM "Art" - Introduction - PentaxForums.com

It's bokeh is to die for in portraiture.

[ChopperCharles]

And the price is to laugh at heartily and then move on. While I would love such a lens, it's a little rich for my blood.

Charles.

[Sandy Hancock]

You already have six zooms which cover that range (seven if you include the 02 on the Q). It should be pretty easy to do the test shots yourself.

[cali92rs]

You could hunt around for a used Sigma 30mm f1.4. It isn't known for corner sharpness, but it is good in the center and is fast enough to get real good background separation.

[Kozlok]

+1 for the Sigma 30. It may be the poor man's 31, but there's no shame in the images it makes. It looks very much like a fast 50 in the drawing of the images, but with the 30mm FL.

[ChopperCharles]

Hrm, awesome. It's a little more pricey than the 35, but considerably faster. I will seriously consider this.

Charles.

[ryan s]

The DA 35/2.4 is like $160 used, why not try it out?

It's not a whole lot away from the 40mm, so maybe you're looking for a 28 instead. The AF ones are "only" f/2.8 if you go for a Pentax. Sigma also makes a 28/1.8, 24/1.8, and 20/1.8 but they're massive compared to the primes you have (and they're Sigmas).

[robtcorl]

LBA strikes deep
Into your life it will creep.......