[Ishpuini]

I would vote FA50/1.4 as well given the DA*55/1.4 is quoted by the OP as out of his range.

IMHO, I personally feel that lenses that used to be great portrait FoV on 135film, like the FA77/1.8 or FA*85/1.4, are slightly too long on APS-C now.

Wim

[savoche]

Would you mind manual focus? There are some nice f/1.4 lenses out there. A Tak or M won't set you back much, the K probably a tiny bit more, and even the A isn't that much.

[kieffer]

I agree with Ishpuini 85mm is slightly long for portrait. The best would be something like a 60mm f1.4 which does no exist. In the argentic age the portrait lenses were between 85 and 105mm even 120. equivalent to 55-80 in APS. In fact there is no equivalence. For example if a picture is taken at a distance of 1.5 meters on a 24*36 format with a 75mm lens, 1.5 meters is 20 focal lenght. the same picture taken with an APS at 1.5 meters with a 50 mm lens is 30 focal lenght resulting in a wider depth of field. the depth of field is not the same neigther the bokeh. We can not have together the same view point and the same depth of field on a 24*36 and an APS format. If you like bokeh and shorter depth of field then go to long focal lenght like 70 or 85mm. If you prefer depth of field and beeing closer to the model 50mm is a good choice.

[wed7]

Thank u for the replies, now I am even more confused? Lol

[lytrytyr]

The best would be something like a 60mm f1.4 which does no exist.

Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Lens Reviews - Voigtlander Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

[Papa Lazarou]

Yep, the Voigtlander Nokton 58mm SLII has superb rendering and build quality. Good value too. There are two issues though - rarity (no longer in production in K mount) and it's manual focus only.
I'll never sell mine, it's superb.

[DSims]

Can be softish when needed (portraits) and when stopped down pretty sharp as well. Very versatile I would say.

It can also be softish when not needed!

And the FA 50 is FF compatible of course, the DA's and DA*'s aren't.

The DA*55 (as well as a few other DA lenses) is FF compatible: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31629-da-le...ts-thread.html


I think your best bets are the DA50/1.8 and/or DA35/2.4. I wouldn't spend the money on the FA50/1.4 to get a lens that's not significantly better (I already had an F50/1.4, FA50/1.7, and F50/1.7, and sold them all). But for the price of the DA50/1.8 I could put up with a few compromises.

---

Last edited by DSims; 03-08-2014 at 04:31 PM.

[robbiec]

Cheapest best low light portrait lens for K system is the K55 f/1.8 but manual focus only but you can get them at $50.
FA50 f/1.4 can seem too soft wider than f/2.0 but a good hood does wonders.
FA50 f/1.7 can be a tiny bit too sharp for some and it has a flatter imaging field which returns a more macro type look.
FA43 f/1.9 does a pretty good portrait but it is more head and shoulders type lens.
DA*55 is an immense portrait lens if set to f/1.6 or f/2.0, might see a bit of PF in high contrast transitions
FA77 Limited... what can I say, set at f/2.2, point it, focus it, portrait nailed

I can also say that I have owned or do own all of the above lenses.

[wed7]

Yeah, that K-55mm does really sounds interesting, but I maybe opting for something wider for environmental portraits.

Thanks to all your contributions guys

[njphotog]

I have had great results using the Pentax DA SMC 50mm F1.8 for basic portraits.
...But I am old school from the 35mm crowd (went digital about 1998) and if I was going to maintain a primary business in portrait photography I would def use a lens equivalent to a 105mm (in 35mm photography), basically a low light fixed/prime lens (for digital) around 70mm (f2.8 or lower). I haven't researched the current lenses for portraits but keeping it in the 70mm range or slightly higher will "flatten" the photo and in turn will avoid the protruding nose etc. When you hit the 100mm range this is easily avoidable but if you are concerned about price the DA 50mm f1.8 will suffice. I am not overly familiar with the other lenses you mentioned but if used correctly I am sure they are fine.
I am curious with your final decision and please come back and post a follow-up as to what you decided to go with, as I haven't done portraits on a regular basis for a number of years and would be curious about your end decision and results.
~Dave

[julbelle]

Yeah, that K-55mm does really sounds interesting, but I maybe opting for something wider for environmental portraits.

Thanks to all your contributions guys

What did you decide on?

[wed7]

None yet.

[Drake Avenue]

Sigma EX DC 30mm f1.4 does excellent low light enviromental portraits.

[waterfall]

It's true that the DA*55 and FA77 are the better choices.



But DA50/1.8 may work, as well as FA43/1.9 or DA35/2.4 (don't spend money on FA35/2).


However, if you can afford FA43 you'd be much better off going for the DA*55 instead (for a little more money, of course). FA43 should normally be stopped down to between f/2.2 and f/2.8 for good IQ. With DA*55 you can get away with f/1.6 or f/1.8, and sometimes even f/1.4. And while I haven't owned a DA70/2.4, I believe it may be pretty good wide open as well.


Forget about the F or FA50/1.4 - it's not even as good as the FA43, and should be stopped down at least as much as the FA43.


Both the DA50/1.8 and DA35/2.4 are very good for the price. They're worth trying. The DA35/2.4 can be shot wide open, so it's not as slow an aperture as it sounds like on paper.

The DA 70 Ltd 2.4 is indeed good wide open.

[julbelle]

Which one to get?
DA 50/1.8
FA 50/1.4
FA 43/1.9
DA 40/2.8 (slow)
FA 35/2

Let me know what you think.

Thank you

Just saw this on the pentax forum. Adorama