[zoolander]

Hi Pentax Forums !

Here I am asking another lens question. I've been slowly building up my lens collection with what I consider to be really great lenses. I've obtained the DA* 16-50 2.8, the DA 12-24mm, and the 10-17mm fisheye. I'm extremely happy with the latter two. The 16-50 was awesome at first, but now has lost a little gloss.

So I need to find a medium telephoto for portraiture. I have a short list: the DA* 50-135 (As the natural progression from the 16-50); The FA 77mm ltd; the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 (though the foal length will be a bit off); Sigma 50-150mm 2.8. Or 85mm/135mm primes. Brands, I'm open to all brands like Pentax, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, just as long as there is Auto focus.

Any suggestions from your personal experience with any of these lenses would be helpful. I'm trying to find out which is the best for my budget, which is under $1100 AUD. I'm leaning to a zoom rather than prime, for the versatility - unless a great prime totally smokes the zooms.

I can see on flickr that folks are producing fantastic images with the DA* 50-135, and the Tamron 70-200. Or is an FA 77mm all I need for portraits.

My thanks in advance

[Na Horuk]

I think lots of people would recommend the Pentax DA*55mm f1.4, which is practically made for portraits (shallow DoF, good focal length so the subject doesn't feel intimidated and isn't too far). The FA 77mm ltd would also work, it is very beloved on these forums. Samyang 85mm f1.4 would also be a good choice, if you don't mind the lack of AF (you might need to install a focusing screen as an aid, or use live view and focus peaking, since the DoF is so shallow). The 50-135mm f2.8 is also a well liked zoom lens for such occasions, but there is a difference in bokeh and subject isolation between f2.8 and f1.9, f1.4. Its a good zoom all around, though
Personally, I do portraits rarely, but I either use the DFA 100mm WR macro (unflatteringly sharp, a little long on crop sensor) or Helios 44-2 (manual lens, but cheap. Kind of artistic, low contrast rendering. Pretty soft until f4, but thats okay for portraits - needs less photoshop )

[JohnX]

Take a look here. >Effect of Lens Focal Length on Portraits - Personal View Talks

But it's not the only thing to take into consideration. See here>http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2014/20140603_stoner_lens_blog.shtml

Perhaps there's no 'best' lens, rather it's a case of the 'right' lens for what you want to achieve?

[grispie]

I've learned to love the DA 70 ltd. Already quite sharp at 2.4 and a nice rendering.

[DevKom]

I bought the 70mm specifically for portraits but found it too long for my way of working as it kept me further from my subject than I prefer. Having purchased the 55 1.4 I can't be more pleased. I use it rarely for anything but portraits as it's a big chunk of glass, but would rarely use a different lens for this particular application which is very important to me. FWIW there are occasions when I like to use my 35mm macro which I never originally thought would be suitable, but I was pleasantly surprised at how great it can be for a different look, fast moving kids, or when I want to have more space around my subject. As you specifically mention zoom, I also have used my 18~135 to excellent effect for portraits - and it's an awesome walk around lens when I know I won't be able to easily swap primes.

[Andi Lo]

Perhaps there's no 'best' lens, rather it's a case of the 'right' lens for what you want to achieve?

I second this. I use multiple portrait lenses depending on the expected distance between me and the subject, although the 50mm is a very good all-rounder.

Since the question is more of a "which lens should I buy"? I recommend first to buy a 50mm prime (the DA 1.8, or the FA 1.4). This is because they're cheap and a good way to get your feet wet. If money is no object then you can get the DA* version of course.

After that I recommend to get the Sigma 50-150/2.8 or the Pentax 50-135.

I dont recommend the 70-200 for a starter portrait lens since on APSC it's a bit long. I do have one in my stable but the use of it for APSC is a bit limiting. Good for shots where you expect some distance to your subjects, though.

[Ventzy]

"Best portrait lens" may be, is not present in this world... but there are, a lot of possibilities which are better for different situations. 77mm is more specialized than 55mm, and is difficult to use inside or in small areas. Here I write about 55mm + a lot of pictures, may be, will be useful to see them and to know what to expect...

[alexcox]

On the long end, the 16-50mm is an excellent portrait lens. If you have grown tired of it, you might try a 50mm or a 100mm Pentax lens.

[Rondec]

I have three lenses that I would consider to be portrait lengths -- the DA *50-135, FA 77, and the DA *55. I think of these, the 50-135 is the biggest and the most flexible. The 77 has the nicest rendering and the 55 is my favorite focal length. It is hard to say which is best though...

FA 77.



DA *55



DA *50-135

[Drake Avenue]

I have the DA* 55mm and I strongly recommend it.

[audiobomber]

Personally, I do portraits rarely, but I either use the DFA 100mm WR macro (unflatteringly sharp, a little long on crop sensor) or Helios 44-2 (manual lens, but cheap. Kind of artistic, low contrast rendering. Pretty soft until f4, but thats okay for portraits - needs less photoshop )

Same here, I don't do many portraits, and when I do, I like the D FA 100mm macro. Setting it at f2.8 aperture limits the sharpness, and DOF is about ideal, but the focal length is a bit long for many settings. I find my FA 50mm uncomfortably short for classic portraits, putting me too close to the subject for a head or head & shoulders shot. I would say 70-85mm is my comfort zone, preferably with useable f2 aperture.

I just shot a wedding, where I used three bodies for the formal portraits; K20D with 16-45mm & flash for group shots, K-3 with D FA 100mm for 1-2 people head shots, and Sony a6000 with Zeiss 32mm f1.8 for small groups. It was a bit awkward switching cameras, but faster than changing lenses.

There's a reason that wedding photographers use a standard full-frame kit; 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. APS-C doesn't have truly equivalent lenses.

[Kozlok]

The Tamron 70-200 returns consistently beautiful images. Really quite stunning. The 77Ltd is probably the only lens which can top it.

[8540tomg]

I've learned to love the DA 70 ltd. Already quite sharp at 2.4 and a nice rendering.

+1 for the DA 70/2.4. Excelent lens.

I also use an SMC Pentax A 100/2.8 macro, a Pentax DA* 16~50/2.8 and a SMC Pentax K 200/2.5 telephoto from time to time.

Tom G

[zoolander]

Thanks to everybody for their input so far !

Some have suggested that I get a fast 50, I have two already - The FA 50mm 1.4, and a M 50mm 1.7 (M 50 I pickup for $5 at a pawn shop). I find them to be a little dated compared to the 16-50 @ 50mm. The 16-50 is sharper and just renders a lot better, its in a totally different class, and my thinking is that its because its a modern design.

I am leaning towards the 50-135mm 2.8 or the FA 77 1.8, after doing a little more internet research. If I were to go with a fast fifty again, I think I'll go for the 43mm ltd.

[Driline]

I am leaning towards the 50-135mm 2.8 or the FA 77 1.8

I can only comment on the 50-135. It is a fantastic lens with great IQ at all ranges. And the only one in my arsenal that I use for portraits. Being a zoom it also gives you great flexibility. I'd like to try the 77mm someday just to compare the two, but honestly the zoom's IQ has been more than stellar for me.