I think you've got the hots for the babe, and can't objectively see how bad the picture is, just a personal opinion.

In my opening post, I wrote the following:

"The lady is no dazzling beauty, but that is quite beside the point."

People on Flickr are in awe of this picture; and then you have a handful of jealous Pentaxians.

The Summilux is not just one lens among others; it is an exceptional piece of optical equipment.

[Pepe Guitarra]

She is a dazzling beauty!!!

[pinholecam]

I typed a long reply with samples to the following thread
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/271198-can-pentax-lens-do.html

and when I pressed the 'Post' button, I found that the thread was closed due to the OP ending up being beaten up for posing a query that some found challenging.

So here's my reply.
(To OP, I certainly think the sample photo is nice and the query work a discussion)

So since I've typed it already... might as well post it.

Can a mod kindly add it to the closed thread? TIA

Respectfully, I think the scene, the lighting, the composition, the the look on the face of the very attractive woman, all coming together perfectly at the right time, is what is creating the atmosphere that makes this picture what it is. I don't believe it has anything to do with the lens. In fact, as I alluded to above, a lens with better bokeh qualities would have made an even more striking picture.

I think you hit the nail on the head.
Its all the elements coming in and the really attractive woman, mysterious look too and engaging look into the camera/viewer than tops it off for the shot.
Its the photographer that counted here more than the very expensive lens.

'God Particle' is on my Flick list.
I don't see the reason to slam his shots just because a poster threw down the gauntlet (as to what lens can give the same look) and used his pict as an example.
Its a good shot and I would suggest anyone who put his shot down to post their own 'perfect' samples.


As for the original question.
I would say 'Yes' as to coming up with a shot that is 'like' the example.
I'd say 'like' and not 'same' since it would never be with different focal length, bokeh, working distance, color rendering, drawing style.
Esp. so when its a M9 (FF) with a 35mm, f1.4 lens that is really quite small for f1.4 over apsc (different working distance for the same FOV, not as small lens or maybe totally different FL used, etc)



That shot set a high bar to me, I may have 'like' shots in terms of DOF/seperation, but I won't have a stunning beauty to help take the viewer's breath away....
Some samples (on FF thought)

A50/1.4




FA77ltd




K50/1.2




Super Takumar 135/3.5

[John Poirier]

I typed a long reply with samples to the following thread
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/271198-can-pentax-lens-do.html

and when I pressed the 'Post' button, I found that the thread was closed due to the OP ending up being beaten up for posing a query that some found challenging.

So here's my reply.
(To OP, I certainly think the sample photo is nice and the query work a discussion)

So since I've typed it already... might as well post it.

Can a mod kindly add it to the closed thread? TIA




I think you hit the nail on the head.
Its all the elements coming in and the really attractive woman, mysterious look too and engaging look into the camera/viewer than tops it off for the shot.
Its the photographer that counted here more than the very expensive lens.

'God Particle' is on my Flick list.
I don't see the reason to slam his shots just because a poster threw down the gauntlet (as to what lens can give the same look) and used his pict as an example.
Its a good shot and I would suggest anyone who put his shot down to post their own 'perfect' samples.


As for the original question.
I would say 'Yes' as to coming up with a shot that is 'like' the example.
I'd say 'like' and not 'same' since it would never be with different focal length, bokeh, working distance, color rendering, drawing style.
Esp. so when its a M9 (FF) with a 35mm, f1.4 lens that is really quite small for f1.4 over apsc (different working distance for the same FOV, not as small lens or maybe totally different FL used, etc)



That shot set a high bar to me, I may have 'like' shots in terms of DOF/seperation, but I won't have a stunning beauty to help take the viewer's breath away....
Some samples (on FF thought)

A50/1.4




FA77ltd




K50/1.2




Super Takumar 135/3.5

My, that thread certainly folded in a hurry!

I agree with pinholecam. I like the picture. There is a lot more going on than just the lens. I spotted one or two things that might not stand up well in a print, but overall I see the work of someone with talent.

My core set of lenses these days is three Leica primes- a Summilux, a Summicron 50, and a Tele-Elmarit 90. All are excellent, the best lenses I own in those focal length ranges. They work extremely well on my A7r. I've used them for over 25 years.

However, I would not pin my artistic identity on those lenses. They are just tools. In my view making a fetish of a particular lens is likely to be a creative dead end.

I have carefully tested other lenses- Pentax, Canon, Zeiss, Minolta, - that are awfully close. I wouldn't hesitate to use them. Most of the other lenses I use with the A7r are Pentax, and they work well too.

I certainly wouldn't say that other lenses would produce exactly the same picture. I would say that it is entirely possible to produce equally effective images with other lenses.

[pacerr]

If you don't feel the need to rise to a perceived challenge -- brands, lens perspectives, ego, etc -- that some found in the original post there's a lot to consider in that image. Do I have the lens, location, opportunity, perseverance and skill to make a similar image?

I learn a lot by considering both my lens choices and technique/perspective while studying such images.

It also presents a caution regarding the words and perceptions of intent that accompany such postings.

[Digitalis]

In my view making a fetish of a particular lens is likely to be a creative dead end.

If you have ever visited Leica forums online you will see a lot of fetishism. Leicaphiles killed the Hexanon lens line up deader than hell for no reason other than spite. I use several hexanon lenses on my Monochrom and Leica M9.

[fuent104]

Technically speaking, there is no lens for the Pentax DSLR system that will give you the same field of view and depth of field as a 35mm f1.4 at f1.4.

85mm and 55mm lenses are no sub substitutes, and a 35mm is no substitute for an 85mm.

[Lowell Goudge]

Technically speaking, there is no lens for the Pentax DSLR system that will give you the same field of view and depth of field as a 35mm f1.4 at f1.4.

85mm and 55mm lenses are no sub substitutes, and a 35mm is no substitute for an 85mm.

Quite true. The best we would have is one of many pentax 35/2 lenses. Knowing my SMC tak. I think a similar shot would be worth the try. I might just look for a similar location and shooting opportunity, best to compare like for like.

I will also repeat a story here I heard from one of the few photo store employees that shoots pentax. He had a customer who swore by Leica. One weekend he took a customers Leica film camera and shot with the same film and the same focal length, similar shots with both his pentax ca are and the customers Leica. The processed the prints and asked the costumer to pick out the shots he liked the best. Picked the pentax one every time but still swears by the Leica camera and lenses

[kh1234567890]

Technically speaking, there is no lens for the Pentax DSLR system that will give you the same field of view and depth of field as a 35mm f1.4 at f1.4. 85mm and 55mm lenses are no sub substitutes, and a 35mm is no substitute for an 85mm.

The only way you could get near the FoV and DoF would be to shoot it as a Brenizer panorama, although it would then probably end up as the sort of contrived wedding type shot as they always do.

That particular photo had sat unnoticed on Flickr for three odd years until Flickr Explore picked it up. Basically, a good lens, good subject, good light and a bit of skill all coming together. Sometimes that happens.

[Rondec]

Obviously, Pentax just has APS-C cameras available now, meaning that even a lens like the Sigma 35mm f1.4 or FA 31 limited won't produce that image. I don't know that a cropped version of that image would have had a lot less impact -- seems like it has to do with subject and light as much as anything.

Since I only use a K5 II and K3, if I want narrow depth of field, I have to use longer lenses -- FA 77, DA *55, DA *50-135 --- all will give narrow depth of field. The, of course, being closer to the subject than the subject is to the background helps.

This was with the FA 77.

[robjmitchell]

I was thinking of pinholecam's A7 shots when i saw that post!
Obviously we are a bit limited in pentaxland without a ff body to play with (sony aside)

Rendering wise it reminded me of smc 55/1.8 and 43ltd shots in some respect. That being said prefer the 3d effect that good pentax lenses (ok and some zeiss too) seem to get as a method of subject separation over the softer look with the extra soft background of the leica shot.
A couple of photos of my lovely wife that I think resemble the rendering of the original post (obviously with a narrower field of view!)
43@2.8

55

[LFLee]

technically no, PENTAX don't have 35mm f1.4 lens on FF.
you can get similar pic, but not definitely not that same look even you took the pic the same time that pic was taken.

but I don't think that pic is particularly special....

[Blue]

I'm sure the Tamron 90 closed down would come out sharper, but it would kill the atmosphere at the same time.

That's nice, but he said Pentax . . .