Pentax 50mm f1.8 for portraits

**nicoprod** · 01-06-2015, 02:13 PM - **1 Like**

50mm is good for portrait... I personally shoot portrait from 30mm to 135mm.

---------- Post added 01-06-15 at 03:14 PM ----------

Or 85mm, sigma or Pentax FA*..

6BQ5 · 01-06-2015, 02:15 PM

I think the value of the DA 50mm comes from the fact that it is based off of a very well established previous design that was refined over a long period of time: the 50mm f/1.7 and f/1.8 of the past. These designs are well understood and I think the devil in the details lies with the manufacturing and assembling.

Kath · 01-06-2015, 02:24 PM

I have the 50mm 1.8 and love it. IMHO, it's a really good lens for the price. Works very well for portraits as well as candid indoor work. I've been pleasantly surprised by the image quality and bokeh and feel it was well worth the small(ish) expenditure. The best part, to me, is the ability to shoot indoors without a flash. Lovely colors.

Depending on your needs, experience, and wallet, I would echo the recommendation that you could play around with this for a long time until you see a need for a significant upgrade.

**clackers** · 01-07-2015, 04:03 AM

50mm Japanese lenses are a proven technology and are pretty similar across brands, Hjoseph - cheap and good.

On FF their FoV makes them a journalistic lens but on APS-C they become good for portraits.

Sandy Hancock · 01-07-2015, 04:12 AM - **4 Likes**

Na Horuk nailed the brief in post #3.
If you want to be a comprehensive portraitist, I reckon you need everything from (and I'm talking APS-C here) 21mm to (at least) 135mm.

Now don't think for a minute that I consider myself such a photographer, but here are some examples from my own amateurish snaps.

21mm

31mm

43mm

50mm

55mm

58mm

77mm

100mm

135mm

200mm

300mm

**hjoseph7** · 01-07-2015, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

Na Horuk nailed the brief in post #3.
If you want to be a comprehensive portraitist, I reckon you need everything from (and I'm talking APS-C here) 21mm to (at least) 135mm.

Now don't think for a minute that I consider myself such a photographer, but here are some examples from my own amateurish snaps.

21mm

31mm

43mm

50mm

55mm

58mm

77mm

100mm

135mm

200mm

300mm

Nice shots ! I didn't know Pentax had a 58mm ?

willskywalker93 · 01-07-2015, 12:17 PM

Here is the first image I took with my 50 f/1.8 (it didn't attach the first time I tried). For the price, I've been quite happy with the lens. I didn't notice too much distortion with this, but then again the subject has a naturally round face. And like the others were saying, don't shoot wide open, otherwise you'll have out of focus ears like this! I'm definitely enjoying learning with this lens! Go for it! You can do a lot of learning for the several hundred dollars you'll save over the limiteds.

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

The model for the 77mm and 100mm shots is absolutely beautiful! With that smile, she reminds me of someone I know.

K57XR · 01-07-2015, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

I am not a big fan of tight head shots anyway, except for passport photos. If you back up a little bit and get a little environment in the photo, the distortion disappears with these shorter focal lengths.

...I couldn't agree more..
Nice photo by the way!

Sandy Hancock · 01-07-2015, 02:23 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by hjoseph7

Nice shots ! I didn't know Pentax had a 58mm ?

Helios 44-2

---------- Post added 08-01-15 at 07:58 AM ----------

Originally posted by willskywalker93

The model for the 77mm and 100mm shots is absolutely beautiful! With that smile, she reminds me of someone I know.

That's my 19 year old daughter Bridget. I reckon she's a bit of alright too

She's also an expert dancer and a delightful human being.
At times she bears a startling resemblance to Scarlett Johansson, if that's who you're thinking of.

DanGleabols · 01-07-2015, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by enoeske

I've always liked this series showing the same framing for a portrait, but using different focal lengths. You can see the 50mm is just a bit distorted. The 70mm looks better and 100> look relatively the same.

Shooting a wider shot, like half body or full body, the 50mm would work great. Its just the closer head shots that its too wide for.

There's a problem with your argument... The focal ranges stated are 35mm film equivalents (I.e. Relevant to full frame DSLRs). As pretty much all pentaxian DSLR shooters will be using an APS-C sensor camera, the 50mm f1.8 on these cameras will give an equivelant focal range of 75mm (and a max aperture of f1.8 in terms of exposure and about f2.7 in terms of depth of field- relative to full frame), thus giving a distortion most similar to the 70mm example in the pictures above ( with a slight shift towards the 100mm).

stevebrot · 01-07-2015, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

Na Horuk nailed the brief in post #3.
If you want to be a comprehensive portraitist, I reckon you need everything from (and I'm talking APS-C here) 21mm to (at least) 135mm.

Now don't think for a minute that I consider myself such a photographer, but here are some examples from my own amateurish snaps.

21mm

31mm

43mm

50mm

55mm

58mm

77mm

100mm

135mm

200mm

300mm

Sandy...Thanks for this series! I had to chuckle a little at many of the comments on this thread, particularly the one indicating that you need a top quality (extra sharp?) lens to do top quality portraits.* The DA 50/1.8 is quite up to the quality challenge. Working distance is the key (perspective, after all is driven by distance) and DOF is often the challenge (fast lenses are not always good). Focal length is incidental, unless of course your studio is very cramped!

Steve

* It was not that many years ago that Pentax and other lens makers marketed specialized soft-focus lenses to portrait photographers. Sharp is not always desirable.

willskywalker93 · 01-07-2015, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

That's my 19 year old daughter Bridget. I reckon she's a bit of alright too

She's also an expert dancer and a delightful human being.
At times she bears a startling resemblance to Scarlett Johansson, if that's who you're thinking of.

Haha no, it isn't, but I can see the resemblance! I was referring to a friend of mine. I'm a college student, so most of my friends are around her age!

stevebrot · 01-07-2015, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by hjoseph7

Nice shots ! I didn't know Pentax had a 58mm ?

Pentax doesn't, but Zeiss and the Soviets did. Both the Biotar 58/2 and Helios 44 58/2 (many variants) were made in M42 mount and are popular for portraits on Pentax APS-C.

Edit: I did not notice that Sandy had already covered this.

Steve

stevebrot · 01-07-2015, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by DanGleabols

The focal ranges stated are 35mm film equivalents (I.e. Relevant to full frame DSLRs).

I was thinking the same thing. I have seen this series in the past and it is my recollection that the images were done on a FF camera. The presentation is certainly consistent with that format and not representative of my experience with those focal lengths on APS-C.

Steve

Na Horuk · 01-07-2015, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by hjoseph7

Nice shots ! I didn't know Pentax had a 58mm ?

Aside from the Helios 44 (many variant of this lens, some m42, some K-mount, and even m39 and m mount), there is also original Zeiss (Biogon or Biotar, I forget). All f2.0. And Voigtlander Nokton 58mm, which is f/1.4! Great MF lens, I would really like to get my hands on one! Just in case you are interested in that focal length

01-07-2015, 04:12 AM - 4 Likes	#20
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	Na Horuk nailed the brief in post #3. If you want to be a comprehensive portraitist, I reckon you need everything from (and I'm talking APS-C here) 21mm to (at least) 135mm. Now don't think for a minute that I consider myself such a photographer, but here are some examples from my own amateurish snaps. 21mm 31mm 43mm 50mm 55mm 58mm 77mm 100mm 135mm 200mm 300mm Last edited by Sandy Hancock; 01-07-2015 at 05:11 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 50mm F1.8 for 55$	bmw_328ci	Pentax Price Watch	12	12-08-2014 02:20 PM
Pentax Webstore: $119 for 50mm F1.8	rrstuff	Pentax Price Watch	24	12-01-2014 05:56 PM
Going for 85mm f1.4 or 135mm f1.8 for portraits?	minahasa	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	08-17-2013 12:17 AM
DA 50mm F1.8 vs. SMC Pentax-M 50mm F1.4	ahw	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	08-03-2013 01:56 PM
77mm f1.8 or Sigma 85mm f1.4 for outdoor portraits?	crossover37	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	60	05-12-2011 11:04 AM

01-06-2015, 02:13 PM - 1 Like	#16
nicoprod Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: New Berlin, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 528	50mm is good for portrait... I personally shoot portrait from 30mm to 135mm. ---------- Post added 01-06-15 at 03:14 PM ---------- Or 85mm, sigma or Pentax FA*..

01-06-2015, 02:15 PM	#17
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	I think the value of the DA 50mm comes from the fact that it is based off of a very well established previous design that was refined over a long period of time: the 50mm f/1.7 and f/1.8 of the past. These designs are well understood and I think the devil in the details lies with the manufacturing and assembling.

01-06-2015, 02:24 PM	#18
Kath Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Portland, OR Photos: Gallery Posts: 737	I have the 50mm 1.8 and love it. IMHO, it's a really good lens for the price. Works very well for portraits as well as candid indoor work. I've been pleasantly surprised by the image quality and bokeh and feel it was well worth the small(ish) expenditure. The best part, to me, is the ability to shoot indoors without a flash. Lovely colors. Depending on your needs, experience, and wallet, I would echo the recommendation that you could play around with this for a long time until you see a need for a significant upgrade.

01-07-2015, 04:03 AM	#19
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	50mm Japanese lenses are a proven technology and are pretty similar across brands, Hjoseph - cheap and good. On FF their FoV makes them a journalistic lens but on APS-C they become good for portraits.

01-07-2015, 08:13 AM	#21
hjoseph7 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2014 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,048 Original Poster	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock Na Horuk nailed the brief in post #3. If you want to be a comprehensive portraitist, I reckon you need everything from (and I'm talking APS-C here) 21mm to (at least) 135mm. Now don't think for a minute that I consider myself such a photographer, but here are some examples from my own amateurish snaps. 21mm 31mm 43mm 50mm 55mm 58mm 77mm 100mm 135mm 200mm 300mm Nice shots ! I didn't know Pentax had a 58mm ?

01-07-2015, 12:17 PM	#22
willskywalker93 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 407	Here is the first image I took with my 50 f/1.8 (it didn't attach the first time I tried). For the price, I've been quite happy with the lens. I didn't notice too much distortion with this, but then again the subject has a naturally round face. And like the others were saying, don't shoot wide open, otherwise you'll have out of focus ears like this! I'm definitely enjoying learning with this lens! Go for it! You can do a lot of learning for the several hundred dollars you'll save over the limiteds. Originally posted by Sandy Hancock The model for the 77mm and 100mm shots is absolutely beautiful! With that smile, she reminds me of someone I know.

01-07-2015, 12:35 PM	#23
K57XR Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 830	Originally posted by Rondec I am not a big fan of tight head shots anyway, except for passport photos. If you back up a little bit and get a little environment in the photo, the distortion disappears with these shorter focal lengths. ...I couldn't agree more.. Nice photo by the way!

01-07-2015, 02:23 PM - 1 Like	#24
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	Originally posted by hjoseph7 Nice shots ! I didn't know Pentax had a 58mm ? Helios 44-2 ---------- Post added 08-01-15 at 07:58 AM ---------- Originally posted by willskywalker93 The model for the 77mm and 100mm shots is absolutely beautiful! With that smile, she reminds me of someone I know. That's my 19 year old daughter Bridget. I reckon she's a bit of alright too She's also an expert dancer and a delightful human being. At times she bears a startling resemblance to Scarlett Johansson, if that's who you're thinking of.

01-07-2015, 02:44 PM	#25
DanGleabols Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Halifax, UK Posts: 120	Originally posted by enoeske I've always liked this series showing the same framing for a portrait, but using different focal lengths. You can see the 50mm is just a bit distorted. The 70mm looks better and 100> look relatively the same. Shooting a wider shot, like half body or full body, the 50mm would work great. Its just the closer head shots that its too wide for. There's a problem with your argument... The focal ranges stated are 35mm film equivalents (I.e. Relevant to full frame DSLRs). As pretty much all pentaxian DSLR shooters will be using an APS-C sensor camera, the 50mm f1.8 on these cameras will give an equivelant focal range of 75mm (and a max aperture of f1.8 in terms of exposure and about f2.7 in terms of depth of field- relative to full frame), thus giving a distortion most similar to the 70mm example in the pictures above ( with a slight shift towards the 100mm).

01-07-2015, 02:54 PM	#26
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock Na Horuk nailed the brief in post #3. If you want to be a comprehensive portraitist, I reckon you need everything from (and I'm talking APS-C here) 21mm to (at least) 135mm. Now don't think for a minute that I consider myself such a photographer, but here are some examples from my own amateurish snaps. 21mm 31mm 43mm 50mm 55mm 58mm 77mm 100mm 135mm 200mm 300mm Sandy...Thanks for this series! I had to chuckle a little at many of the comments on this thread, particularly the one indicating that you need a top quality (extra sharp?) lens to do top quality portraits.* The DA 50/1.8 is quite up to the quality challenge. Working distance is the key (perspective, after all is driven by distance) and DOF is often the challenge (fast lenses are not always good). Focal length is incidental, unless of course your studio is very cramped! Steve * It was not that many years ago that Pentax and other lens makers marketed specialized soft-focus lenses to portrait photographers. Sharp is not always desirable.

01-07-2015, 02:57 PM	#27
willskywalker93 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 407	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock That's my 19 year old daughter Bridget. I reckon she's a bit of alright too She's also an expert dancer and a delightful human being. At times she bears a startling resemblance to Scarlett Johansson, if that's who you're thinking of. Haha no, it isn't, but I can see the resemblance! I was referring to a friend of mine. I'm a college student, so most of my friends are around her age!

01-07-2015, 03:00 PM	#28
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by hjoseph7 Nice shots ! I didn't know Pentax had a 58mm ? Pentax doesn't, but Zeiss and the Soviets did. Both the Biotar 58/2 and Helios 44 58/2 (many variants) were made in M42 mount and are popular for portraits on Pentax APS-C. Edit: I did not notice that Sandy had already covered this. Steve

01-07-2015, 03:02 PM	#29
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by DanGleabols The focal ranges stated are 35mm film equivalents (I.e. Relevant to full frame DSLRs). I was thinking the same thing. I have seen this series in the past and it is my recollection that the images were done on a FF camera. The presentation is certainly consistent with that format and not representative of my experience with those focal lengths on APS-C. Steve

01-07-2015, 05:50 PM	#30
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by hjoseph7 Nice shots ! I didn't know Pentax had a 58mm ? Aside from the Helios 44 (many variant of this lens, some m42, some K-mount, and even m39 and m mount), there is also original Zeiss (Biogon or Biotar, I forget). All f2.0. And Voigtlander Nokton 58mm, which is f/1.4! Great MF lens, I would really like to get my hands on one! Just in case you are interested in that focal length