[Arvexrun]

So for about a week now I've been weighing my options for a lens, I want a portraiture lens for a bit of paid work (Not full on professional work)

I was originally sold on the Rokinon 85mm F1.4, but one persistent man insisted I should have autofocus, so I'm going to list a few other lenses that seem ideal, but with reasons as to why I'm not sold on them..The point of this? To see if any of these reasons are as bad as they sound.

I'm aware 50mm is a portrait length but I wanted something lengthier...And I don't get to do portraits all the time so a lens that could do more then just headshots would be great for me.

My camera is the K-3, and was looking for under 500 dollars...Preferably much under that..But if its a bit under that'll have to do.

Rokinon 85mm f1.4 - I love everything about this lens ,No AF, but built for MF, is the manual focusing on this fast by chance? Is there some kind of magnifier I could use?

Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Macro - 1.1 magnification so I can do macro when I tire of portrais, but one major problem: Switching from AF to MF can hurt you camera, lens, or both..Only for Pentax and Sony mounts.

Tamron SP 28-75MM F/2.8 Di - I hear its horribly soft wide open, I'm not a pixel peep, but to soft is to soft, otherwise a perfect range for me.

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM - Was sold on this for a while but then noticed the 2.8-4, F4 at max range just isn't gonna cut my Bokeh needs, F2.8 would of been fine however.

SMC Pentax-DA 70mm F2.4 Limited - An alright focal length, for just portraiture and AF!...I'm Not sure what else I could use it for I was pretty fixed on a zoom after being deal broke on Rokinon.

Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD Macro - The price is indeed a bit out of my range, I could wait a bit longer and get this 70 is fine for portraits and I can shoot some wildlife with 200mm.


Anyways thats my list of considerates, the sigma would of been perfect if it was a constant aperature.
Any ideas on what I should do?

[jimr-pdx]

I didn't use it fully at f/2.8, but I never found any issues with the 28-75; none of my shots ever came close to "horrible" that's certain. That's a great focal length for me and I miss it.

The DA70 is one of the best AF lenses I've used. Small, sharp, great bokeh, everything a Limited lens should be. You will find reasons for it to stay on your camera. I owned the M85 f/2 and found the DNA of the DA70 there in its small size and fast aperture; it's a much more compact choice than the Rokinon f/1.4.

If the Tamron 90 is on your list, the Sigma 105 should be there too - and it has no push-pull AF collar.

[timb1682]

How about the Sigma 70mm 2.8 macro? I have been working with it and am very pleased at this point. Got mine for just under 500 at B&H a few months ago.

[geomez]

Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Macro - 1.1 magnification so I can do macro when I tire of portrais, but one major problem: Switching from AF to MF can hurt you camera, lens, or both..Only for Pentax and Sony mounts.

Please explain the bold area.

[Arvexrun]

Well I was going over the reviews for the lens and one review in particular stated that this is a problem with the K mount and A mount, something about disengaging the lens lock between switching to AF to MF.

They stated it even says it in the manual for the lens.

Please explain the bold area.

---------- Post added 02-19-15 at 03:04 AM ----------

So far I'm still kinda leaning back at the Rokinon, sure..It may be crazy to expect to do paid work with manual focus but theres just so much fun I can feel using that lens in particular.

F1.4, it looks great (I'm a form meets function kind a guy so slightly aesthetically driven) It is infact sharper then the FA 70 limited.

Still the FA is also a strong possibility, just a bit more for AF, though sacrificing that aperature I've never had before.

[geomez]

I've been using this lens regularly for around two years. I believe you are mistaken.

Have you ever used a K mount AF lens without "quickshift" focusing? Basically, with lenses sans quickshift, you can only manually focus when the camera is set to MF, and you can only autofocus when the camera is set to AF. When the camera autofocuses, the focus ring on the lens moves with the AF motor. The Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro does the same exact thing. You can leave the focusing collar engaged at all times and the lens will act the same as all other non-quickshift lenses.
The only thing the focus collar does is disengage the focus ring on the lens from the AF motor. It does nothing at all to the camera. All that disengaging it does is allow you to hold the focus ring without it spinning on you when the camera is autofocusing. There is no damage.
A few facts of note...
This lens has been for sale for the K mount for years and has only seen aesthetic redesigns. If the lens damaged itself or the camera, Tamron would reengineer it.
This feature is present on many Tamron and Sigma lenses sold with a K mount.
You have nothing to worry about if you use the lens as intended.

[mde1970]

If you are happy with MF then have you also looked at older MF lenses. The Takumar 85mm must be around the same price range (I have a 55mm and love the results).

[DeadJohn]

Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Macro - 1.1 magnification so I can do macro when I tire of portrais, but one major problem: Switching from AF to MF can hurt you camera, lens, or both..Only for Pentax and Sony mounts.

Please explain the bold area.

I think arvexrun is referring to something I vaguely recall reading in reviews. The Tamron 90mm has an unusual clutch arrangement that requires multiple actions to put the lens into manual focus. If you only do some of the actions before turning the focus ring, there's a risk of stripping gears or something.

[Wired]

The 90 Tamron is a wonderful lens and I'm really sad I sold mine.

That being said, the 70 was such an awesome lens it lead me to buy the 77. The 77 is now my goto lens for everything! I've shot headshots, full body, landscapes... it's the best lens I've ever owned.

Why the 70 would

I'm Not sure what else I could use it for I was pretty fixed on a zoom after being deal broke on Rokinon.

would make a difference comparing to the Rok as they re both portrait lengths, in fact I would think the 70 could be more useful.

To give you an idea, to use the 85mm to do a full length portrait of an average height woman you would need to be approximate 80 feet away. the 70 gives you a bit more room to work as you can take about 20% off that working distance. A 50 and you can work at about 20 feet away for a full length.

At the end of the day, I really enjoy'd the 40mm DA Limited for a very long time as a general portrait and walk around lens. Even better is the 43 if you can afford it. Very versatile in my opinion as it's not really a normal and not really a tele. It's kind of odd to get used to at first, but now on APSC my eye sees in 43mm and 77mm.

I'd personally never buy the Rok. Not because of lack of AF, but because on APSC I just think it would be way too long a lens. As much as I LOVE my 135 f2.0 on my D800, I use it only for headshots because of how far you need to stand away from the subject to get full body images.

[Bagga_Txips]

70 mm needs ... 64 metres distance to enable a full length portrait of an average height woman? That doesn't seem right to me. Maybe my wife is altitudinally-challenged...

However, you are right about the need for something wider than 70 for full length shots. I suggest that the OP checks the total cost of two lenses - the 70 together with either the 35 f2.4 or the 40XS. I have the 70 and the 40. The 70 is a fantastic head shot lens, with the 40xs as a dirt cheap wider option.

[Wired]

70 mm needs ... 64 metres distance to enable a full length portrait of an average height woman? That doesn't seem right to me. Maybe my wife is altitudinally-challenged...

However, you are right about the need for something wider than 70 for full length shots. I suggest that the OP checks the total cost of two lenses - the 70 together with either the 35 f2.4 or the 40XS. I have the 70 and the 40. The 70 is a fantastic head shot lens, with the 40xs as a dirt cheap wider option.

all I know is that when using my 135mm for full frame shooting full lengths yesterday I was a good three car lengths away to get a full body shot. 70mm translates roughly to 100mm on full frame. 85mm roughly to 120mm. therefore I'd assume that since I was about 80 feet, so typo on meters. my bad.

[Sagitta]

If you're looking at the Samyang 85mm and are looking for something to do wider body shots, I'd suggest grabbing and pairing it with the Samyang 35mm 1.4. I picked up both recently, but have been hooked on the 35mm length because its just plain useful, and can easily pull off the 'across the kitchen table' kind of shots as well as full body portraits.

Both lenses actually look and feel almost the same both in appearance and operation so they make a decent pair. My only real issues with the 85mm are the obscene minimal focus distance and the fact the lens dislikes the cold (the aperture bogs down in cold environments).

I'm thinking my go-to low light kit is going to be the Sammy 35 and 85, with the Pentax 50 1.4 for in between.

You mentioned a $500 limit, right now the two together are about $550 on sale, so its not too far above what you were budgeting.

FWIW, if I had to pick the superior lens for the two, at this point I'd give the 35 the nod because its an incredibly forgiving lens, even at the wider end. The 85 has a lot more of a difficulty curve going for it (probably why I haven't taken to it nearly as much yet).

EDIT: Assuming you know, but the Rokinon is made by Samyang and is branded under a bunch of names. All the same lens, but the names (and more importantly, the prices) can differ to a range of a couple hundred bucks for the exact same lens depending on branding. That Bower I paid $300 for is $400 as a Samyang, for instance - and its the exact same lens.

EDIT II: Heres a flickr search on the 35mm as a portrait lens, just to get ideas of what it can do. https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=samyang%2035mm%20f1.4%20portrait&sort=interestingness-desc

[Kerrowdown]

weighing my options for a lens, I want a portraiture lens for a bit of paid work

Also consider what physical space you have to work within, as this may have a crucial bearing on the focal you can use.

[Mistlefoot]

I love my Tamron 90. Can't say enough at the fun I've had with a 1 to 1 macro. Takes good portrait lenght shots as well. And dollar to dollar value is hard to beat.

It's also a very nice looking lens (especially with the hood on) so if that floats your boat............

It was my third lens and the only lens that I do not have a set spot for at home. It's in bag or on the body almost all the time.

[Arvexrun]

Good point, but most of my work would be outdoors.

I feel most of the magic lies outdoors..

As for everyone else, yeah 70mm seems to be the way to go for now..I kinda wanted the F1.4 because I've never had one plus the lens's look factor (I like my looks but I don't play all style no substance)

And if the Tamron 90 is safe to use..Then of course I might just go straight for that...But so far I think I might need a video or something to see what the clutch thing is.

Also consider what physical space you have to work within, as this may have a crucial bearing on the focal you can use.