20-40 vs. 16-85

ChristianRock · 08-19-2015, 12:19 PM - **1 Like**

I find 50mm perfect for portraits on APS-C. The only reason to go longer, the way I see it, is to get more distance from the subject or more compression/isolation in the background.

I've gotten great results from 35mm as well. Even head shots.

cali92rs · 08-19-2015, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Bunch

60mm full frame equivalent can't be used for portraits?

Sure..but 60mm f5.6?
Not saying it can't be done, it just is not normally used.

Squawk · 08-19-2015, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Kath

I have both, but rarely use the flash. I'm sure most would say it depends (again) on what and how you're planning to shoot. I much prefer natural light and the low-light lenses let me work in that realm with only the occasional need for supplemental light. My flash use is more specialized and, therefore, for me, a rarity.

Thanks I was leaning towards the 50mm 1.8! I know I need to get a flash and I will down the road. But I think I'll get more use out of the 50 right of the start.

starbase218 · 08-19-2015, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by cali92rs

Sure..but 60mm f5.6?
Not saying it can't be done, it just is not normally used.

That's another thing. To get the same DOF as 125mm f/8 you'd have to get much closer in, which you generally don't want to do for portraits because it will distort the subject's face.

Unless, of course, you don't want to get so close in, e.g. you want full body portraits or something. But then DOF will be larger.

In any case, I don't see this as a particularly well suited portrait lens. I think I could live with the 16-85 for basic portrait needs though, assuming there's enough light. I shot some portraits with the 17-70 at 70mm and f/4 too.

dcpropilot · 08-20-2015, 12:52 AM

For me the 20-40 is perfectly fine for portraits.

Nicolas06 · 08-22-2015, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by dcpropilot

The 20-40 kicks butt, get it. 4 primes in one. WR, DC motor, metal. Awesome IQ.

Why not 20 primes while you are at it, each for every mm?

if I go out with 4 primes it will be 21, 35, 77 and 135... Not exactly the same coverage in focal range and not exactly the same possibility in term of isolating subjects neither.

if the goal is to replace a 20-40 I might take 2 primes, the 21 and 35. But if I take only 2 primes in the bag, that most likely to be the 21 and the 77.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
16-45 vs 16-85	mepaca	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	08-25-2015 07:18 AM
16-50 v 20-40	BarryE	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	38	08-02-2015 05:05 AM
AF performance 16-85 vs 18-135 vs screw drive on K3?	Tommy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	06-05-2015 02:27 PM
DA*16-50 vs DA 20-40 WR	jrobe121	Pentax DSLR Discussion	22	01-10-2015 10:15 AM
Please create a review! 16-85 WR vs 20-40 WR	Blacknight659	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	12-22-2014 06:45 AM

08-19-2015, 12:19 PM - 1 Like	#31
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	I find 50mm perfect for portraits on APS-C. The only reason to go longer, the way I see it, is to get more distance from the subject or more compression/isolation in the background. I've gotten great results from 35mm as well. Even head shots.

08-19-2015, 02:00 PM	#32
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Originally posted by Bunch 60mm full frame equivalent can't be used for portraits? Sure..but 60mm f5.6? Not saying it can't be done, it just is not normally used.

08-19-2015, 04:47 PM	#33
Squawk Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Bentonville, Ar. Posts: 35 Original Poster	Originally posted by Kath I have both, but rarely use the flash. I'm sure most would say it depends (again) on what and how you're planning to shoot. I much prefer natural light and the low-light lenses let me work in that realm with only the occasional need for supplemental light. My flash use is more specialized and, therefore, for me, a rarity. Thanks I was leaning towards the 50mm 1.8! I know I need to get a flash and I will down the road. But I think I'll get more use out of the 50 right of the start.

08-19-2015, 11:56 PM	#34
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	Originally posted by cali92rs Sure..but 60mm f5.6? Not saying it can't be done, it just is not normally used. That's another thing. To get the same DOF as 125mm f/8 you'd have to get much closer in, which you generally don't want to do for portraits because it will distort the subject's face. Unless, of course, you don't want to get so close in, e.g. you want full body portraits or something. But then DOF will be larger. In any case, I don't see this as a particularly well suited portrait lens. I think I could live with the 16-85 for basic portrait needs though, assuming there's enough light. I shot some portraits with the 17-70 at 70mm and f/4 too.

08-20-2015, 12:52 AM	#35
dcpropilot Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Vermont Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 941	For me the 20-40 is perfectly fine for portraits.

08-22-2015, 04:28 PM	#36
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by dcpropilot The 20-40 kicks butt, get it. 4 primes in one. WR, DC motor, metal. Awesome IQ. Why not 20 primes while you are at it, each for every mm? if I go out with 4 primes it will be 21, 35, 77 and 135... Not exactly the same coverage in focal range and not exactly the same possibility in term of isolating subjects neither. if the goal is to replace a 20-40 I might take 2 primes, the 21 and 35. But if I take only 2 primes in the bag, that most likely to be the 21 and the 77.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search