[slip]

I am looking into a natural light portrait lens and am wondering if the *55 has the "3d" look that the 43 sometimes has. I only owned the 43 for a little while (wish I would have kept it) but never owned the 55. I do have the fa 50 1.4 but am not impressed with the inconsistent auto focus and the softness under 2.8

All opinions welcomed

Randy

[shardulm]

Not sure if its a 3D look but it is a very good portrait lens. Here is a sample in case you are wondering how it may look.
It offers excellent subject isolation and depth of field can get shallow when needed bu adjusting distance and aperture. The SDM on mine is near perfect and it is a stellar lens by all means.

[shardulm]

And this is the original image. This might give you a better view of how this lens performs and may be used.

[Blacknight659]

55 all the way. It is FF ready, WR, and is sharp. What more could you want?

[normhead]

I just don't consider lenses under 55 mm as portrait lenses. The DoF is going to be shallower for 55 than it is for the 43 because wider lenses have more DoF. The DoF can also be shallower because it's 1.4 instead of 1.8. But my preference for this from the images I've seen would be the 77 ltd.. 55 is sort of the minimum, and on FF, I'd only use it for portraits of two or three people at once. On ASP-c it's manageable.

To me the thing the pro portrait photographers have that the iPhone user does not, is the ability to back up, use slightly longer lens and narrow the FoV. The 55 barely qualifies. If you don't do that, and you go for the 35 to 45mm portrait, there are a lot of cameras that can take that image. You're going to have to do something else to make it special. Special location, special backdrop. You're going to have to make the background part of the portrait. Using a narrow field of view, makes that less important, especially if it's out of focus.

[Blacknight659]

I just don't consider lenses under 55 mm as portrait lenses. The DoF is going to be shallower for 55 than it is for the 43 because wider lenses have more DoF. The DoF can also be shallower because it's 1.4 instead of 1.8. But my preference for this from the images I've seen would be the 77 ltd.. 55 is sort of the minimum, and on FF, I'd only use it for portraits of two or three people at once. On ASP-c it's manageable.

To me the thing the pro portrait photographers have that the iPhone user does not, is the ability to back up, use slightly longer lens and narrow the FoV. The 55 barely qualifies. If you don't do that, and you go for the 35 to 45mm portrait, there are a lot of cameras that can take that image. You're going to have to do something else to make it special. Special location, special backdrop. You're going to have to make the background part of the portrait. Using a narrow field of view, makes that less important, especially if it's out of focus.

Agreed on the DoF point of view.

To add, the 70mm 2.8 is actually very affordable for what you are getting. I have this lens on my long wish list.

[shardulm]

I just don't consider lenses under 55 mm as portrait lenses. The DoF is going to be shallower for 55 than it is for the 43 because wider lenses have more DoF. The DoF can also be shallower because it's 1.4 instead of 1.8. But my preference for this from the images I've seen would be the 77 ltd.. 55 is sort of the minimum, and on FF, I'd only use it for portraits of two or three people at once. On ASP-c it's manageable.

To me the thing the pro portrait photographers have that the iPhone user does not, is the ability to back up, use slightly longer lens and narrow the FoV. The 55 barely qualifies. If you don't do that, and you go for the 35 to 45mm portrait, there are a lot of cameras that can take that image. You're going to have to do something else to make it special. Special location, special backdrop. You're going to have to make the background part of the portrait. Using a narrow field of view, makes that less important, especially if it's out of focus.

Clinically speaking the DA*55mm has nearly the same FOV on APS-C as FA*85 on FF. So I am not entirely sure about "barely qualifies" comment unless you are making an assumption that FA*85 isn't a good lens for portraits.
See here for 55: SMC Pentax-DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM Reviews - DA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
See here 85: SMC Pentax-FA* 85mm F1.4 [IF] Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[zapp]

55 all the way. It is FF ready, WR, and is sharp. What more could you want?

55 is not full frame ready. It needs to be stopped down Pentax says.

[normhead]

Agreed on the DoF point of view.

To add, the 70mm 2.8 is actually very affordable for what you are getting. I have this lens on my long wish list.

I use the Sigma 70 macro. It's heavy and crazy to carry in the field, but for studio type work, it's got a lot going for it.

[DagT]

I've used both A*85mm with film and DA*55mm on APS-C and find them quite similar. Both of them lovely for portrait. FA43mm is good to, but a bit wide.

[shardulm]

55 is not full frame ready. It needs to be stopped down Pentax says.

This has been discussed in several places. But here is one I found right here that explains with an image. I think it is very very usable on FF and 1.4 may not be always usable on a FF due to very shallow DOF so for all the practical purposes it is FF usable.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/274667-test...ull-frame.html

[shardulm]

FA43mm is good to, but a bit wide.

And not a * designated optic either albeit limited.

[kp0c]

And not a * designated optic either albeit limited.

Yeah, all the fa limited line would be really better if only they had the *. If a lens has the * designation, surely it beats the one that only says limited on it :P .

I just bought a da* 55mm so I can't comment on its performance for portraiture just yet. However, I did make an engagement shoot with the fa 43mm limited and I'd say it did fairly well .
All truth be told, I had to wait a little before I could use the 43mm during the shoot because I wanted the couple to be real comfortable with me taking pictures of them as the 43mm (on an apsc) still placed me right "in their faces". So yeah, it could be a little longer for that purpose, but I'm confident it's out of focus rendering is better than the one from the da*. 55mm.

[robjmitchell]

The 3d look of the 43ltd occurs when you stop down. Ie when the subject is fully in focus and the background is just out of focus but still recognisable. The 55 is quite different in its rendering as it was designed for a more traditional narrow DOF look where the background is beautifully obliterated. The 77ltd would probably be you best option because it can produce the 3d pop while also doing creamy backgrounds.
The best thing to do is go look at the photos the lenses take to get an idea if they can produce for you.

[Nicolas06]

Clinically speaking the DA*55mm has nearly the same FOV on APS-C as FA*85 on FF. So I am not entirely sure about "barely qualifies" comment unless you are making an assumption that FA*85 isn't a good lens for portraits.
See here for 55: SMC Pentax-DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM Reviews - DA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
See here 85: SMC Pentax-FA* 85mm F1.4 [IF] Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Yeah but depending on what you call portraiture and on the use case any lens can do the job. Pro don't hesitate to use WA for some environemental portraits like a 35mm FF equiv or on the contrary a 200mm , again FF equivalent for a tight head shot.

This depend a lot of what you are after and what you like. I like headshots and for me FA77 provide a great field of view for that on APSC. You don't have to be near your subject. On FF this would be a 115mm field of view so likely that I'd want a 100mm or 135mm for that.

50-55mm for APSC, 77-85mm FF are better for wider portrait, at least head and shoulders for me as well as indoor if you don't have much room.

But really this is your choice. I guess that somebody that specialize into portraiture would not limit himself to one focal length.

FA43 on APSC would be nice for an american shot, maybe a bit narrower but not optimal for head shot.