[Nicolas06]

What is the most important for portraiture is to get the light, composition and mood right.

Speaking of focal length to use, you have to understand that there very different kind of portraits: from full body with some environnement to basically a narrow face shoot. On FF this would mean from 35 to 200mm, roughly. But it will depend a lot what you want to express in that portrait, were do you work (indoor vs outdoor), the kind of shots (candids vs studio) or subject (child, man, woman, eldery people...)

I tend to like tight portrait and for that on APSC I find that the FA77 is great asset, even indoors. And when I can't go near enough to the subject for candids, I like a lot the FA135. The nearest remplacement for that on FF would be 135 and 200mm.

Some people on the opposite would prefer, still on APSC FA31 and DA*55. That quite a different view. And that would translate to 50 and 85mm on FF.

I believe that an accomplished photographer know when each focal length will add something to the photo. That this flat face would benefit of a shorter focal length, or that big nose a longer one. That it would add a lot to the picture to get this portrait of the person in her shop or house, with the environement so go all wide or on the contrary concentrate on the deep eyes and go quite narrow.

So if we are speaking primes, you'll likely want 2-3 lenses and that why zoom are so conveniant. On APSC it can be said that f/2.8 is a bit limiting bokeh and low light wise. But with an FF, I don't think that's an issue anymore. As such a 70-200 on FF would do wonder. You don't have to get the Pentax one that is very expensive. You can get the tamron. Anyway portraiture is not that often about perfect sharpness of skin pores in the corners.

If you find theses 70-200 too big, and I can really understand that, I feel that myself, then you may want to have several primes. F/FA 135 are quite innexpensive (300-350€ used I think were I live) and do fantastic portraits while keeping a low profile. The many 50 or 55mm out there are quite small and light. The FA50 f/1.7 is maybe 150€. In addition to a 77 or 85mm lens, that would be quite usefull.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 05-15-2016 at 05:48 AM.

[Cuthbert]

Forgive me if this is already covered here somewhere, but I could not find it if it is there, in plain sight.

In the past two years I've about wore out my K200D. I take a lot of portraits, and I have been using the 135mm 2.8. It really is too long sometimes, but it has become my trademark I think. And I like it. But, it is time to get a new body, and I am buying the K1 soon. All of my legacy glass will still work on this new body, except the 18-55 DA will be cropped. My thoughts are to buy the 77mm LTD. It is after all, the one lens everyone is in agreement on as being the best "portrait lens ever. I would like to have the thoughts of people who actually know what is going on in portraiture photography. I use a 135mm mostly because of how it compresses and separates the subject from the world. I also use several other lenses, but I need a Auto Focus because I no longer see as well as I once did. Simply stated my OOF ratio is too high for me to tolerate. So, those of you who have an opinion on this, may I please have it? Which lens should I be buying with the K1, knowing what I have stated? The choices that look at me are: 77mm LTD, 85mm, or the 100mm,

Thank you.

Probably the Pentax Z 85 mm f1.4.

[Apapukas]

I hope Pentax will announce a new lens in the range of 85-135 that will have an aperture of 1.4-2.0 at the Photokina.

77mm - short for my taste, slow to focus, loud, lots of CA.
85mm - is either Sigma which has AF problems or the old Pentax 85mm that is super hard to find and is very pricey.
100mm - there is a really amazing DFA100mm macro, but it is super slow to focus and extremely loud.
105mm - my favorite focal length which is non existent in the Pentax lineup.
135mm - non existent as well.

For some people the 70-200 will work, but if you want something lighter, brighter, sharper etc. you have no options at the moment.

[redcat]

I hope Pentax will announce a new lens in the range of 85-135 that will have an aperture of 1.4-2.0 at the Photokina.

hope it's the 135mm f1.8 AF (or even 1.4 ), it's gonna be amazing !

[Apapukas]

hope it's the 135mm f1.8 AF (or even 1.4 ), it's gonna be amazing !

135mm 1.4 would probably weight a ton. F2 would be plenty for 135.

[Nicolas06]

77mm - short for my taste, slow to focus, loud, lots of CA.

Short is a mater of taste, I 100% agree. Slow to focus, honestly only on older bodies like a K5. On a K3 it is fast and very accurate. Loud? Only for the photographer that has its ears 6 inches to the camera motor. For people that are just 3 feets from you, it is no issues. Anybody futher away will not hear anything.

Lot of CA, true at time, but I don't find that often. This is my most used lenses for all type of subjects, and it almost never disapoint. Few lenses can pretend to match it.

[Apapukas]

Short is a mater of taste, I 100% agree. Slow to focus, honestly only on older bodies like a K5. On a K3 it is fast and very accurate. Loud? Only for the photographer that has its ears 6 inches to the camera motor. For people that are just 3 feets from you, it is no issues. Anybody futher away will not hear anything.

Lot of CA, true at time, but I don't find that often. This is my most used lenses for all type of subjects, and it almost never disapoint. Few lenses can pretend to match it.

I agree that in most situations slightly slower AF and AF sound will not make much of a difference. But if you are shooting a wedding ceremony in church and want to be discrete, screw-drive AF can be annoying. Especially if it fails to focus and goes from infinity to minimal focus distance. Also there is no QS, which would definitely just make prefocusing more convenient. 77 could definitely use a small upgrade (without ramping the price ridiculously).

---

Last edited by Apapukas; 09-09-2016 at 01:33 PM.

[Nicolas06]

I agree that in most situations slightly slower AF and AF sound will not make much of a difference. But if you are shooting a wedding ceremony in church and want to be discrete, screw-drive AF can be annoying. Especially if it fails to focus and goes from infinity to minimal focus distance. Also there is no QS, which would definitely just make prefocusing more convenient. 77 could definitely use a small upgrade (without ramping the price ridiculously).

Do you actually think it is or did you actually experience people complaining of the noise of the lens when shooting such ceremony? I never heard anybody complaining and I did shoot wedding ceremony with the FA77. I use mostly screw drive primes and I never heard somebody complaining about the noise of my gear. never ever. I keep reading photographers complaining of the noise in many circonstances but I never read photographer relating actual experience where this was an actual concrete problem (people complaining...).

When I was using silent zoom (50-135 and 17-70) people where noticing me much more because of the actual size of the gear. And I had more remarks than today. The remark are never about the noises anyway. Not back in time, not now.

As for the lens struggling to focus, I think it never happen with FA77 and K3, I never need quick shift. In a sense that a feature for when AF fail. That was an issue with K5, not with K3.

As for upgrade, I agree and I all for it. I am just afraid it would make it:
- significantly bigger
- change the color rendering typically of FA that I value more than DA rendering... And I guess that is due to different coatings.

[Apapukas]

Do you actually think it is or did you actually experience people complaining of the noise of the lens when shooting such ceremony? I never heard anybody complaining and I did shoot wedding ceremony with the FA77. I use mostly screw drive primes and I never heard somebody complaining about the noise of my gear. never ever. I keep reading photographers complaining of the noise in many circonstances but I never read photographer relating actual experience where this was an actual concrete problem (people complaining...).

When I was using silent zoom (50-135 and 17-70) people where noticing me much more because of the actual size of the gear. And I had more remarks than today. The remark are never about the noises anyway. Not back in time, not now.

As for the lens struggling to focus, I think it never happen with FA77 and K3, I never need quick shift. In a sense that a feature for when AF fail. That was an issue with K5, not with K3.

As for upgrade, I agree and I all for it. I am just afraid it would make it:
- significantly bigger
- change the color rendering typically of FA that I value more than DA rendering... And I guess that is due to different coatings.

I wouldn't say that I have ever received complains about the noise, but I have noticed people turning heads.
In one photo shoot I was using DFA100mm which is super awesome for portraits. When the model heard the AF sound, she asked "Is your camera broken?".

Again, it is not a big deal. But a silent focus motor would make it a better lens.

[WinePaul]

So, while I have the FA 77, and I have previously owned the A* 85 f/1.4, and I own the DA* 200 - I do not have your personal experience. If the 135 on cropped feels right, then you need a 200

The above advice is totally wrong. The angle of view of the 200 on full frame is the same as the 135 on APS-c, but the perspective is not!

Telephoto lenses compress space. A telephoto lens in the 70 - 135 range is generally pleasing, as it makes noses appear shorter, but otherwise renders an image that appears much the same as the human eye. Longer lenses exaggerate the flattening effect, leading to portraits that are fairly unpleasant. Most people don’t look good with flat faces.

[UncleVanya]

The above advice is totally wrong. The angle of view of the 200 on full frame is the same as the 135 on APS-c, but the perspective is not!

Telephoto lenses compress space. A telephoto lens in the 70 - 135 range is generally pleasing, as it makes noses appear shorter, but otherwise renders an image that appears much the same as the human eye. Longer lenses exaggerate the flattening effect, leading to portraits that are fairly unpleasant. Most people don’t look good with flat faces.

Sorry but that is not true. The focal length in a vacuum doesn't tell you anything. 135mm on APSC is as telephoto as 200mm is on full frame. Typically the distance from you to the subject will be very similar using these lenses on the two formats to give the same framing.

Please read this and then explain how my advice was wrong: How Lens Compression and Perspective Distortion Work | Fstoppers


But even if you think 200mm on full frame is too much...
Here I present 200mm on APSC:



Generated by http://tools.sportscard.trade

It is easy to make portraits that work even at a 300mm equivalent length.

[Wheatfield]

The above advice is totally wrong. The angle of view of the 200 on full frame is the same as the 135 on APS-c, but the perspective is not!

Telephoto lenses compress space. A telephoto lens in the 70 - 135 range is generally pleasing, as it makes noses appear shorter, but otherwise renders an image that appears much the same as the human eye. Longer lenses exaggerate the flattening effect, leading to portraits that are fairly unpleasant. Most people don’t look good with flat faces.

What you are talking about is a function of the camera to subject distance, not the focal length. Lenses in the 70-135 range work (on a full frame, on an APS-C 50-85mm is the sweet spot) because that gives the nice tight framing favoured by portraitists at a distance that gives a nice appearance to the subject’s features.

Wow, talk about resurrecting zombie threads.

[clackers]

Telephoto lenses compress space.

Compression is a myth. It goes on year after year on the Internet, like a Nigerian prince's email.

[Wasp]

It is easy to make portraits that work even at a 300mm equivalent length.

The thing is, you have to stand back. For a head and shoulders portait of one person you're OK. For two people, you have to stand way back. If you want to do the soft background bokeh thing, this works against you. Even a K 200mm f/2.5 might not be enough. I have tried exactly that, and your background must be some distance behind your subject. It is doable but I haven't tried full length shots.

To answer the original question, a 200mm on full frame is (more or less) equivalent to 135mm on crop. If you like that, there are no shortage of choices. To dip a toe in the water, get a manual focus A or M 200mm f/4. They are not expensive and IQ is better than most budget zoom lenses, even modern ones. Or go for broke and get an autofocus 200mm f/2.8 in prime (or zoom).


The aforementioned K 200mm f/2.5 is nice but they are becoming collectable and prices reflect that. IQ is pretty good but a bit lacking when compared to later lenses. A bit of an acquired taste, then.

[UncleVanya]

The thing is, you have to stand back. For a head and shoulders portait of one person you're OK. For two people, you have to stand way back.

The claim was about flattened features, I think we can agree my subject was not flattened even at 200mm on APSC. I've used 400mm on APSC for some 3/4 candid head shots. Working distance is long with longer lenses - that is true. But the claim that someone shooting 135mm on APSC wouldn't like 200 on full frame based on features flattening or even distance to subject is silly. Many will find it too long but generally those people won't already like to shoot 135 on apsc for this purpose.