Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-15-2016, 04:30 PM   #46
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 14,441
QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
I would mention that the FA 28-70 f/4 shot wide open can yield good portrait results. Even though it isn't very sharp past about 50mm, you don't need that for portraits. Color and rendering is nice, and the lens is small in case you do want to close in with a wider view.

You know, that's an interesting option for K-1 owners, because for the foreseeable future, the 24-70 f2.8 is the standard offering and it's big and expensive.


Par for the course, but that legacy lens is another alternative to the mix.

06-15-2016, 05:05 PM   #47
Senior Member
jwc77's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Rolla, MO
Posts: 269
My favorite is my DA *55...just a great lens with wonderful rendering and 3D pop. I also use my Tamron 28-75 and my Tammron 90 macro which are both very capable portrait lenses too.
06-15-2016, 11:26 PM   #48
Veteran Member
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,519
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
You know, that's an interesting option for K-1 owners, because for the foreseeable future, the 24-70 f2.8 is the standard offering and it's big and expensive.


Par for the course, but that legacy lens is another alternative to the mix.
I don't know. The Pentax f/4 lens is so small that I question how well it will do in the corners. Having never mounted it on any of my film cameras, I don't know (and that isn't a foolproof indication due to incidence angle problems on digital).

Of all the alternatives out there, I feel the typical K-1 owner seeking a fairly economical, small medium-range zoom should be looking at the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Having shot it extensively on crop and FF Canon, I found it strong on both formats starting at f/4. At the same time, it was borderline terrible at f/2.8 - especially on the long end. It is a better lens in all respects than the Pentax 28-70 f/4 - other than size of course! Even regarding size, the Tamron really isn't bad - and should balance nicely on the K-1 much as it did on the 5D (which was a bit lighter than the K-1).

The new zoom is very impressive, and apparently worth the price if you have the cash. The size and weight is a very valid concern, though. As a former medium format film shooter, I feel pretty strongly (and my back confirms) that the argument for primes gets stronger as you go up in format size. So, Pentax has some work to do in the lens department...
06-16-2016, 04:40 AM   #49
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 14,441
QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote

Of all the alternatives out there, I feel the typical K-1 owner seeking a fairly economical, small medium-range zoom should be looking at the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.
Well, that's what I use on mine.

I even find my copy okay at f2.8. Sharp at f4, better again at f5.6, etc.

06-16-2016, 04:52 AM   #50
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 15,920
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
I even find my copy okay at f2.8. Sharp at f4, better again at f5.6, etc.
On my K-3 / K-3II, I'm getting the same results with that lens. Okay at f/2.8 (even quite good, depending on subject and the effect I'm looking for) and great from f/4 down. Lovely little lens.
06-16-2016, 05:52 AM   #51
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 14,441
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
On my K-3 / K-3II, I'm getting the same results with that lens. Okay at f/2.8 (even quite good, depending on subject and the effect I'm looking for) and great from f/4 down. Lovely little lens.
You've talked me into it, Mike. Mine is also 'quite good' at f2.8.

The Tammy 70-200 I have complementing it is sharper at f2.8, but that's a seriously nice lens. I know you've had fun and games with your copy, unfortunately.
06-16-2016, 06:02 AM - 1 Like   #52
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 15,920
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
You've talked me into it, Mike. Mine is also 'quite good' at f2.8.

The Tammy 70-200 I have complementing it is sharper at f2.8, but that's a seriously nice lens. I know you've had fun and games with your copy, unfortunately.
I should have the replacement in a few days (supplier is expecting stock today or tomorrow). It happens - I'm not too concerned about it, merely a minor inconvenience I did get to play with the original copy enough that I know how sharp it can be (manually focused at f/2.8 was very good - better than expected, and from f/4 it was truly excellent)...
06-16-2016, 08:00 AM   #53
Veteran Member
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,519
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Well, that's what I use on mine.

I even find my copy okay at f2.8. Sharp at f4, better again at f5.6, etc.
Contrary to popular belief, good lenses (low CA) that are soft with low resolution sensors improve in sharpness as you add megapixels. The 5D had lower pixel density than the old 6 mp Pentax cameras! For me, it was usable only in emergency situations at f/2.8 - and that was back in the days when going from 1600 to 3200 ISO was like jump off a cliff. I'm not surprised that you would be fine with f/2.8 with a newer camera - I'm pretty sure I would agree. My recollection is that the step from 2.8 to 4 was huge when you factor in the contrast improvement, but going to 5.6 was comparatively minor - but it has been years since I used the lens. The 5D is long gone...

The whole debate about whether a lens out-resolves a sensor, or vice-versa, doesn't exist in real-world shooting. In the Pentax world, all that seemed to end when people started adapting (torture testing) K-mounts to the Q.

06-17-2016, 04:06 AM   #54
New Member
andermurias's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Bilbao - Spain
Posts: 8
Original Poster
Okay, I've been thinking a lot about, and I believe that the Sigma 17-50 2.8 for less than 300€ is the best option, maybe a bit out of my budget, but I think that is the better option. In fact i've found one here in Spain on ebay, for 285€ and i'm really thinking to buy it. The other option I'm thinking about would be to buy the DA 50mm now and wait a few months (Until christmas) to buy the Sigma.

Why the 17-50 and no any other? In summer when I go to my fathers town, I use to take some photos to sky at night (astrophotography) so the wider angle will be pretty good for that (wider than the 28)

QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
I don't know. The Pentax f/4 lens is so small that I question how well it will do in the corners. Having never mounted it on any of my film cameras, I don't know (and that isn't a foolproof indication due to incidence angle problems on digital).

Of all the alternatives out there, I feel the typical K-1 owner seeking a fairly economical, small medium-range zoom should be looking at the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Having shot it extensively on crop and FF Canon, I found it strong on both formats starting at f/4. At the same time, it was borderline terrible at f/2.8 - especially on the long end. It is a better lens in all respects than the Pentax 28-70 f/4 - other than size of course! Even regarding size, the Tamron really isn't bad - and should balance nicely on the K-1 much as it did on the 5D (which was a bit lighter than the K-1).

The new zoom is very impressive, and apparently worth the price if you have the cash. The size and weight is a very valid concern, though. As a former medium format film shooter, I feel pretty strongly (and my back confirms) that the argument for primes gets stronger as you go up in format size. So, Pentax has some work to do in the lens department...
QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
Keep in mind, Cartier-Bresson shot great environmental portraits... so it is a matter of what kind of shot is pursued. Very few of his shots were taken from less than 5 feet away, and most of those were for a dramatic effect that did not flatter the face.

We're disagreeing mostly on terminology. The OP has an arsenal of lenses that include AF in the normal-to-somewhat telephoto length. I took his inquiry to mean classic vertical portraits, but possibly the wider concept was meant.

Getting back to his original mission of looking for a relatively inexpensive option, I would mention that the FA 28-70 f/4 shot wide open can yield good portrait results. Even though it isn't very sharp past about 50mm, you don't need that for portraits. Color and rendering is nice, and the lens is small in case you do want to close in with a wider view. As long as the background isn't right behind the subject, f/4 is fine for portrait work, IMHO.
About the 28-70 f/4 I think that it's a great lens, but I prefer to wait and buy the 17-50, in fact I tried again my F 35-80 4/5.6 and is quiet good, It's much better than I thought (It was also my first lens, so I didn't took it serious, and I think that it was a mistake)

So, what do you think about buying the 17-50 for 285€ good price, bad, regular, could I find better offers?

Thanks

Last edited by andermurias; 06-17-2016 at 05:59 AM.
06-17-2016, 09:53 AM   #55
Veteran Member
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,519
I think the Sigma and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lenses are excellent all-around lenses. I might have a slight bias against the Tamron because my brother bought one and it fell apart on him - and Tamron refused warranty repair. But it is a fine lens, especially regarding center sharpness. The Sigma is more substantial, and if the size doesn't bother you, better overall especially for landscape work. These lenses are both substantially optically stronger than the more-expensive Pentax 16-50.

They are fine for portrait with the understanding 75mm equivalent on crop is just barely in the classic portrait realm. With the newer sensors (especially the K-3), cropping a bit isn't a problem when shooting the classic head and shoulders vertical portrait. You'll likely enjoy having f/2.8 to work with on portraits. Work with the DA 50 for now, and see if that field of view is comfortable enough. If not, you might want to consider looking at the 17-70 options. They are especially well suited to portraiture, but you're losing some speed as a trade off.
06-17-2016, 10:01 AM   #56
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,190
QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
I think the Sigma and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lenses are excellent all-around lenses. I might have a slight bias against the Tamron because my brother bought one and it fell apart on him - and Tamron refused warranty repair. But it is a fine lens, especially regarding center sharpness. The Sigma is more substantial, and if the size doesn't bother you, better overall especially for landscape work. These lenses are both substantially optically stronger than more-expensive Pentax 16-50.

They are fine for portrait with the understanding 75mm equivalent on crop is just barely in the classic portrait realm. With the newer sensors (especially the K-3), cropping a bit isn't a problem when shooting the classic head and shoulders vertical portrait. You'll likely enjoy having f/2.8 to work with on portraits. Work with the DA 50 for now, and see if that field of view is comfortable enough. If not, you might want to consider looking at the 17-70 options. They are especially well suited to portraiture, but you're losing some speed as a trade off.
Hmmm. . .
So if I'm understanding this correctly I may already have all the portrait lenses I need? Currently have both the Sigma 17-50 2.8 and a surprisingly (to me) very good Bower/Samyang 85mm 1.4. If that's correct then my pondering over a *55 or 40 Limited or "other" is done. The Bower has already proven itself to me as a portrait lens, but I've not ever given the Sigma a shot at the shorter range which is where I thought I was lacking.

By the way, my Pentax DA50 1.8 will be going to the marketplace within a day or two. I did give it a shot for portraits and it just doesn't give the "look" I like. Otherwise it's a really nice lens, especially at the price-point. Just not useful in my camera bag.

Last edited by gatorguy; 06-17-2016 at 10:09 AM.
06-17-2016, 11:27 AM   #57
Veteran Member
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,519
It really depends on whether you miss the range between 50mm and 85mm in shooting portraits. If someone needs a formal portrait, I use the Rokinon/Samyang 85mm and it does very well. I find it just wide enough. I completely agree that the DA 50 doesn't render for portraits well - too much saturation and micro-contrast (which does work well for some other situations).

Overall, I enjoy using the A-35-105 f/3.5 for portrait work. Wide open, it isn't sharp on the wide end but from 50mm upwards it is plenty sharp. If they put that lens out in AF, they would have a real winner.
06-17-2016, 11:39 AM   #58
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,190
QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
It really depends on whether you miss the range between 50mm and 85mm in shooting portraits. If someone needs a formal portrait, I use the Rokinon/Samyang 85mm and it does very well. I find it just wide enough. I completely agree that the DA 50 doesn't render for portraits well - too much saturation and micro-contrast (which does work well for some other situations).

Overall, I enjoy using the A-35-105 f/3.5 for portrait work. Wide open, it isn't sharp on the wide end but from 50mm upwards it is plenty sharp. If they put that lens out in AF, they would have a real winner.
Very much appreciated Jim. Now if I spend a a little bit on PP software I don't feel nearly as guilty about it, and the wife will be a whole lot happier! Any month she doesn't see a new lens come thru the door is a good month for her.
06-17-2016, 03:00 PM   #59
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,190
This just popped up in the marketplace in case anyone is interested. The lens has been mentioned a few times in this thread
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/24-photographic-equipment-sale/323878-sal...8-limited.html
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
50mm, af, af lens, autofocus, camera, control, da, focus, k-mount, lens, love, matter, pentax, pentax lens, portrait, portraits, sigma, slr lens, smc, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Recommended Lens for Portrait shooting Wingincamera Photographic Technique 16 08-29-2018 07:44 AM
alternative lens for 85mm f1.4 for full body portrait ghiaauto Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 09-25-2014 04:28 PM
Metz 52 AF-1 good for parade portrait fill-flash? DeadJohn Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 3 07-18-2014 04:41 AM
Choose one lens for portrait, Pentax SMCP-FA 43 mm F/1.9 AF LMTD vs... clostoyo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 09-18-2013 12:16 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:24 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top