[andermurias]

Hi Everyone!

A few days ago I bought my new KS-2, and im thinking to buy a new lens for portrait, right now this are my lenses:

Pentax SMC F 35-80 f/4-5.6
Pentax SMC FA 80-200 f/4-5.6
Pentax DA 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 AL
Pentax SMC M 50mm f/1.7
Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 di ii vc
Sigma 28-70 f/2.8-4

The first ones, the 35-80 and the 80-200 came with my Pentax Kr I didn't use them very much, I was recommended to buy a kit lens (18-55) but with the time, i shaw that I wanted a walk-arround telephoto so I bought the Tamron 18-200

The 18-200 is the lens that is usually attached to my camera, it's great, nice and sharp, not the best, but it works. Meanwhile I read about the Pentax primes, the 50 mm and how good is it, so I bought one copy, the M 50mm 1.7, I love it, it's my favorite lens, with the time my friend relized that I had a DSLR and then when we go to some place and I carry my camera, my friends use to tell me to take them portraits, and for that, the 18-200 is not the best, the 50mm is awesome, fast and sharp but sometimes I don't have enough distance to use it, so I was looking for a Pentax M 35mm or 28mm when I found the Sigma 28-70, pretty fast, portrait focal length, sharp, but manual.

I really love old manual lenses, they offer a really great glass for a very low price, but sometimes I miss the AF, I'm thinking to buy the DA 50mm 1.8, I think that is the best choice, but I'm open to suggestions (Maybe a zoom alternative, or another prime...) I do not have much budget but I could spend until 200€.

So, any opinions?

Thanks a lot

[pathdoc]

The DA50/1.8 is an astoundingly good lens for its very cheap price, and I think you would be pleased with it. But if you are concerned about it being too "long" and want a wider field of view, the DA 35mm f/2.4 is not that much more expensive and also astoundingly good for its very cheap price. If you were happy to buy used, it might even be possible to find both for your 200 Euro limit.

Do not confuse the DA 35 2.4 with the DA 35 2.8 Limited; the latter is a significantly higher quality build and is also a VERY close focusing macro; very, very good, but unless you absolutely NEED the ultra close focus/macro capability in a wide angle (and I bought it because I did) or desperately want the quickshift focus capability, it is unnecessarily expensive.

[clackers]

+1 for the Plastic Fantastics at your price level.

The 50 will be great for headshots, the 35 for more full body and group shots.

Two lenses Pentaxians can be proud of.

[Eric Auer]

A used SMC Pentax-F 50mm F1.7.




Eric

[robthebloke]

The DA plastic fantastics spring to mind. The DA and FA limiteds are *much* better, but the plastics aren't bad. The DA 35mm macro or 40mm limiteds are worth considering if you can find a good second hand price on one (I'd say the 35mm gives better value)

[D1N0]

The DA 50mm has rounded blades, so it is better for portraits than the F/FA 50mm 1.7. Even better for portraits is the F/FA 50mm 1.4

[pathdoc]

Even better for portraits is the F/FA 50mm 1.4

My FA50/1.4 is soft wide-open, which can be a very good thing under the right circumstances and in the right hands. These go used for $200 US, and if you must have a new one I think it's still about twice that. You're basically paying for the warranty in that case.

(I'd say the 35mm gives better value)

For the macro capability it certainly does. If you want compactness on a smaller Pentax DSLR body or a film body with program, Tv or even Av mode, and you don't need the macro capability, the 40 takes its place as first among equals. My DA40 got a HUGE amount of carriage time on my *istDL for that reason, which carried over to the K-5. These days I am content to travel with a somewhat larger lens and the 40 doesn't get as much love as it used to, but it certainly has its place. On a budget, though, the DA35/2.4 is a better choice.

[BigMackCam]

Unless you need a really fast lens for shallow depth of field or very low light work, then a great compromise lens for portraits on APS-C is the DA40 f/2.8 Limited. The slightly wider field of view compared to the DA50 f/1.8 is very noticeable, and the lens can easily be used wide open. IQ overall is very good indeed. A cheaper alternative but, apparently, almost the same optically, is the DA40 XS...

[Na Horuk]

I do not have much budget but I could spend until 200€.

This limits you to F 50mm f1.7, DA 50mm f1.8 or another lens from this lineage. Maybe you can find a used 50mm f1.4 in that price range? Main drawback is that the DA 50mm f1.8 is the same optical lineage as the M 50mm f1.7. Yes, there are differences in barrel and functions, yes the DA has better, newer lens coatings, yes the DA has rounded aperture blades; but don't expect drastically different results.
Generally, for portraiture you want a prime between 55mm and 85mm (on APSC), with aperture of f2 or faster. AF prime options are limited to DA* 55mm, FA 77mm limited, FA* 85mm f1.4. These three are practically made for portraiture, they have nice bokeh, good skin tone rendering, but they are also expensive. 50mm focal length is technically not quite perfect for portraiture, but on APSC it is not terrible, either. It is not far from 50mm. So all things considered, DA 50mm f1.8 is the way to go, or one of the legacy 50mm or 55mm lenses from series F or FA, depending on what you can find locally (or at an acceptable price, once you factor in shipping and import duties)

Edit: While DA 35mm and DA 40mm XS are both good lenses, I would say DA 50mm f1.8 is more suited for portraiture. The wider lenses might be better for full body photos, where you also get some of the environment into the frame. Or group photos. The wider angle is problematic because it means you need to come closer, the perspective changes, there is distortion and people's faces look rounder. This is generally not what people want.
Also, you can do okay portraits with DA 50-200mm. Try 85mm and 135mm, near wide open aperture.

[BigMackCam]

Edit: While DA 35mm and DA 40mm XS are both good lenses, I would say DA 50mm f1.8 is more suited for portraiture. The wider lenses might be better for full body photos, where you also get some of the environment into the frame. Or group photos. The wider angle is problematic because it means you need to come closer, the perspective changes, there is distortion and people's faces look rounder.

Agreed - and this is partly why I mentioned the DA40 XS over the DA35. Since the OP found that 50mm was a bit limiting in field of view, the 40 would give just a little more room. I find 40mm on APS-C works very well for full length portraiture (as you've said), but certainly not ideal for classic head and shoulders - although, depending on the subject and pose, it can still produce nice results. You just need to work a little more to flatter the subject

[Dipsoid]

What kind of portraits does the op want to make? If it's waist-up our full body portraits I don't see how 35 or 40 would be too wide. The distortion of facial features only happens if you try and take a headshot with them, and even then distortion isn't that bad, most casual portraits we're taken with 50s in the past (though I'm aware a professional would use 85+). You won't notice distortion too much until you go with a wider field of view and try and take a headshot.

[Na Horuk]

Agreed - and this is partly why I mentioned the DA40 XS over the DA35. Since the OP found that 50mm was a bit limiting in field of view, the 40 would give just a little more room. I find 40mm on APS-C works very well for full length portraiture (as you've said), but certainly not ideal for classic head and shoulders - although, depending on the subject and pose, it can still produce nice results. You just need to work a little more to flatter the subject

True. And if OP already has a M 50mm f1.7, then a DA 40mm (whether SMC, HD, or XS) might be more interesting. Something new, different lens design, different bokeh, AF, rounded aperture blades, modern lens coatings, full automation. 40mm is indeed a good FoV on APSC.

Honestly, OP can maybe sell the M 50mm f.7 and buy both used DA 50mm f1.8 and DA 40mm XS.

[redcat]

+1 for the da 50mm 1.8

[slip]

you can get a Sigma 17-50 2.8 that would cover the focal lengths you want for around the price you are after (maybe $50 more)

Randy

[UncleVanya]

In your budget there are a lot of possible lenses. It is true as claimed above that shorter focal lengths start to have the potential for issues but a 35mm on APSC acts more like a "normal" lens than anything wide. I have not been able to see much if any perspective distortion in the past treating this lens as a normal lens. The fact that you use the center of the image is part of the reason for this reduction of distortion that otherwise might be there and your working distance due to the angle of view is likely a bit longer than it would be using the same lens on a larger sensor.

With that out of the way. I own too many lenses. I own a number of classic portrait lenses and zooms but I also presently own the following that may be relevant to your needs:

F 50 f/1.7
SMC DA 40 Limited
F 35 f/2

I have previously owned the DA 35 f/2.4 also.

My own opinion is that the 35mm range on an APSC sized sensor makes for a reasonable "normal" lens and works fairly well for environmental portraits where a bit of the subject surroundings are included. At a minimum this focal length works for half-body work. The 40 is a little tighter as is the 50. Of these I prefer the 40. I sold off my DA 35 f/2.4 and kept the DA 40 - this was before I acquired the FA 35. Here are some example shots not all of them are perfectly in focus. I do think they show you what you need to see - that none of these lenses is going to distort the person badly. Personally I like all of these shots with the possible exception one or two selfies... LOL.

FA 35 self portrait off an antique mirror:


SMC DA 40 Limited...
Self Portrait at arms length:


Close portrait:


A little farther back:




F 50 f1.7:
A tight portrait:


A little farther back;


DA 35 f/2.4
Tight head shot:


Tight selfie:


A little more body: