Now that the K-1 is here, is it time for an updated portrait prime?

**UncleVanya** · 06-23-2016, 05:10 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by slip

I agree with you but for the most part the focal length is impractical on a crop sensor... now K1, that is a different story

the Bokeh is amazing!

Randy

No worse than a 300mm f2.8 on the k-1. I've shot portraits with a 400mm f5.6. On a k-3.
Rules are made to be scoffed at.

**clackers** · 06-23-2016, 07:47 PM

We'll see your 200mm and raise you a 400mm f2.8:

Portraits Shot Using the Brenizer Method, a 400mm Lens, and iPhones for Lighting

jake14mw · 07-27-2016, 04:30 AM

Nikon just announced a new lens that is right along the lines I am hoping for for Pentax.Nikon Announces 105mm f/1.4 Full-Frame DSLR Prime Lens | Digital Trends

RAART · 07-27-2016, 05:13 AM

Me too... just sligthly lower price like Pentax always does.

Na Horuk · 07-27-2016, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

No worse than a 300mm f2.8 on the k-1. I've shot portraits with a 400mm f5.6. On a k-3. Rules are made to be scoffed at.

Yes, but! You can take a portrait with a fisheye, but we won't all start doing this anytime soon. The person was just saying that 105mm is not exactly the most useful focal length on APSC, as it is not really telephoto enough for telephoto use, but it is too telephoto for "normal" uses.

That said, it is always nice to see interesting new lenses. One of the reasons I chose Pentax is because it has some interesting primes and legacy lenses.

**UncleVanya** · 07-27-2016, 11:06 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Yes, but! You can take a portrait with a fisheye, but we won't all start doing this anytime soon. The person was just saying that 105mm is not exactly the most useful focal length on APSC, as it is not really telephoto enough for telephoto use, but it is too telephoto for "normal" uses.

That said, it is always nice to see interesting new lenses. One of the reasons I chose Pentax is because it has some interesting primes and legacy lenses.

Slip was talking about the DA* 200 and saying it was impractical for portraits on crop. He said nothing in the post I responded to about the 105mm. I'm sorry if I'm not understanding the point you are making.

In any case a large number of people disagree and do use 200mm on crop as well as FF.

RAART · 07-27-2016, 11:50 PM

+1 @UncleVanya

I used prior switching to Pentax, Nikon and my most used lens for portraits was 105mm, 135mm and 180mm as well as 200mm with my Sigma zoom and even 300mm Nikon prime. I am glad to see that Nikon brought this 105mm F1.4 lens as this IMHO will be a killer lens for portraits at that speed. If the wide open performance is good they have a winner there. I do not think that Pentax will go to 1.4 and I am assuming that if they bring the new lens out it will be 85mm 1.8 as Tamron has it already. They should bring 135mm or/and 105mm back as they have a K-1 now and this is excellent focal length for half body shots.

redcat · 07-28-2016, 08:00 AM

If Pentax recur the 135mm f1.8 with AF, it's already a great move. It received lots of compliments and is compared to Leica lens a while ago.
105mm f1.4 is another story, if Pentax release a lens like that, I'll buy that for sure ! I'm a portrait shooter and 105mm is not long at all on a FF, I shot 135mm on Aps-c and feel comfortable even for a whole body shot let alone headshot or half body.

**UncleVanya** · 07-28-2016, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by redcat

If Pentax recur the 135mm f1.8 with AF, it's already a great move. It received lots of compliments and is compared to Leica lens a while ago.
105mm f1.4 is another story, if Pentax release a lens like that, I'll buy that for sure ! I'm a portrait shooter and 105mm is not long at all on a FF, I shot 135mm on Aps-c and feel comfortable even for a whole body shot let alone headshot or half body.

Forgive me but I'm having difficulty understanding this comment. I get the superbness of the 135 1.8. What confused me is that you mention that the 105 would not be long at all on FF (I concur from my film days), and then say you would buy it but then you mention having shot 135 on APSC and finding that comfortable for whole body shots and headshots and half body shots. Is there a word missing? If 135 is comfortable on APSC (200mm on FF roughly) why is 105 a good choice?

I must be confused or there is a typo here.

The history of the use of 105 is simply marketing. Nikon was successful at making people think 105 was better than 85 or 135. Personally I think it was a fabulous lens but the focal length wasn't what was magical. I think most of us could work with 85 and 135 on FF without ever missing the 105 - but the 105's of the past (and likely this one) were really nice lenses.

Darj · 07-28-2016, 09:42 AM - **1 Like**

+1 for the 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro. I'm really not one for portrait photography but I've had other people use my kit and it's produced great results, I'll see if one of the subjects is ok with me posting images of them and put up some examples if they are.

redcat · 07-30-2016, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

If 135 is comfortable on APSC (200mm on FF roughly) why is 105 a good choice?

I see some members complaining 105 is too long, I just don't feel the same, 135 is cool for portrait : great for headshot, ok for full body, 105 at 1.4 is even better cause I use max aperture almost everyday (why bother buy a 1.4 to shoot at 2.8, right

). I shot portrait with all lens I have/had from 15mm to 135mm so more choices I have more things I can do (LBA talking ?) ^^

**UncleVanya** · 07-30-2016, 06:45 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by redcat

I see some members complaining 105 is too long, I just don't feel the same, 135 is cool for portrait : great for headshot, ok for full body, 105 at 1.4 is even better cause I use max aperture almost everyday (why bother buy a 1.4 to shoot at 2.8, right

). I shot portrait with all lens I have/had from 15mm to 135mm so more choices I have more things I can do (LBA talking ?) ^^

You and I are of a similar mindset. I have done an 15mm selfie and portraits using the 31 up through a 400. On crop.

**RobA_Oz** · 07-30-2016, 07:00 AM

In film days, my favourite portrait lens was the SMC Takumar 135/2.5, usually shot wide open. I still have my copy, bought new in 1974, but I've yet to try it on the K-1. Even without pushing it to a wider maximum aperture (although f2.0 could be a good compromise) an updated version of this lens could be very good without costing a small fortune.

**Kerrowdown** · 07-30-2016, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by jake14mw

I think I've seen speculation that it might be an 85mm, I'm hoping for something like a 135 f1.8

If you can live with manual focus legacy glass... examples of both are already available, the SMC Pentax-A* 85mm F1.4 and SMC Pentax-A* 135mm F1.8.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Question My "For Sale" item expired. What is the length of time an ad is allowed on the site?	TKB	Site Suggestions and Help	3	02-06-2016 03:31 PM
Now that FF is here and what do we do with the cropped DA lenses?	pento57mm	Pentax Full Frame	63	04-11-2015 07:05 PM
Photokina 2014: Pentax K3 Prestige / K-S1 - Is that it for K-mount news?	Gray	Pentax News and Rumors	207	09-26-2014 01:01 PM
My K5 was firmare 1.01 and I updated to 1.03...now the playback is super delayed	crossover37	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	6	05-14-2011 04:50 PM
official Pentax K-m it is here ! Now !	Pedro Ernesto Guerra Azevedo	Pentax News and Rumors	30	09-22-2008 07:05 PM

06-23-2016, 05:10 PM - 1 Like	#16
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,445	Originally posted by slip I agree with you but for the most part the focal length is impractical on a crop sensor... now K1, that is a different story the Bokeh is amazing! Randy No worse than a 300mm f2.8 on the k-1. I've shot portraits with a 400mm f5.6. On a k-3. Rules are made to be scoffed at.

06-23-2016, 07:47 PM	#17
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	We'll see your 200mm and raise you a 400mm f2.8: Portraits Shot Using the Brenizer Method, a 400mm Lens, and iPhones for Lighting

07-27-2016, 04:30 AM	#18
jake14mw Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Connecticut, USA Posts: 977 Original Poster	Nikon just announced a new lens that is right along the lines I am hoping for for Pentax.Nikon Announces 105mm f/1.4 Full-Frame DSLR Prime Lens \| Digital Trends

07-27-2016, 05:13 AM	#19
RAART Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Oakville, ON Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,095	Me too... just sligthly lower price like Pentax always does.

07-27-2016, 02:52 PM	#20
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by UncleVanya No worse than a 300mm f2.8 on the k-1. I've shot portraits with a 400mm f5.6. On a k-3. Rules are made to be scoffed at. Yes, but! You can take a portrait with a fisheye, but we won't all start doing this anytime soon. The person was just saying that 105mm is not exactly the most useful focal length on APSC, as it is not really telephoto enough for telephoto use, but it is too telephoto for "normal" uses. That said, it is always nice to see interesting new lenses. One of the reasons I chose Pentax is because it has some interesting primes and legacy lenses.

07-27-2016, 11:06 PM - 1 Like	#21
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,445	Originally posted by Na Horuk Yes, but! You can take a portrait with a fisheye, but we won't all start doing this anytime soon. The person was just saying that 105mm is not exactly the most useful focal length on APSC, as it is not really telephoto enough for telephoto use, but it is too telephoto for "normal" uses. That said, it is always nice to see interesting new lenses. One of the reasons I chose Pentax is because it has some interesting primes and legacy lenses. Slip was talking about the DA* 200 and saying it was impractical for portraits on crop. He said nothing in the post I responded to about the 105mm. I'm sorry if I'm not understanding the point you are making. In any case a large number of people disagree and do use 200mm on crop as well as FF.

07-27-2016, 11:50 PM	#22
RAART Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Oakville, ON Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,095	+1 @UncleVanya I used prior switching to Pentax, Nikon and my most used lens for portraits was 105mm, 135mm and 180mm as well as 200mm with my Sigma zoom and even 300mm Nikon prime. I am glad to see that Nikon brought this 105mm F1.4 lens as this IMHO will be a killer lens for portraits at that speed. If the wide open performance is good they have a winner there. I do not think that Pentax will go to 1.4 and I am assuming that if they bring the new lens out it will be 85mm 1.8 as Tamron has it already. They should bring 135mm or/and 105mm back as they have a K-1 now and this is excellent focal length for half body shots.

07-28-2016, 08:00 AM	#23
redcat Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Paris Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,939	If Pentax recur the 135mm f1.8 with AF, it's already a great move. It received lots of compliments and is compared to Leica lens a while ago. 105mm f1.4 is another story, if Pentax release a lens like that, I'll buy that for sure ! I'm a portrait shooter and 105mm is not long at all on a FF, I shot 135mm on Aps-c and feel comfortable even for a whole body shot let alone headshot or half body.

07-28-2016, 08:38 AM	#24
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,445	Originally posted by redcat If Pentax recur the 135mm f1.8 with AF, it's already a great move. It received lots of compliments and is compared to Leica lens a while ago. 105mm f1.4 is another story, if Pentax release a lens like that, I'll buy that for sure ! I'm a portrait shooter and 105mm is not long at all on a FF, I shot 135mm on Aps-c and feel comfortable even for a whole body shot let alone headshot or half body. Forgive me but I'm having difficulty understanding this comment. I get the superbness of the 135 1.8. What confused me is that you mention that the 105 would not be long at all on FF (I concur from my film days), and then say you would buy it but then you mention having shot 135 on APSC and finding that comfortable for whole body shots and headshots and half body shots. Is there a word missing? If 135 is comfortable on APSC (200mm on FF roughly) why is 105 a good choice? I must be confused or there is a typo here. The history of the use of 105 is simply marketing. Nikon was successful at making people think 105 was better than 85 or 135. Personally I think it was a fabulous lens but the focal length wasn't what was magical. I think most of us could work with 85 and 135 on FF without ever missing the 105 - but the 105's of the past (and likely this one) were really nice lenses.

07-28-2016, 09:42 AM - 1 Like	#25
Darj New Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Posts: 5	+1 for the 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro. I'm really not one for portrait photography but I've had other people use my kit and it's produced great results, I'll see if one of the subjects is ok with me posting images of them and put up some examples if they are.

07-30-2016, 01:33 AM	#26
redcat Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Paris Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,939	Originally posted by UncleVanya If 135 is comfortable on APSC (200mm on FF roughly) why is 105 a good choice? I see some members complaining 105 is too long, I just don't feel the same, 135 is cool for portrait : great for headshot, ok for full body, 105 at 1.4 is even better cause I use max aperture almost everyday (why bother buy a 1.4 to shoot at 2.8, right ). I shot portrait with all lens I have/had from 15mm to 135mm so more choices I have more things I can do (LBA talking ?) ^^

07-30-2016, 06:45 AM - 1 Like	#27
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,445	Originally posted by redcat I see some members complaining 105 is too long, I just don't feel the same, 135 is cool for portrait : great for headshot, ok for full body, 105 at 1.4 is even better cause I use max aperture almost everyday (why bother buy a 1.4 to shoot at 2.8, right ). I shot portrait with all lens I have/had from 15mm to 135mm so more choices I have more things I can do (LBA talking ?) ^^ You and I are of a similar mindset. I have done an 15mm selfie and portraits using the 31 up through a 400. On crop.

07-30-2016, 07:00 AM	#28
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,200	In film days, my favourite portrait lens was the SMC Takumar 135/2.5, usually shot wide open. I still have my copy, bought new in 1974, but I've yet to try it on the K-1. Even without pushing it to a wider maximum aperture (although f2.0 could be a good compromise) an updated version of this lens could be very good without costing a small fortune.

07-30-2016, 01:04 PM	#29
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,833	Originally posted by jake14mw I think I've seen speculation that it might be an 85mm, I'm hoping for something like a 135 f1.8 If you can live with manual focus legacy glass... examples of both are already available, the SMC Pentax-A* 85mm F1.4 and SMC Pentax-A* 135mm F1.8.