[Tranzistors]

Of course “worth it” is subjective, but I am trying to understand what are the considerations when taking portrait shots.

It seems that consensus about what is a portrait lens, most agree that something like 85mm 1.4 (long and fast) is the right way to go. I understand that fast lens helps to blur out background (and ears, and the other eye) so if I have smooth background, shooting at F/8 should be enough. Also if I want to get rid of unwanted skin characteristics, post-processing can handle that.

Right now I have 50mm 1.4 lens and 18-135mm kit lens and I am wondering, if there is a good reason to upgrade.

[Venom3300]

If you are going to shoot at f8 anyways then I cant see the point in spending serious money on a fast lens.

If you want the shallow depth of field of fast lens then I would say look at the DA* 55 or FA 77 limited.

[Tranzistors]

If you want the shallow depth of field of fast lens then I would say look at the DA* 55 or FA 77 limited.

The original question was inspired by comparing FA77 and DA70.

[gorme]

Your 50mm f/1.4 should definitly be up to do some very nice portraits with bokeh. This one is taken with a 50mm and the field of view is fine.

When I do portrait, I usually switch between a few primes (I have the time to change lens) : the SMC-A 50mm f/1.2 and the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 are honnestly the ones that I use the most. I know what I can get from each : the long lens compress more of the background than the short lens...

But at f/8 why bother ? If you are looking for sharpness, a 100mm macro is a nice option for f/8 oriented photos.

As I agree completely with gatorguy, I edit my post to add a couple of pictures taken with the 85 samyang

---

Last edited by gorme; 07-07-2016 at 07:34 AM.

[gatorguy]

A value-priced lens you should consider is the Samyang/Bower 85mm 1.4. I picked one up barely used for around $150, and they aren't that hard to find under $200. It's sharp, fast, with excellent color rendition. One caveat is it's manual focus. Shooting wide-open requires a decent eye considering the shallow DoF but I've got 60-year old ones littered with floaters and can nail it more often than not. Stop down to 2.8 or more, which is better for portrait anyway (F4 is ideal with this one), and even bad eyes should have no trouble IMO with a little practice.

All three of these were taken on the same overcast day with the Bower version. These are rookie shots too. I'd had the lens no more than a couple of days, and shooting a DSLR for not much more than a year when these were taken. You can do just as well if not better with it, I'm certain.



To me based on the results it's worth the tiny investment, even brand new under $260.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Samyang+85mm+pentax&N=0&InitialSear...op+Nav-Search=

[UncleVanya]

Of course “worth it” is subjective, but I am trying to understand what are the considerations when taking portrait shots.

It seems that consensus about what is a portrait lens, most agree that something like 85mm 1.4 (long and fast) is the right way to go. I understand that fast lens helps to blur out background (and ears, and the other eye) so if I have smooth background, shooting at F/8 should be enough. Also if I want to get rid of unwanted skin characteristics, post-processing can handle that.

Right now I have 50mm 1.4 lens and 18-135mm kit lens and I am wondering, if there is a good reason to upgrade.

I assume this is for a cropped sensor not full frame? 85 is a medium length lens for portraits on apsc (cropped sensor) cameras. Some will go longer 135 or even 200.

Also the f1.4 is only going to impact photos taken st f1.4. An f2 or f2.8 lens shot at f8 will look nearly the same as the same shot on the 1.4 lens shot at f8. Assuming both are reasonable quality lenses the only differences will be minor.

I use an FA 77 or DA 70 or the DA* 50-135 for the most demanding portraits. The F 50 1.7 and DA 40 f2,8 are also useful for me. Heck my DA* 200 works in a pinch.

[Kerrowdown]

Fast, long portrait lens, is it worth it?

I would like to say yes, but really it's each to their own, a fast 85 can do marvellous things to not so marvellous backgrounds.

He's just a couple of recent "portraits" to show what I mean.

1/4000 sec @ F1.4, ISO 800, “Sweetheart” (SMC Pentax-A* 85mm F1.4)



1/8000 sec @ F1.4, ISO 400, “Sweetheart” (SMC Pentax-A* 85mm F1.4)

---

Last edited by Kerrowdown; 07-07-2016 at 02:32 PM.

[macman24054]

I will say that it depend on what you are trying to do and the circumstances you are in. My most used portrait lens is the *50-135. 2.8 is not as fast as primes but the lens compression is very pleasing. My second most used is my da50 1.8. Close ups are hard to beat on the 50. My next 3 purchases will be the *55, one of the third party manual focus fast 85's and a FA 100 macro. I have grown to love shooting wide open. I have the Tammy 17-50 2.8, 28-75 2.8, *50-135, da 50 1.8 and da 35 2.4. I have many other lenses but I can't remember the last time any of them left my camera cabinet. Fast glass can be addicting!

[gatorguy]

I will say that it depend on what you are trying to do and the circumstances you are in. My most used portrait lens is the *50-135. 2.8 is not as fast as primes but the lens compression is very pleasing. My second most used is my da50 1.8. Close ups are hard to beat on the 50. My next 3 purchases will be the *55, one of the third party manual focus fast 85's and a FA 100 macro. I have grown to love shooting wide open. I have the Tammy 17-50 2.8, 28-75 2.8, *50-135, da 50 1.8 and da 35 2.4. I have many other lenses but I can't remember the last time any of them left my camera cabinet. Fast glass can be addicting!

You and I have the same idea. I think I've pretty much settled on the *55, Bower 85, D FA100WR (my absolute favorite!) along with the *200 as my go to lenses. The others spend a lot of time in their softcases.

[disconnekt]

If you want more range/versatility, you can always go with Pentax's 50-135mm f2.8 or Tamron's 70-200mm f2.8

[Nicolas06]

Of course “worth it” is subjective, but I am trying to understand what are the considerations when taking portrait shots.

It seems that consensus about what is a portrait lens, most agree that something like 85mm 1.4 (long and fast) is the right way to go. I understand that fast lens helps to blur out background (and ears, and the other eye) so if I have smooth background, shooting at F/8 should be enough. Also if I want to get rid of unwanted skin characteristics, post-processing can handle that.

Right now I have 50mm 1.4 lens and 18-135mm kit lens and I am wondering, if there is a good reason to upgrade.

Focal Length influence.

First and foremost, focal length influence framing and shooting distance. So if you are indoor in some private house interior, you'd want shorter focal length. If you want a full body portrait within its environement you'd maybe favor a modera wide angle like a 24-30mm. If your subject is distant and you want and headshot, you'll need longer focal length.

Then, for the same apperture and framing, the longer the focal length, the more the background will appear blured. So typically is you want to isolate your subject a lens with a longer focal length help signficantly.

Finally the focal length affect the way perspective are rendered. Wide angle tend to distord perspective. Often this is to be avoided as it give a far less pleasing and unrealistic look to people. On the other side long lens compress pespectives. On many people it is benefical as it make features less proeminant and visible but if you go too far again, this will look unatural.

For headshot, on APSC, 70-135 range is quite comfortable, it give enough perspective compression to be quite pleasing and the working distance is nice.

For half body, for indoor in tight environement, in my be better to go something wider. On APSC that would be something like 30-70mm range.

And finally for full body/environemental portrait that would be 24-50mm range.

Of course this there is no hard rule.

Apperture

A larger apperture allows to increase subject isolation and also importantly indoor without a lighting system, to keep low iso. The deph of field is always the same whatever the focal length for a given apperture and framing but the longer the focal length, the blurer the background.The problem is the framing notion. For full body portrait, the subject is somewhat big and to really isolate it you need quite wider apperture. f/2.8 on a tight headshot and long focal length might be more than enough and you may prefer f/4-5.6, but for wider framing, you'd want f/2 or maybe even f/1.4

This of course is not that important in studio controlled environement where the background is carefully choosen.


Example: same woman, almost same apperture, but different focal length and framing. While the 135mm f/2.8 allowed for quite blured background for a tight head and shoulders portrait, 77mm f/2.5 on a wider framing gave lot of dof and not much subject isolation. Maybe I should have tried f/1.8 instead of f/2.5

F135 f/2.8


FA77, f/2.5.



The DA50 f/1.8 is a good start but it would be too short to be called ideal for headshots and too long for some environemental portraits. If you shoot lot of people, you'll find yourself shooting at a wide area of focal length, roughly 24 to 135mm and if you can't control the background and lighting, there lot of value to have fast lenses.

While at 100mm and up f/2.8 should be more than enough for subject isolation, 50mm and bellow, you'll really want f/2 or even f/1.4 for maximum effect.