[Jeff Lopez]

well there is the SMC M 40-80 2.8-4..not too sharp but quite good contrast

[kernos]

I really appreciate the comments so far. Just to be clear, this is sort of what I'm looking for in 40-60mm. This is perhaps unobtainable.


77mm Limited @2.2, minimal LR tweaking



77mm Limited @1.8, minimal LR tweaking

[pres589]

What's the unobtainable part? DA*55 seems right up that street. FA55 1.7 perhaps?

[RAART]

I use Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG, the last version and I think (I am sure) that will get you the desired results.

EDIT: Full Frame, Sharp and has creamy bokeh

---

Last edited by RAART; 06-06-2017 at 07:59 AM.

[Alex645]

Essentially with anything less than your 77mm you will get more distortion which is less flattering than the compression youʻd get with the 77mm or 85mm. I think for portraits itʻs still acceptable down to 50mm on an APS-C sensor, but if you look at this link, youʻll see the longer focal lengths are more flattering.

http://clicklovegrow.com/wp-content/new_folder/2014/11/zoom-vs-out.jpg

[ChatMechant]

In that range, given that you like the other FA ltds, the 43 is a no-brainer. Also, the K50 1.2 is really nice.

[pres589]

Presume you mean FA50? There is no such 55.

Ah, no, you are correct. I meant FA50 1.7.

[GlennG]

I am entirely happy with the FA 77mm Limited. It makes me look like I'm a better photographer than I actually am which is my definition of a great lens. But, it's not the best for a wider perspective or indoors. So gentle readers, for portraits (head and shoulders or larger) what lens would you select (Pentax or other) for aps-c portraits between 40mm and 60mm? I have used the DA 50mm 1.8 and while competent in lots of ways does not have the wow factor for portraits that either the 77mm or 31mm seem to be able to produce. I've heard decidedly mixed reviews about the 43mm but want to be convinced. I kick myself for not buying the VL 58mm when I could and now it appears to be unobtanium. I hear good things about some of the Zeiss 50's. I hear good things about Leitaxing Leica or Contax lenses. What has been your experience. Extra points for sharpness, creamy bokeh and full frame compatibility.

I have used the DA 40 Limited for portraits and I'm very happy with the results. It is very sharp, very competent, and some have reported that it can be used on full frame. I cannot comment on bokeh, since that is generally not a priority with me. The 40 mm focal length would be about half of the 77 that you are used to, so it would provide the noticeable step change that I believe you are looking for. It is also a very consistent performer. If there is a drawback about the 40 Limited, many will assert that as a modern day Limited designed for digital, it just does not pack the "wow" or "character" aspect that is sought in such a prime lens. But for me, it is great. I've not used the FA 43 Limited, but some users do report that it brings the "wow" and "character" factors. However, surprisingly I see some reports of the FA 43 that some users said their copy did not delivery anything special, and/or they could not achieve the special character results consistently.

[Cambo]

I would concur it is fantastic for portraits. A highly underrated lens, IMHO. The 43mm gets all the glory. As for the missing 'wow' factor, I must humbley disagree.

Available light, handheld:




Studio lighting, purposeful dark:





Cheers,
Cameron

[pathdoc]

some have reported that it can be used on full frame.

I am currently shooting with it in the Single In June photo challenge, and while for various reasons not every shot is on the K-1, I am shooting in full frame all the time. I am not noticing any significant issues, although I have to disclose that some of those shots are being cropped for compositional reasons.