Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-19-2017, 11:44 AM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 456
Pentax Normalish lenses portrait at 2.2

I have an FA 50mm 1.4 on loan from DCshooter, so I'm trying to do some comparisons. In this case it was one (distracted and not entirely pleased) model all shot with autofocus at f2.2, ISO 200 on a K5iis. I also threw in a FA 77mm as a control. LR adjustments were as follows. Pink tint was added to get rid of a decided greenish cast. The 77mm and 43mm needed the least adjustment (+18), the FA 50mm was middling around 26 and the DA* 55 and DA 50 both needed +32. This may indicate a general warmer profile for the FA Limiteds.

Other than that 5 sliders were used. All the lenses had blacks reduced, shadows increased, some clarity and a tiny bit of vibrance added. The highlights and whites were to taste. Some of the lenses tended toward overexposure and they were corraled more. This is not scientific.

I did shoot multiple shots for each lens and picked the one that was the most in focus. To be more scientific I would probably have to shoot manual focus and adjust exposure on the camera until the best result was achieved. Perhaps another day. In any case here are the photos and some commentary.

The shots transferred from Flickr do not do the pictures justice. Click for fuller resoluion.

FA77mm reference shot. There is a reason that this lens won the Pentax lens tournament.



FA 43mm. While there is clearly wide angle decompression effects the overall vibe is lovely and sort of like the FA 77



FA 50mm. Similar rendition to the Limiteds but toned down.



DA* 55mm. Much higher overall contrast with a certain punch.



DA 50mm. Nice enough, but nothing that sets it apart from the other lenses.




Last edited by kernos; 08-19-2017 at 11:45 AM. Reason: clarification
08-19-2017, 12:27 PM   #2
Veteran Member
IgorZ's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,735
FA 50 was also at 2.2? Seems softish...
08-19-2017, 12:56 PM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 4,501
I have the F 50mm f/1.7, FA 50mm f/1.4, FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited, and FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited.

Your first shot with the FA 77mm Limited is marvelous! Like a fine painting in its rendering. It also has a wonderful 3-dimensional quality to both the subject's features and the composition as a whole. Like looking at reality through an open window!. Bokeh is superb. I like the expression. Not really displeased, but rather stately and business-like. This lens has been a favorite of mine since acquiring it some 12 years ago for 35mm film use. The very first shot I took with it was when I stopped our walk to get a grab shot while hiking with a young student friend in a wooded dune area near the Lake Michigan shore. Just one shot. His friends have said the result is the best portrait of him they've seen, including graduation portraits, etc.

The FA 43mm Limited shot would have been better had it not been framed so tightly, so perspective would have been better.

The FA 50mm shot is a little off-focus.
08-19-2017, 01:31 PM   #4
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 456
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by IgorZ Quote
FA 50 was also at 2.2? Seems softish...
IgorZ - Everything was at 2.2. And yes the FA 50 was out of focus as were the duplicates I shot which is likely the cause of it appearing soft. I could redo this manually, but the point of having an autofocus lens is having autofocus:-)

mikesbike - This has been a multiyear quest for me. I used the Tokina AT-X 90mm macro (bokina) in the film era and it produced wonderful portraits. Not so much on the aps-c. The FA 77 is the first lens that produces the same sort and even better rendering. It would be nice to find the same wonderful rendering at other focal lengths hence the normalish tests. I'd also like to see what is available in the 120mm to 200mm range, but that will be for another time. You're quite right about the 43mm framing. I was mainly trying to highlight tone and texture differences and was not paying attention to subject distance.

08-19-2017, 01:48 PM   #5
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,050
Personal view but I dont think the lighting suits the sitter...maybe a reflector on the right would even things out a bit.

One other thing is to make sure you use (which you may have done) identical white balance either in the camera or in pp
08-19-2017, 02:41 PM   #6
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,732
Kernos, for a given format, for a given aperture (f2.2) and a given subject magnification (same sized image on the sensor), the dof will remain the same for all lenses. But your 77 shot is at about half the magnification so that is like twice the dof across her face. That accounts for much of the difference in rendering here.
08-19-2017, 02:54 PM - 2 Likes   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 456
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pschlute Quote
Personal view but I dont think the lighting suits the sitter...maybe a reflector on the right would even things out a bit.

One other thing is to make sure you use (which you may have done) identical white balance either in the camera or in pp
pslute - this was just to get some idea about skin tone and texture rendering for these lenses. When I actually try to do portraiture it might turn out like this:-)



All the shots were raw. As noted the processing was really similar. I tried to make as much out of each shot as I could. If I had processed each one of them exactly alike some of them would be worse.

---------- Post added 08-19-17 at 06:00 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by kernos Quote
pslute - this was just to get some idea about skin tone and texture rendering for these lenses. When I actually try to do portraiture it might turn out like this:-)



All the shots were raw. As noted the processing was really similar. I tried to make as much out of each shot as I could. If I had processed each one of them exactly alike some of them would be worse.
Brooke Meyer - if I have to shoot with a tripod life I'll give up photography. Otherwise some reasonable advice some of which I even remember to do sometimes. For this exercise, I was just attempting to get a look at rendition and not trying for portraiture. When I'm shooting handheld and having fun with a model it might turn out like this




Last edited by kernos; 08-19-2017 at 03:01 PM. Reason: photo did not come up.
08-19-2017, 03:34 PM   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 456
Original Poster
I like your work Brooke. It is very lucky that I just shoot pictures to have fun.
08-19-2017, 03:51 PM   #9
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,732
I am shuffling through my fairly large range of old glass at the mo trying to choose a portraiture lens for my new K1.
So I get what you are trying to do.
Amateur portraiture is something I would like to get better at.
So far I have closed in on a Super Tak 135 2.5 because I think my Sup tak 50 1.4 will be a bit too wide after being used to using it on my K01. Got to check out the STak105 2.8 yet. It is a lens that seems to pop out awesome skin tones.
And of course the Helios 58s.
My F 50 1.4 is quite uninspiring compared to these.
08-19-2017, 03:52 PM   #10
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,050
QuoteOriginally posted by kernos Quote
When I'm shooting handheld and having fun with a model it might turn out like this
Now that is a nice portrait. Well lit and background is much less distracting
08-19-2017, 03:56 PM   #11
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 456
Original Poster
Thanks pslute. The other one is from a chemo headscarf series I did for a friend. She has accused me of making her look too good:-)

---------- Post added 08-19-17 at 07:04 PM ----------

GUB - At the ;moment, instigated by my LBA, DCshooter is refurbishing/remounting an orphan Canon FL 55mm 1.2 that I think will do it for the normals albeit without autofocus or anything besides stop down metering. His opinion is that the second version of the K 135mm 2.5 is the best that exists before weighing into $2K lenses. I think that the Takumar 2.5's are the same formula so it sounds like a winner. Probably the 135 that is best but truly impossible on Pentax is the Canon 135mm 2.0L. Photo's I've seen are just stunning with the soft/sharp/glow that you see on the 77mm.
08-19-2017, 05:09 PM   #12
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,732
QuoteOriginally posted by kernos Quote
I think that the Takumar 2.5's are the same formula
Both mine are the earlier 5 element design - not supposed to be quite as sharp but that doesn't count for much for portraits. It is the shallow dof ability that is important - but having said that it will be a struggle with your 1.2 wide open.!!
08-19-2017, 05:38 PM   #13
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2014
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,028
Why did you mix head-and-shoulder shots with head shots ?
08-20-2017, 11:44 AM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 4,501
Yes, lighting is of great importance in getting the effect you are after. Tools like reflectors are very useful when practical. For outdoor shots, bright days having thin clouds with diffused lighting can bring fine results with less setup, and perhaps a good time to get some candids under the right circumstances. Getting a good candid at the right time to catch a certain expression can be very special. The 77mm Limited is great for this use, since it is small and does not draw attention as much as a larger lens.
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!
135mm, 43mm, 50mm, 77mm, canon, david, fa, flickr, k-mount, lens, lenses, normal lens, normalish lenses portrait, pentax lens, portraiture, raw, shot, similar, slr lens, worse
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax normalish lens test kernos Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 08-18-2017 12:46 PM
Monochrome Portrait - Sunlit portrait twostewcrew Monthly Photo Contests 3 04-09-2016 02:34 PM
People Portrait of a self-portrait bmw Post Your Photos! 4 11-16-2015 06:35 AM
People Portrait from not a portrait guy mr tibbs Post Your Photos! 6 05-10-2015 04:19 PM
Low Light, Indoor Normalish troika Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 05-26-2013 11:22 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:01 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