[edom31]

That's the 2.5 right? I have that lens and like it also. It is underrated.

I have the 2.8 actually, my mistake - the 2.5 I've read to be a better performer...

I am happy with the results I get. I do not think it could professionally perform, but it is not my intention with the lens.

Sample attached...

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by edom31; 04-04-2018 at 04:41 PM.

[jddwoods]

What lenses do I use for portraiture?

Nearly all of them

Why? (beware - pic heavy)

DA70 on crop



FA*85 on full frame



Sigma 35 Art on full frame



A50/1.2 wide open



FA150 on 645Z



FA77 on full frame



DA*55 on full frame



DFA*70-200 on full frame



DFA24-70 on full frame



DA*16-50 on crop



DA21 on crop



FA77 on crop



FA43 on crop



01 on Q7



06 on Q7



Sigma 70-200 on crop

You have a really nice group of pictures. The DA 70 shot really looks good. I do not take many portraits but my favorites of my lenses are the DA 70 (SMC) or FA 50 f1.7

[UncleVanya]

I have the 2.8 actually, my mistake - the 2.5 I've read to be a better performer...

I am happy with the results I get. I do not think it could professionally perform, but it is not my intention with the lens.

Sample attached...

Great picture!

---------- Post added 04-05-18 at 01:19 AM ----------

Also, no the Tak 2.5 is worse than the 2.8, I forgot the 2.8 existed.

[edom31]

Great picture!

---------- Post added 04-05-18 at 01:19 AM ----------

Also, no the Tak 2.5 is worse than the 2.8, I forgot the 2.8 existed.

Thank you! Yep, for warm scenes like this, the Tak Bayonet is a winner.

[LeRolls]

FA 85 1.4

Since we're showing images:









FA 77 1.8

[Sandy Hancock]

FA 85 1.4

Since we're showing images:

Seriously Chris, why did you have to do that? You make the rest of us look bad

[ivanvernon]

Even the FA 31 can be used on crop sensor cameras. Using K-3, 1/80 sec, ISO 400, f 2.5.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[ivanvernon]

CZJ Sonnar 180mm f 2.8 is a great big old lens that is fantastic for portraiture if you don't mind hauling it around. Focal plane at 2.8 is quite narrow as this image shows. Using P6 - K-1 adapter, no flash, handheld, JPEG.

[UncleVanya]

Seriously Chris, why did you have to do that? You make the rest of us look bad

Right? Lol.

[aslyfox]

FA 85 1.4

Since we're showing images:. . .

I believe some of those portraits have been previously posted

please keep reposting them

although they do show how bad my own skills are

[cyberjunkie]

Educated guess: best portrait lens available in PK mount should be the Laowa Venus 105mm STM. Charts and actual images show how gorgeous it is.

My favorites are:
FA Limited 77mm
Leitz Summicron M 2/90mm (leitaxed)
Auto Takumar 1.8/85mm

If I want to go soft focus:
Pentax K 2.2/85mm
Tamron SP 2.8/70-150mm (Adaptall-2)

Each one has a very specific (and very special) character

[mikesbike]

This thread is great for looking at portrait pics! And it proves one point- the question is too broad, non-specific. Use of APS-C, Full Frame, or Medium Format would alter the results accordingly, for instance. Whether the need is for a zoom lens or a prime lens would alter the results in each category. So if the question would include for use with which camera type, and a preference for either a zoom lens or a prime lens (generally considered preferable for portraits), would narrow down answers some. For instance, while a prime lens of 85mm is one of the standard portrait FL's preferred for portraiture with Full Frame cameras, it is just a bit too long to be optimum for APS-C use. A 50mm prime lens is fine for portraits with APS-C, but a bit too short for optimum use with a FF body.

A short answer for good portrait lenses on Pentax DSLR cameras-
Budget prime for APS-C: The Pentax DA 50mm f/1.8 with its f/1.8 aperture capability can blur background very well with decent bokeh (smoothness), and image quality is good even at wide-open (f/1.8) aperture. The FA 50mm f/1.4 can also serve FF bodies.

All-out prime: The Pentax FA 77mm f/1.8 is great for both APS-C, where it is also just long enough, and small enough for getting sneaky candids, and has very good image quality even wide open, with wonderful bokeh, and is great for FF bodies as well.

Budget general zoom lens for APS-C: Needs to be able to hold to at least f/4-4.5 out to near 70mm or so, where it will blur background well enough. The DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 WR will do that and is a fine choice. The Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 would be a viable choice also. If wanting a telephoto range zoom lens, the Pentax 55-300mm f/4-5.8 WR lens would serve well.

Higher price zoom lenses: will have constant-aperture f/2.8 capability, and can blur background more than f/4 lenses can. The best price/quality I have found for APS-C is the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC, which has a sample image given above. Then there's the Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8 which offers WR construction.
The Pentax DFA 24-70mm f/2.8 WR lens will serve both APS-C and FF bodies very well.
In the telephoto range, there is the excellent Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 for APS-C, and then the DFA 70-200mm f/2.8 WR for both APS-C and FF bodies.

[WorksAsIntended]

Ialways loved my Fa 77 for portrait. A cheaper 50/1.4 can do the trick to though.
A single and fast snapshot with 50/1.4 where I tested my new flash the first time, but you might get an idea of the 50/1.4 on it. Aperture is 2.0

[cyberjunkie]

A short answer for good portrait lenses on Pentax DSLR cameras-
Budget prime for APS-C: The Pentax DA 50mm f/1.8 with its f/1.8 aperture capability can blur background very well with decent bokeh (smoothness), and image quality is good even at wide-open (f/1.8) aperture. The FA 50mm f/1.4 can also serve FF bodies.

All-out prime: The Pentax FA 77mm f/1.8 is great for both APS-C, where it is also just long enough, and small enough for getting sneaky candids, and has very good image quality even wide open, with wonderful bokeh, and is great for FF bodies as well.

Budget general zoom lens for APS-C: Needs to be able to hold to at least f/4-4.5 out to near 70mm or so, where it will blur background well enough. The DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 WR will do that and is a fine choice. The Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 would be a viable choice also. If wanting a telephoto range zoom lens, the Pentax 55-300mm f/4-5.8 WR lens would serve well.

Higher price zoom lenses: will have constant-aperture f/2.8 capability, and can blur background more than f/4 lenses can. The best price/quality I have found for APS-C is the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC, which has a sample image given above. Then there's the Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8 which offers WR construction.
The Pentax DFA 24-70mm f/2.8 WR lens will serve both APS-C and FF bodies very well.
In the telephoto range, there is the excellent Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 for APS-C, and then the DFA 70-200mm f/2.8 WR for both APS-C and FF bodies.

Mmhhh, quite often I have the impression that people actually mean different things when the words "portrait" and "lens" are used in the same sentence.
Of course you can take portraits with any lens, even a fish-eye. The sensor won't be blinded, the subject doesn't get hurt, and no calimities are going to happen. Actually, a portrait shot a very close range with a fish-eye might even be wonderful, in its own way. Not flattering, but possibly very creative.
All lenses can be used to shoot portraits, but that simple fact doesn't automatically make them "portrait lenses".
For almost 150 years of history of photographic lenses, pleople knew what a "portrait" objective was about.
More recently, the taste of most photographers, guided by advertising, MTF charts, and a touch od disinformation, has changed in a dramatic way.
The photographic industry has to sell new products, this is the very reason for their existence. Spreading the news that PLENTY of old optics can take gorgeous portraits isn't exaclty their mission Shifting the attention on sharpness is good, cause the resolution/contrast figures of recent primes (and also the best zooms) clearly outperform most vintage lenses (with a few very specific exceptions).
BUT... there is a problem: the actual people being portrayed don't like super sharp pictures!
According to my personal experience this is almost always true, and I can see why, as I share the same taste. The only difference being that I can elaborate, and say WHY, while non tech-savvy people just express their esthetic preference.
The recipe is simple. Enough sharpness, a certain amount of "glow", nice transition between different planes, nice rendering of OOF background, and eventually also nice bokeh balls.
Some vintage optics, like a few rangefinder teles made by Leica and Canon in LTM mount, were intentionally designed with some residual spherical aberration, to get that kind of result. Some people still value those lenses and actually use them on Sony mirrorless cameras for portrait use.
It's just an example, I could give many others.
Another kind of optics that are/were used almost always for portraits are soft focus lenses.
Most of the pictures I see online were shot on digital (which should give a huge advantage over film), but many pics are mushy, kind of blurry.
The reason is simple. Most soft focus lenses are heavily dependent on lighting. With available light the illumination is often too diffused, while a studio portrait session gives the chance to setup a strong, contrasty lighting, that allows to get what this kind of lenses have to offer: a sharp base layer, overlaid by a nice halation, more evident in contrasty areas, where the very dark meets the very light.
The only soft focus lens that has enough flexibility to be used in most lighting conditions is the Tamron SP 2.8/70-150mm, cause the SF effect is not the strongest, and can be controlled by the diaphragm and by the "softness" ring.
I think @LeRolls chose the best optical tool for the kind of (beautiful) pictures he shoots.
If you want to use AF, there are two Pentax lenses that actually qualify as "portrait". The other is the 77mm Limited, but from what I see the FA* 1.4/85mm is somewhat better.
Glamour shots don't need to have so much "glow", and the beautiful girls definitely don't need any trick to hide their physical defects!
Especially when the subject is decentered, the rendition of the background becomes one of the defining characters of the picture, and among all the others, the one that benefits the more from the choice of the appropriate optic. Most is in the hands of the photographer, but the way the OOF background is rendered is heavily dependent on the choice of the lens.
The FA* does great under this regard, much better than my A* for example.
Of all the lenses I own, the A* 1.4/85mm is a very good example that the focal (85/105mm, on film/FF) doesn't make for a portrait lens.
Too sharp, IMHO. And the background is not as pleasant, according to the pictures I've seen online (I don't own the FA*, too expensive for my pocket, especially considering that I'm fine with MF lenses).
Fortunately there are great choices available new in PK mount, if AF is not required. Still today.
The Laowa Venus 2/105mm STF should be simply amazing, cause it has the best bokeh, and configured for the maximum sharpness is at Sigma Art levels, sharpness wise. If I had the budget, I'd be very very tempted
In the meantime I'm fine with my vintage lenses, cause many meet the max aperture requirement.
A zoom like the 55-300mm, that still has many qualities and a very good price/performance ratio, is too slow to blur the background in a pleasing way, even used wide open.
I'm mostly using the K-1 these days, and today I'm testing a super cheap Auto Mamiya Sekor 2/50mm (M42). I am amazed by its great rendition. A true pity it's too short for portraits on FF... but I'm sure APS-C users would find it a great portrait lens.
I remember being told that early single-coated Yashica and Mamiya f/2 "normal" lenses were hidden jewels. I'm starting to believe it's actually true!
I encourage crop format users to experiment with these lenses (very likely Tomioka made), and other similar ones. Google is your friend, and Flickr search your second best friend
I've recently bought a Primoplan and a 8-elements Super Takumar because of the beautiful images I've seen online (but I guess it could be seen as a kind of investment), though I found that very inexpensive lenses can be equally amazing. Sometimes I still use my K-01 to shoot portraits with old fifties, with full satisfaction and plenty of fun.
Younger pentaxians who started with AF need to re-train themselves and get acquainted with manual focus. Modern cameras are not made for that, but enlarged LiveView with Focus Peaking is of great help...

Cheers

Paolo

[Jonathan Mac]

I'm a big fan of the traditional 50-55mm lens, or 35mm on APS-C, and that goes for portraits too. My favourite lenses for portraits are the DA 35mm f/2.8 limited and the Fuji 35/1.4.