[clackers]

I've used everything from 24mm to 200mm for portraits. Newer lenses can do the backgrounds better because they tend to have nine aperture blades - rounded, too.

[cyberjunkie]

I've used everything from 24mm to 200mm for portraits. Newer lenses can do the backgrounds better because they tend to have nine aperture blades - rounded, too.

Well, as we're talking about "portrait lenses", I guess it makes sense to answer a simple question. Is shooting "people" (street photography, travel photography, candid shots, etc) the same thing as taking "portraits"?
IMO the answer is no.
Taking portraits, either in studio or with available light, usually involves esthetic and technical choices that are very rarely available shooting candid pictures.
For example most of the times we have time, a luxury that is seldom given, shooting street pics.
If we are given such freedom, it's better to make full use of it, choosing the best tools, not the most practical.
If there is enough time to set up the shots, and choose the best lighting, there is also time to take care of accurate manual focusing and use optics that give the most pleasant images.
According to my taste, the best choice is almost always the kind of lenses I mentioned in my previous post: a fast 85mm/105mm-ish with a smooth rendering, preferably shot wide open.
If I succeed focusing on the closest pupil, I don't mind if the ears are slightly out of focus. A nice background rendered as a mellow palette of shapes and colors is more important.
This is why I think that the number/shape of diaphragm blades is a bit overrated. If I shoot wide open, the hole is always round
BTW, some of my favorite lenses for portrait use have 15, 16 or even 18 diaphragm blades. It was quite common before the "auto" generation with return springs.

To each his/her own.
The desired result calls for specific technical choices. If the picture has to evidence the wrinkles on an old man's weathered face... forget about everything I have just written!

[clackers]

If I shoot wide open, the hole is always round

You have to have the confidence your gear can get your image in all conditions, Paolo, and depth of field will often require stopping down to get the face from the nose to the ears in focus - or for where there's more than one person in the picture. And old fast lenses are very soft wide open - I have a K55 f1.8 and M50 f1.4 as examples. They are just novelty lenses to me, there's just too much spherical aberration going on versus say my DA*55 or Sigma 35mm Art.

Well, as we're talking about "portrait lenses", I guess it makes sense to answer a simple question. Is shooting "people" (street photography, travel photography, candid shots, etc) the same thing as taking "portraits"?
IMO the answer is no.

?

None of these are candid shots, Paolo, they are all posed portraits.

24mm:



35mm:



55mm:



77mm:



105mm:



160mm:



180mm:



200mm:

[aslyfox]

looks like some times the best lens for shooting a portrait might be the same as the best camera body to use:

the one that is handy at the time

IMHO, YMMV

__________________

I remember being taught ( or having read ) that the best lens for a portrait ( back in the days of film ) was greater than 50ish mm and less than 135ish mm focal lengths

so since I use a K 3 or K 3 II, I would look at a lens that would give roughly the same field of view if I intended to take a portrait.

_________________________



I am just amazed at the talents revealed by those who have shared their work in this thread

---

Last edited by aslyfox; 04-17-2018 at 02:58 AM.

[Kerrowdown]

Which lens do you use for portraiture and why?

I'm happy enough with my “Sweetheart” (Pentax-A* 85mm F1.4) that delivers when I need her too.

Some examples attached, as I think it's easier to see, rather than describe and this is a photo forum.

[UncleVanya]

24mm:



35mm:



55mm:



77mm:



105mm:



160mm:



180mm:



200mm:

Forgive me but were all of these on the K-1 or are some on crop - focal length without format is confusing given the new reality (both types under Pentax umbrella).

[aslyfox]

so did we ever determine what is a " portrait "

must it be a photograph of a human??

http://www.dummies.com/photography/digital-photography/shooting/how-to-take-...es-of-animals/

K 3 + HD PENTAX-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR

photographed through the glass window of the enclosure

details in the EXIF

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[BruceBanner]

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

No one needs that many prime portrait shooters, that's just greedy!
But in all seriousness that's a nice post there showing the differences throughout.

So not a single submission from a Samyang 135/2? I have to say out of all the portrait lenses I have seen to date, it's the FA 85/1.4 or the Samyang 85/1.4 or probably my favourite the Samyang 135/2 that stand out the most. I'm saving my pennies for a Sammy 135/2

[clackers]

Forgive me but were all of these on the K-1 or are some on crop - focal length without format is confusing given the new reality (both types under Pentax umbrella).

Yeah, all on the K-1, Brad.

We can shoot portraits with 24-200mm, and landscapes with 24-200mm!

In fact, this is with the Tamron 70-200 at 130mm:

[UncleVanya]

Yeah, all on the K-1, Brad.

We can shoot portraits with 24-200mm, and landscapes with 24-200mm!

In fact, this is with the Tamron 70-200 at 130mm:

I agree and have the same attitude, just wanted to clarify.