[jawats]

All,

I have a Pentax K-3. I've gotten a good collection of zoom lenses and prime lenses. I have a Tamron 60-300 Adaptall-2, a 55mm Takumar 1.5, a 50mm Takumar 1.4, a SMC Pentax M 50mm 1.7, a 135mm Takumar 3.5 (with aperture issues, so I shoot wide open), and (soon to arrive) the silver-black 35mm Takumar 3.5 (with lever).

Now, I'm going to sell off a bunch of other lenses.

However, I am trying to figure out if I want to get a prime 85mm (FF) to use for some portraits. There are some very good lenses out there, but very few fall within my current LBA price ranges (generally less than $100). Some Jupiters fall in that range, but I am leery of ordering from Ukraine, Georgia, or Russia.

So, I've generally looked at lengths between 75 and 100mm, to try for roughly the same range. However, what I've discovered is that the spot between 70 and 105mm or so (which is roughly the FF between 105 and 150mm), is VERY pricey for some Pentax models, and moderately pricey for others. There do not seem to be any "steals" or "bargains" in that range on Pentax. A few third-party lenses I noted which seem decent and _may_ fit my price range are:

Sigma 90mm F2.8 Macro Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 90mm f/2.5 (52B/52BB) Lens Reviews - Tamron Adaptall Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Vivitar (Komine) 90mm f2.5 or f2.8 Macro Lens Reviews - Vivitar Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/2,8 MC Lens Reviews - Carl Zeiss Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Mitakon 85mm F2 Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Admiral/Panagor 90mm F2.8 Macro Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Panagor 90mm f2.8 Macro PMC Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Soligor 105mm f/2.8 Tele-Auto Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

So, it seems like I should learn to use my 35mm, 50-55mm, and 135mm primes (and 60-300), and just stave off the LBA until I've saved up, unless one of these third-party lenses comes up at a very good price. However, anyone have any lenses which I should take a look at, which I may have missed on my 70-100mm trolling? Thank you!

[pepperberry farm]

one to look for in that focal range is the Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 72B; it's the later version of the 52BB 90mm macro that is natively a 1:1 macro lens... it will be a bit more expensive than the 52B/52BB models, but entirely worth it...

[swanlefitte]

Since you already list a 105mm i will give you a 100 to add. I was torn between this and the nikkor 105 2.5. I got the nikkor for less and modified it.
MC Kaleinar
http://top35mm.com/MС-%20Kaleinar%20-5H-%20review

---------- Post added 05-19-18 at 10:32 AM ----------

It comes in m42 and f sometimes with both mounts.

[boriscleto]

If you can find it...

Cosina 100mm F3.5 MC Makro Lens Reviews - Cosina Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Pentax sold it as well...

SMC Pentax-FA 100mm F3.5 Macro Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

I have it branded as a Phoenix, and it shows up in Lightroom as the FA.

[BigMackCam]

A few comments that I hope you'll find helpful.

First, a question: Is there a reason why you're looking at 85mm (or thereabouts) for portraits? Although it's a favoured focal length on full-frame, it has a rather narrow field of view on APS-C, and you'll need a little breathing room to work with your subjects. That's usually not a problem outdoors, but it can be a bit frustrating indoors if there's not much room to step back. Plus, as a result of the extra camera-to-subject distance, your portraits will be slightly more "compressed" in terms of perspective. That could be a good or bad thing depending on your requirements. On APS-C, 50 to 60mm is a more versatile focal length range for portraits, and it will give you similar working distances and subject compression to an 85mm lens on full frame.

Secondly, have you tried using a manual focus lens for portraiture before? Depending on the environment and the creative background blur you may want, it's possible you'll be using fast(er) apertures. Telephoto lenses at fast apertures are unforgiving of focus errors, and it can be difficult to achieve perfect focus on the leading eye through the optical viewfinder of a DSLR (it was easier with older SLRs, as they usually had split focusing screens or other focusing aids). To absolutely nail accurate focus, you'd really need to use magnified Live View. Personally, I don't find that conducive to hand-held work, although a viewfinder loupe can make a big difference.

A little more on fast aperture work... You might find that you want to work at f/2.8 - f/4 quite regularly for portraits, or even faster apertures if available. However, most lenses don't provide great image quality unless they're stopped down a little. If you shoot at f/2.8 on a lens with an f/2.8 maximum aperture, the image quality is likely to be less than stellar - but if you're using an f/1.4 or f/1.7 lens, by f/2.8 it should be picking up nicely in performance, and by f/4 it'll be very good.

After all this, my recommendation would be a reasonably fast, auto-focus 50mm lens. Believe it or not, the humble "plastic fantastic" DA50/1.8 makes a great little portrait lens on APS-C; better still, but more expensive, a good used F/FA50/1.7 or F/FA50/1.4. However, if you're set on a MF lens and can work with the focusing challenges, consider picking up a Helios 44-2 or 44M 58mm f/2. They can be bought very cheaply, the field of view is near-enough identical to the classic 85mm-on-full-frame combo, and they're a lot of fun too with interesting bokeh

[pepperberry farm]

However, if you're set on a MF lens and can work with the focusing challenges, consider picking up a Helios 44-2 or 44M 58mm f/2. They can be bought very cheaply, the field of view is near-enough identical to the classic 85mm-on-full-frame combo, and they're a lot of fun too with interesting bokeh

or even a Helios 44K-4; K-mount, so no need for the M42 adapter...

[BigMackCam]

or even a Helios 44K-4; K-mount, so no need for the M42 adapter...

Indeed, thats even better!


For some reason I always forget about the K-mount versions, even though I have them in my collection

[kiwi_jono]

You might even find a second hand Samyang / Bower / Rokinon 85 f1.4 for that budget.

I love my Bower 85 on the K-1 (and the K-5 previous to that).

[clickclick]

I like Mike's recommendation on the DA 50/1.8. It's a lens that deserves more time on both my K3II and my K-1.

[jawats]

A few comments that I hope you'll find helpful.

First, a question: Is there a reason why you're looking at 85mm (or thereabouts) for portraits? Although it's a favoured focal length on full-frame, it has a rather narrow field of view on APS-C, and you'll need a little breathing room to work with your subjects. That's usually not a problem outdoors, but it can be a bit frustrating indoors if there's not much room to step back. Plus, as a result of the extra camera-to-subject distance, your portraits will be slightly more "compressed" in terms of perspective. That could be a good or bad thing depending on your requirements. On APS-C, 50 to 60mm is a more versatile focal length range for portraits, and it will give you similar working distances and subject compression to an 85mm lens on full frame.

Secondly, have you tried using a manual focus lens for portraiture before? Depending on the environment and the creative background blur you may want, it's possible you'll be using fast(er) apertures. Telephoto lenses at fast apertures are unforgiving of focus errors, and it can be difficult to achieve perfect focus on the leading eye through the optical viewfinder of a DSLR (it was easier with older SLRs, as they usually had split focusing screens or other focusing aids). To absolutely nail accurate focus, you'd really need to use magnified Live View. Personally, I don't find that conducive to hand-held work, although a viewfinder loupe can make a big difference.

A little more on fast aperture work... You might find that you want to work at f/2.8 - f/4 quite regularly for portraits, or even faster apertures if available. However, most lenses don't provide great image quality unless they're stopped down a little. If you shoot at f/2.8 on a lens with an f/2.8 maximum aperture, the image quality is likely to be less than stellar - but if you're using an f/1.4 or f/1.7 lens, by f/2.8 it should be picking up nicely in performance, and by f/4 it'll be very good.

After all this, my recommendation would be a reasonably fast, auto-focus 50mm lens. Believe it or not, the humble "plastic fantastic" DA50/1.8 makes a great little portrait lens on APS-C; better still, but more expensive, a good used F/FA50/1.7 or F/FA50/1.4. However, if you're set on a MF lens and can work with the focusing challenges, consider picking up a Helios 44-2 or 44M 58mm f/2. They can be bought very cheaply, the field of view is near-enough identical to the classic 85mm-on-full-frame combo, and they're a lot of fun too with interesting bokeh

Thank you for the thoughts!

1. I love manual older lenses - just something about the heft and feel. With that said, I often achieve a very good focus with my lenses. With _that_ said, autofocus is definitely a consideration. I have had three autofoci lenses - a Promaster non-macro macro (not impressive) 70-300, the Pentax DAL ED WR 50-200 (also not that impressive), and the Pentax DA 18-55 (same). The Tamron 60-300 really produces so much better images than any of them, despite the manual focus and greater heft.

2. The bokeh produced by my Takumar 50 and 55 is lovely, as is the M 50/1.7. The 55 seems well-rated as a portrait lens. Is the Helios (in whichever mount) that far superior to either of the Taks or the M 1.7 that it's worth the expense?

3. The 85mm was a consideration because a full-frame portait lens length is often said to be 135mm, and the 85 and it's close relatives are close to that in crop-sensor conversion.

4. What are your thoughts on the Takumar 35mm as a portrait lens?

Thanks for your advice!

[swanlefitte]

35mm is to me the "paint me like a french girl" lens. When setting is important. Don't know about the takumar though.

[jawats]

35mm is to me the "paint me like a french girl" lens. When setting is important. Don't know about the takumar though.

If I could fit the first two sentences on a bumper sticker, I think my life would somehow be complete.

[BigMackCam]

1. I love manual older lenses - just something about the heft and feel. With that said, I often achieve a very good focus with my lenses. With _that_ said, autofocus is definitely a consideration. I have had three autofoci lenses - a Promaster non-macro macro (not impressive) 70-300, the Pentax DAL ED WR 50-200 (also not that impressive), and the Pentax DA 18-55 (same). The Tamron 60-300 really produces so much better images than any of them, despite the manual focus and greater heft.

I love old MF lenses too

The thing with portraiture is, it's very noticeable if the leading eye is slightly out of focus, and the shot will "feel" wrong as a result. Once you start looking for it, you might see it in a lot of your shots (and other people's). It's frustrating... I speak from personal experience A head-and-shoulders portrait taken from just a few feet away at f/2.8 or wider requires fairly precise focusing. If you can pull that off consistently while hand-holding the camera, fantastic. Give it a try with one of your fast 50s and see how you get on. No sense buying an AF lens if you don't need it

2. The bokeh produced by my Takumar 50 and 55 is lovely, as is the M 50/1.7. The 55 seems well-rated as a portrait lens. Is the Helios (in whichever mount) that far superior to either of the Taks or the M 1.7 that it's worth the expense?

No, in fact your Takumars are probably better optically than the Helios-44 variants I mentioned. It's just that I'm fond of Soviet lenses, and the Helios-44 series are some of my favourites. If you ever find yourself with a serious LBA itch, a nice Helios-44 variant is a good and inexpensive way to scratch it. Everybody should own one at some point, IMHO

3. The 85mm was a consideration because a full-frame portait lens length is often said to be 135mm, and the 85 and it's close relatives are close to that in crop-sensor conversion.

Understood. And, yes, plenty of people shoot portraiture with longer lenses - but you do need space to work, especially if you venture beyond head-and-shoulders shots. Taking an upper body or full body portrait with an 85mm on APS-C will require you to step right back from the subject. I have the DA70 f/2.4 Limited, and whilst it's a lovely lens, even that needs a bit of room for portraiture.

Try it out by setting your Tamron 60-300 to half way between the 60 and 100mm marks and shoot with it for a morning or afternoon at just that one focal length. See how you like it... You might be absolutely fine with it.

4. What are your thoughts on the Takumar 35mm as a portrait lens?

Surprisingly, I only own a couple of Takumars, and neither is a 35mm, so I can't comment on the specific lens you mention. But, generally, I'd say you're better off with a somewhat longer focal length if you intend to do head-and-shoulders portraits.

The closer you move to your subject, the more extended and pronounced their features will appear to be. Conversely, the further away you move, the flatter or "more compressed" those features will look. As a very general rule, slight compression of facial features is more flattering (making someone's nose look a little flatter is usually more acceptable than making it look longer, yes?). If you were to use a 35mm lens on an APS-C camera, you'd have to get quite close to your subject for a head-only or head-and-shoulders portrait. As such, it's likely to be a bit less flattering than if you used a 50 - 60mm lens.

That said... a 35mm would be great for full-length portraits and might work for upper body too. One of our members - @UncleVanya - has (if I remember correctly) used the DA40 f/2.8 Limited to good effect for portraiture, so it can work.

Thanks for your advice!

You're very welcome!

[jawats]

I love old MF lenses too

You're very welcome!

Thanks again for the advice!

I think that, after I have sold off my unpleasant AF zooms, I will likely have enough for one of the AF 50s. In the meantime, I'll test takumars on my kids and see how they do .

[pepperberry farm]

4. What are your thoughts on the Takumar 35mm as a portrait lens?

the K35/3.5 is a stunning lens - it is not a Takumar, but it has several members here that swear by it and not just as a portrait lens....